HMS Prince of Wales departs Portsmouth en route to join in NATO exercises in 2024 (Mark Dillen/Alamy)

3 min read14 min

With Vladimir Putin waging war in Europe and an unreliable Donald Trump in the White House eroding the essential alliances that underpin our security, we must be upfront with the public about the threats facing Britain. The Prime Minister himself has warned that Russia could launch an attack against Nato by 2030. In light of these unprecedented threats, we urgently need to invest in our national security. We need to give confidence to our Nato allies and international partners that we are serious about our collective defence and national resilience.

The resignation of the former defence secretary John Healey – in frustration at the settlement on offer from the Treasury – shone a harsh spotlight on the government’s struggle to fund our armed forces, following years of cuts by the Conservatives.

Despite Dan Jarvis, his replacement as Defence Secretary, winning an additional £1.5bn from the Treasury, there is still an enormous funding gap that needs to be filled by the prime minister in waiting, Andy Burnham. Of the £15bn uplift secured in the DIP – itself only just over half of the £28bn black hole outlined by military chiefs – £4.7bn is currently entirely unfunded.

As a country, we need to be moving at pace urgently to inject finance into our national security, not dragging our feet. The Liberal Democrats have a clear plan to do this: by issuing ‘defence bonds’ to generate an additional £20bn over two years, hypothecated to spending on capital investment in our military. It’s an idea that Burnham is reportedly considering – and which I would encourage him to implement as a priority once over the threshold of No 10.

Our vision for defence bonds would see them back British industry, create jobs and foster innovation. They would also allow the public to have a genuine stake in our collective national security. This investment would supercharge our defence industry, all while sticking to the government’s fiscal rules, to which Burnham has committed. It would also allow us to support research and development to further stimulate our economy and generate growth.

There is strong evidence to support the value of defence bonds. Take ‘green gilts’, issued to raise money for capital investment with an environmental benefit in 2021. The very first sale raised £10bn.

The DIP has shown that the current government does not have a credible plan to fund defence

We need to be this ambitious for our defence industry. Critically, we see defence bonds as part of a funding mix for defence. That mix would also include working with our international allies to generate innovative collective financing models – including Liberal Democrat calls for a European Rearmament Bank – and negotiating access to the EU’s €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) programme.

We would also scrap the government’s self-defeating and anti-growth red lines on Europe – and open negotiations to join the EU’s single market to stimulate the growth we desperately need. Growing the economy is how we can generate the funding necessary for our defence needs.

The DIP has shown that the current government does not have a credible plan to fund defence. That sends all the wrong signals to industry – and to our allies and adversaries alike.

When Healey resigned, he said Keir Starmer was “unable” and the Treasury was “unwilling” to keep our country safe. This is unacceptable.

The Conservatives hollowed out our armed forces and Starmer failed to fund them. Burnham must now ensure any government’s first priority: to keep our country safe. Issuing defence bonds is an obvious first step towards funding our armed forces properly. 

James MacCleary is Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes and defence spokesperson

Keep your grass below 7cm during periods of high wildfire risk

Where possible, try creating “firebreaks” around your property

What Happened At Hillsborough?

What Is The Hillsborough Law?

Why Has It Taken So Long?

The Major Sticking Point

Why Is It Coming In Now?

What Does Andy Burnham Think of The Law?

Illustration by Tracy Worrall

4 min read18 min

The letter the constituent received ended, as they often do, with some polite boilerplate. “Please feel free to contact me with other matters that are of importance to you. I am honored to serve as your representative in the US Congress”.

But then it continued, in a way these letters usually don’t: “I think you’re an asshole.”

Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson was forced to apologise, saying that she didn’t know how that happened or who was responsible; if she ever found out, she never made it public. But it is a rare MP or staffer who has not wanted to add a similar parting shot occasionally.

It used to be letters: almost five million pieces of post arrived at Westminster in 2005; that had fallen to just over 1.2 million by 2019 and is now below the million mark every year. But email has grown to replace it, which I suspect does little to reduce the asshole coefficient.

Given how resource intensive it is, we know surprisingly little about MP-constituent post. There have been few efforts to follow in the footsteps of Frances Morrell’s 1977 study of postbags or Richard Rawlings’ detailed analysis of MPs’ casework from 1990 – although a fascinating article just published in the Historical Journal has examined some of the existing archival collections of MPs post.

