Beyond Westminster: Is Manchesterism a Politics of Relationship?
Mark Gilmore, Policy Advisor at Evangelical Alliance
“The views and opinions expressed below are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Jubilee Centre or its trustees.”
The loss of trust between people and the institutions meant to serve them is proving to be a deeper crisis than any election result can solve. It was clear from his less formal, note-free speech outside No.10 that our new Prime Minister is eager to set himself apart. But if Andy Burnham’s Manchesterism is to offer a genuine “circuit breaker”, it must begin with a simple question: who is best placed to build a flourishing society?
The Bible begins not with the state but with relationships. Human beings are created to live in families, communities and places where responsibility is shared rather than concentrated. That vision runs throughout Scripture. When Moses attempted to govern Israel alone, his father-in-law Jethro warned that such centralisation would exhaust both leader and people. Instead, authority was distributed among trustworthy local judges who could resolve most matters close to home, leaving only the most difficult cases for Moses himself (Exodus 18:13–26). Deuteronomy instructs Israel to appoint judges in every town to administer justice faithfully (Deuteronomy 16:18–20). The biblical instinct is clear: authority should be exercised as close as possible to the people it serves.
This makes Burnham’s pledge to devolve power rather encouraging. The UK has become the most centralised country in the Western world. And devolution is, at its best, a recognition