One innovation is what are known as correspondence or audit studies, a very common way to check for bias. You send off a bunch of otherwise identical CVs or letters to companies and you see if those from John get more positive replies than those from Joan, or indeed those from Mohammed. When some academics tried something similar with MPs a few years ago, there was a big row; the Speaker got involved, claiming it might be a contempt of the House.

I had assumed that warning would be the end of such studies of Westminster. No one wants to end up in chokey, just to get an article in The British Journal of Political Science.

Hence my surprise to see a new study is forthcoming. Turns out this new one was carried out before the last row, with the fieldwork undertaken in 2018-19. Its publication in 2026 is a bit of an indictment on academic lead times but should at least stop them having their collars felt.

Even more of a defence is that this time no fakery was involved at all. In a clever methodological innovation, this study recruited students to send letters to MPs. These were real constituents, participating voluntarily, and the study ensured that the messages sent reflected their genuine views. The only difference is that the research study was able to track them.

Given how resource intensive it is, we know surprisingly little about MP-constituent post

Advertisement

The letters were on policy, covering a range of different issues: Brexit, student finance, immigration. The main findings are all null (of one result, the authors say the “estimated coefficient on the constituent-party congruence treatment is non-significant, wrongly signed, and close to zero”, which is a null result in its purest form). There was no difference between the rates of reply, or their content, depending on “constituent congruence”, that is whether the writer agreed with the MP or not. Lest you think this is obvious, US studies find the opposite.

There was similarly no difference between loyalists and rebels on particular issues. Marginality didn’t seem to matter either. This is all, in many ways, actually very positive: constituents are getting equal treatment, whatever their views.

The secondary finding is, to me, more interesting. Holding responses came from 63 per cent of MPs, but a substantive response came from just 46 per cent of those contacted. This was lower than I was expecting. Perhaps the policy-related nature of the questions lowered the extent to which MPs felt a response was required (would casework get a higher response?); perhaps the relatively short nature of the emails made some MPs treat them as campaign group generated? Having just been writing to MPs myself for something else, I’m at least confident the holding replies these days would be close to 100 per cent.

At least no one replied: I think you’re an asshole. 

Further reading: K Kowol and R Toye, The Management of British MPs’ Postbags and Politician-Voter Relations in the Democratic Age, The Historical Journal (2026); D Bischof et al, When Legislators Do Not Differentiate: A Field Experiment on British MPs’ Responses to Constituency Policy Queries, British Journal of Political Science (2026)

Credit: Adobe

Britain’s railways are changing more rapidly than at any point in a generation. The creation of Great British Railways (GBR) moves the operation of trains from private train operating companies into the hands of the state as franchises expire.

Earlier this year, we saw the first GBR rolling stock down in Brighton. But behind the red white and blue paint, the operation of trains is changing too, with increasing digitisation of passenger information systems and operational technology.

A modern rail system is a good thing – but it brings new cyber challenges. Around the world, cyberattacks on rail infrastructure have caused serious disruption, such as in Germany, Israel and Denmark. In the UK, we need to guard against weaknesses as we transition to GBR, with over 1.7bn passenger journeys a year. Suddenly, the risk is owned by government, not private companies.

Analysis commissioned by the Department for Science Innovation and Technology found a hypothetical systemic cyber incident on the rail network could result in a total economic cost of approximately £1.8 billion for a week’s period of disruption. Meanwhile, the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) continues to report a sharp rise in serious cyber incidents affecting the UK’s essential services and wider economy, underlining a growing risk to critical national infrastructure like rail.

As the network becomes more digital, keeping trains moving safely and reliably increasingly depends on the resilience of the cyber systems that protect them. The transition to GBR presents a series of new challenges from procurement to skills and it is vital that GBR equips itself to be fit for the future. In Fortinet’s recent report on this subject, four key recommendations emerged.

The first is to establish a national cybersecurity incident reporting and learning system for the rail industry. Too often, organisations learn only from incidents that happen within their own network. Yet cyber threats rarely respect organisational boundaries. The NHS’s patient safety reporting framework is a model for how lessons from incidents and near misses can be captured centrally and shared quickly across an entire sector. The transition to GBR presents an opportunity to embed that culture of continuous learning from the outset, helping operators identify systemic vulnerabilities before they become major disruptions.

Second, cybersecurity must become an integral part of procurement rather than an afterthought. In Great Britain, passenger rolling stock typically has a service life of around 30–35 years, with some fleets already over 30 years old, meaning that contractual choices made now will shape the network’s cyber risk profile for a generation. Decisions taken today about rolling stock, signalling systems and operational technology will shape the railway for decades to come. If cybersecurity expertise is absent when those decisions are made, vulnerabilities can become locked into infrastructure with long asset lifecycles that are difficult and expensive to remedy later. Great British Railways offers the chance to make “secure by design” the default principle for procurement, ensuring resilience is built into every new system from the beginning rather than bolted on afterwards.

Third, the sector must address the growing cyber skills challenge. The National Skills Academy for Rail (NSAR) estimates that up to 75,000 workers could be lost to retirement or attrition by 2030, with acute shortages already emerging in areas such as digital signalling, data, and systems engineering. Yet the future railway depends on professionals who understand both operational rail systems and modern cyber risk. Those hybrid skills remain in short supply. A dedicated rail cyber skills taskforce could help coordinate training, attract new talent and ensure the workforce develops alongside the technologies it will be responsible for protecting.

Finally, we need stronger collaboration across critical national infrastructure. The convergence of information technology and operational technology means that cyber resilience can no longer be considered in isolation by individual organisations. Transport operators, infrastructure managers, technology suppliers and Government all have a role to play in identifying emerging threats and sharing best practice. Trusted cybersecurity partners should be a central part of that collaboration. Building on NCSC Information Exchanges, sector specific working groups for major transport modes (rail, aviation, maritime and road) should coordinate cyber risk assessment, set shared resilience standards, run joint exercises and report regularly to ministers on emerging threats and recommended actions. This should, in time, be extended to critical national infrastructure sectors such as energy and health.

The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, being debated in Parliament today, is an important step forward in setting a modern and updated legal framework, but it is only the start. By pairing clear statutory duties with an industry-wide learning culture, secure-by-design procurement, a skills pipeline that reaches every region and an open door between Government and industry, we can turn GBR into a global benchmark for safe, digital transport.

Martin Rhodes, Member of Parliament for Glasgow North.

Chris Parker MBE, Director of Government Strategy at Fortinet.

Illustration by Tracy Worrall

21 min read29 min

Back in 2015, Andy Burnham was on his second attempt at winning the Labour leadership. Although ruthlessly mocked for overemphasising his outsider status as a Northerner, he was the frontrunner at first and Labour’s biggest donor, Unite, was ready to endorse him.

If you want our backing, the union said, you’ve got it – you just need to call us on Monday morning. But Burnham was reluctant to accept their funding. So, Monday came and went. Tuesday came and went, too. The “change candidate” released a statement to make clear he would refuse to be beholden to any one section of the movement. Unite turned to Jeremy Corbyn instead, and the course of history was forever changed.

On his third time trying, Burnham has no opponents – and he has not just stuck with his northern branding but put it at the centre of his forthcoming project as the sole Labour candidate to be our next prime minister.

The King of the North has not yet stepped over the threshold of 10 Downing Street, but already he is clear that fundamental to his government will be bringing power to – where else? – the North, made tangible with a second prime minister’s office in Manchester. “True to the motto of this city,” he declared there, in his first vision-setting speech as prime minister-in-waiting, “I am going to do things differently.”

While Burnham accepts the need to be in London when Parliament is sitting, his team say he wants to spend as little time as possible “closed off” behind that famous high-gloss black door. He hopes instead to show the country that decision-making does not only happen in Westminster – and he fully expects to be in the new ‘No 10 North’ at least one day a week.

The incoming prime minister has promised that this new office in Manchester will act as “the nerve-centre of a rewired Britain”. The plan is not to duplicate the work of London’s No 10 but to task No 10 North specifically with driving Burnham’s “devolution and growth agenda”.

Caroline Simpson, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s chief executive who is credited with helping him deliver fast growth in the region, will lead that work and be based there as his deputy chief of staff, while former Blairite minister James Purnell will run No 10 South.

Burnham would like to see No 10 North located at a government hub already under construction, the Manchester Digital Campus in Ancoats, but that is not due to be completed until 2032. Other sites in Greater Manchester fit the bill and interim arrangements are being made to get the new office up and running “as quickly as possible”, The House understands.

One Labour source says part of the thinking behind No 10 North is that, with lobby hacks based in Westminster, rooting part of the operation elsewhere could help limit leaks. Burnham’s team declines to address the claim specifically but stresses that unauthorised briefing and leaking is not an acceptable part of the culture – regardless of where staff might be based – and he is determined to stamp it out.

Some Labour MPs are freely criticising the No 10 North plan, of course. Hardcore Starmerites are particularly dismissive. “Yawn,” says one, who admits they are looking forward to life as a rebellious backbench MP under Burnham. “It sounds performative and seems like a gimmick.” Scottish MPs, meanwhile, like to point out that Burnham should try acknowledging “the real North”. (Plaid Cymru’s Rhun ap Iorwerth, First Minister of Wales, similarly said the proposal “means very little to the people of Wales”.)

Others are more welcoming. “Moving media to Manchester did make a difference for my constituents – the middle-class ones, anyway,” says a Labour MP with a northern seat, citing the BBC’s mass move to Salford as a positive example. “I’m interested to see how it would work in practice, but after years of the North being forgotten and left behind, I welcome anything that puts us firmly on the map and in the minds of No 10,” says another.

Many point out that it is at least evidence that Burnham has a story to tell the country about its future – something they argue Keir Starmer sorely lacked. There are concerns, however, about whether the move is purely symbolic. “What does it actually mean in practice? It will only be meaningful to my constituents if it leads to something real,” says a different northern backbencher.

“He will spend time out of London in a way that other prime ministers don’t, but this idea that it’s two days a week or whatever – it’s almost impossible to see how that will work”

Advertisement

Theo Bertram, director of the Social Market Foundation (SMF) think tank, reckons No 10 North’s symbolic value should not be understated. “That you could go and work in No 10, at the very top of government, without having to move to London, that is a positive symbol – even if that’s all it is,” he says. “The whole circus of Westminster will gear itself more to Manchester. To some degree, it already is.”

He adds: “What makes it not gimmicky is that this is pretty consistent with both his economic narrative and his political message, which are all about place.”

And while some have accused Burnham of unwisely moving a chunk of government to Manchester simply because that is where his family lives and is keen to stay, Bertram does not see this as a problem.

“We expect prime ministers to just up sticks, move their whole family – no matter what stage they’re at with their schooling – down to London and into this weird building that’s not really suitable to be a home, let alone the office of a head of state.

“Actually, if Andy Burnham can lead a more ‘normal life’ by still keeping some connection to where he feels at home, where his family might be able to stay, I think all of those things would be positive.”

Crucially, No 10 North – if done well – could allow the next prime minister to make clear his priorities in government and drive them through more effectively than he otherwise might have.

“If you go back to some of the things that Blair did with his policy unit,” explains Bertram, who advised both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in No 10, “it was really clear that this wasn’t coming from a secretary of state – it was coming from the PM himself. The person who was working on it – say, Andrew Adonis, working on academy schools – what you knew is, this is the thing that the prime minister cares about and is driving.”

Whether No 10 North staff use email addresses ending in “no10.gov.uk” is one of those details that will be key to determining whether their work is taken seriously and prioritised, a Labour source argues.

Luke Sullivan, who was Starmer’s political director in opposition and previously worked as a spad to the chief whip towards the end of the New Labour government, makes a similar point.

“The most important words in Whitehall still are: ‘The prime minister wants’, or at least should be,” he says. He describes complaints frequently heard during the Starmer era about the obstructive nature of civil servants as “self-defeating” and “not reflective of what’s going on”.

“Where you’ve got really clear political leadership and ministerial direction,” Sullivan says, citing Ed Miliband in Desnz and Shabana Mahmood at the Home Office as examples, “those secretaries of state and those departments were seen to be delivering because they had clear guidance”.

Like Bertram, Sullivan thinks PMs being rooted in their seats is no bad thing. “Gordon and Tony spent significant chunks of time in their constituencies or in their constituency homes, and I think it made them better politicians for it,” he says.

“The geography is less important than the structures and clarity over people’s roles… I think that was probably one of those things under Keir where I’m not sure that was always clear – who had responsibility for what.”

Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA trade union for civil servants, tells The House he appreciates the symbolic value of No 10 North and its contribution to Burnham’s vision, but raises concerns about the practicalities involved.

“Access to the prime minister – officials fight over it, politicians fight over it, because that’s really important to how you make government work. If you’re on a train or in the wrong location, or there’s some people there but not here, it’s just not going to work,” the union chief warns.

“Think of the amount of time you spend travelling, the demands on a prime minister, the need to be in the room with the prime minister… Him looking people in the eye is how things will actually happen.” Putting limits on this time “because that conversation is had with someone who’s supposed to be in Manchester when they’re in London, or London when they’re in Manchester”, he says, “will cause restrictions”.

“He will spend time out of London in a way that other prime ministers don’t, but this idea that it’s two days a week or whatever – it’s almost impossible to see how that will work, and it’s probably not what he means. I think he just means to demonstrate and show leadership.”

Penman is especially anxious about the impact on civil servants. “It’s a one-way ticket when you move out of London. It’s almost impossible to go back if you move permanently,” he explains, echoing a long-established principle based on the inaccessibility of the capital’s housing market.

“People have got to feel there’s a career for them – it’s not a one-move thing. There’s a potential for that around the M62 corridor, because you’ve got a lot of big conurbations… But it’s got to be thought through.”

He also flags that recruitment will need careful consideration: “If it’s 500 people [working in No 10 North], chances are there aren’t 500 people with the right experience already in and around Manchester.”

It has been suggested that Burnham could staff No 10 North with people already working in combined authorities around the country, who will be experienced in the relevant areas. “You can understand that’s an expertise you want,” says Penman reacting to the idea, but he asks: “Are they going to leave what they’re doing just now? Do they understand how you get government to work?”

Penman is keen not to be seen as too critical, saying: “You can get through all of this – it’s all doable.” But he cautions that Burnham must offer more clarity on the detail, adding: “He’s saying, ‘I want to do things differently.’ That doesn’t mean he’s worked any of that stuff out… You can’t just be on the vision stuff when you become prime minister. You’re a midterm prime minister as well – you’ve not got a lot of time here.”

Asked whether he is hopeful that Burnham will not talk negatively of the Civil Service, after Starmer declared in 2024 that “too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”, Penman warns Burnham: “You can’t have a situation where Whitehall becomes a term of abuse, and I think that’s the danger for him.”

Burnham’s team will not comment on security concerns over the plan to have him working in No 10 North every week. While the train would offer the best optics, it is thought that taking it at such regular times would present a risk. “The prime minister can’t just get on the 3.05 from Euston,” as Penman puts it.

Bertram suggests they would use a variety of transport methods and points out, referencing Blair’s constituency journey, “You’d be surprised how fast you can get from Sedgefield to London if you’ve got a police convoy the whole way.” They tend to drive far over the speed limit, he explains, as that is a sure way of telling whether any other drivers around are hostile.

Then there is the question of whether, as some suggest, the devolution brief would have to be removed from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) where it currently lies, to avoid duplication of work. There is no clarity from Burnham’s camp so far on this point.

The relationship between No 10 North and MHCLG will need to be figured out. Hannah Keenan, associate director at the Institute for Government (IfG), says the two could work well together.

“What you have is a bit of the centre that’s holding you to account as a department, but also that’s helping you as MHCLG, who are right behind this devolution agenda, to bash heads around Whitehall: ‘Actually, no DWP, you do have to get on board with this thing that is happening over here, or we’re going to find a way to manage this bit of tension in that relationship,’” she says.

“It is fine and good for No 10 to be big enough to actually support the prime minister’s interest in his top priority, which sounds like it’s devolution,” Keenan adds, comparing this definition to the Starmer era’s ‘mission-led government’, which became less distinct over time. “The clarity of purpose that might have existed at the start of the Starmer premiership dissipated over the course of it,” she says.

In agreement with most of Westminster, Keenan believes “No 10 isn’t working” at present. The IfG strongly advocates reform.

“There are lots of different things you could do to try and get No 10 to work,” she says. “Taking out a bit of it, away from the incredibly fast hustle and daily disruption in Whitehall, putting it in Manchester, for example, and saying, ‘This is exactly what I want you to deliver, and I’m giving you all of my political power to do this thing’, it might work.

“He has to be really clear about why he’s doing it and what those people are doing, and he has to avoid any sort of duplication between No 10 North and No 10 South.”

She explains: “The worst version of this is having special advisers or officials in No 10 North and in 10 Downing Street all claiming to speak for the prime minister and not talking to each other. That is a recipe for disaster.”

“It’s all changed so much since Brexit, and Andy and James are going to have to get their heads around that”

Emphasising the importance of the ‘No 10’ name, as others do, Keenan warns: “In government, if it ends up getting called anything other than ‘No 10’, bad things will happen. The number of times that you would say, ‘No 10 have asked for this’, and if the response to that is, ‘No 10 or No 10 North?’, I worry that starts to get into a slightly dangerous, ‘Who actually has authority in that system?’”

She believes that the risk of second campuses in other departments is that they become a backwater, but here the primary danger is that it has “overlapping power”.

That is not so much of a concern when applied to the Treasury, however, as she acknowledges: “At the moment, there’s a big vacuum in terms of strategic priority setting around the prime minister, and the Treasury comes in and fills that.” Labour MPs who would like to see Burnham abolish the Treasury altogether (along with the Office for Budget Responsibility) say they hope a No 10 North will at least disempower it.

The IfG supports breaking up the Cabinet Office and creating a ‘Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’.

“You can stop using No 10 the building as No 10 the office, because that doesn’t work,” Keenan argues, as do many others. “It has been horribly underpowered for too long. Now, this isn’t going to fix it… You need to do much more fundamental reforms to the centre of government.

“You still have an enormous Cabinet Office that is quite amorphous and too large and unfocused and doesn’t really support the prime minister properly – what are you doing with that? But it is fine and good to bolster the power of No 10.”

Reform will not be without its significant challenges. A former senior civil servant highlights that while Burnham may prove to be a “lucky general”, benefiting from tough policy decisions taken by his predecessor, he and his chief of staff will have to adapt quickly to a very different machine from the one they inhabited during their last period in government. “It’s all changed so much since Brexit, and Andy and James are going to have to get their heads around that.”

Notably, Purnell was a member of the expert advisory group that helped guide a paper on how a new Downing Street department would work, published by the Future Governance Forum (FGF) in November last year.

Its proposal for a streamlined ‘Executive Office for the Prime Minister’ would see No 10 configured around four functions: a politics and strategy group; a policy and delivery group; a diplomacy and security group; and a private office. A communications team and political office would also operate across all four.

An Honest Day, the paper by (now outgoing) Labour Growth Group director Mark McVitie earlier this year, similarly recommended the creation of a ‘Department of the Prime Minister’ that would absorb the “useful functions” of the Cabinet Office, leaving No 10 to behave “as a centre of power within the wider department, much like the West Wing within the White House”.

So, could Burnham and Purnell succeed where Dominic Cummings and Morgan McSweeney failed? At a minimum, No 10 North answers FGF’s calls for a greater clarity of purpose and perhaps also clarity of roles and responsibilities. The House understands the Burnham operation is likely to go further than that.

A well-placed source describes as “nailed on” that it will implement at least some of the FGF’s recommendations on a new structure for No 10. The politics and strategy group is the function seen as best-suited to being based out of No 10 North. “I think they want to move a lot of senior people there. It’s real,” the source says.

Those who are cynical about No 10 North – and worried about talent problems – point to the 2007 relocation of Office for National Statistics (ONS) headquarters to Newport, considered by many to be a disaster. An independent review following the move away from London concluded that it had made the recognised national statistical institute’s output worse, due to a significant loss of experienced staff. About 90 per cent of London-based ONS staff chose to leave rather than relocate.

Optimists say the merits of other government hubs offer a better clue to No 10 North’s potential.

The Treasury’s Darlington Economic Campus, the DEC, has benefited from the presence of second permanent secretary Beth Russell. It comprises seven different departments and has open-plan floors, allowing civil servants from all of them to work beside each other, breaking down silos.

The atmosphere is said to be a positive one. Staff are motivated and proud to work there, particularly as equivalent jobs with similar prestige are not easy to find in the area – unlike in London. Above all, it is a modern, functional building, complete with air conditioning. The DEC is also just a short walk from the train station, enabling it to pull in talent from across multiple regions.

Conservative MP James Wild recently highlighted that Chancellor Rachel Reeves has worked from the DEC only twice in the last year, and junior ministers just once each. But others point out that many meetings are held by video call anyway, as it’s more efficient and there aren’t enough big meeting spaces in London.

A former senior No 10 figure calls the No 10 North idea “deeply impractical” because, they say, “No 10 only works with the PM physically present”. The view is shared by others quoted in this piece. One source even says McSweeney’s tendency to work from home on Fridays sometimes slowed down No 10.

But there is also the perspective expressed by IfG’s Keenan: that assuming everyone must be in the same building represents “quite an archaic way of thinking”.

“In some ways, the prime minister not being in Manchester and allowing that bit of No 10 space every week to do some of the thinking and the work that isn’t sucked into the daily crisis comms machine that 10 Downing Street can be is no bad thing,” she says.

“We have a capital city, and our capital city is London, and our ministers and our Parliament exist here, and stuff is going to happen here. That doesn’t mean you can’t ship other bits outside of London, but it’s just being honest about what that looks like, and what the purpose of each bit is.”

No 10 North has given rise to bigger questions over Burnham’s agenda. Devolution has been celebrated across both Labour and the Conservatives for years, yet not all Labour MPs are convinced.

Labour MPs who do not represent constituencies that currently sit in a mayoralty, and especially those in areas with no obvious path to mayoralties, are concerned that their locals will be disadvantaged by Burnham’s plans.

The model of devolution also matters. In a piece for The House, Labour MP Alex Mayer urges Burnham to “look almost anywhere but Greater Manchester” for inspiration. Her area – Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes – is evenly divided between parties, making disagreement the norm and consensus difficult. The London model, she argues, would be preferable for the next stage of devolution.

There are also those who doubt that Burnham’s priorities of promoting devolution and addressing inequality are, in fact, symbiotic. One Labour MP with a northern seat says they wonder whether his push for devolution could actually entrench inequalities, by giving revenue-raising powers to areas where this capability will be naturally limited by existing deprivation.

Even some in favour of a growth-first approach believe that devolution will work as an incentive structure for places around the country to improve, but means there will be winners and losers. The argument for devolution works best, they say, when framed as a Brexit-style drive for sovereignty and power – not fixing inequality.

Mirte Boot, principal research fellow and interim head at IPPR North, which has offices in Manchester and is seen as close to Burnham, has a different take.

“Right now, if you’re a mayor and you invest in a business park, and that creates higher wages in your area, or higher business rate income, that nearly all goes back to the Treasury. So, you don’t necessarily have an incentive or a reward for investing in growth,” she says.

Boot goes on to acknowledge: “Fiscal devolution does benefit those areas able to create growth. To ensure no area is left behind, what you then need is some kind of mechanism, like an equalisation mechanism, where after you’ve given away tax powers, you do some redistribution.

“Every local area is able to make those investments for growth, then there is a redistribution after a couple of years to make sure that the areas that are left behind aren’t left behind too far. Thirty countries already do this, and we can take examples from Germany and Denmark for how it’s done.”

Like Burnham, she argues that centralisation is at “the core of a lot of our problems in this country”, and highlights that of every £1 we pay in tax, 96p goes straight to the Treasury.

“It’s not just about creating a second Westminster here,” Boot says of No 10 North. “This is about working really closely with local leaders all around the country, but especially here in the North, in a different way.

“I think it will change the way that politics is done, and it may be quite uncomfortable for those used to having everything so concentrated, but it could lead to different decisions and a different style of governing that is probably more connected with the rest of the country.”

As for the potential problems of overlap with other departments, she adds: “Every department is going to have to give up some power. That is the reality of it, with devolution. Not just MHCLG, but also DfE, DBT and others – all of them will have to think about how to make that work, and we will have to overcome resistance to that.”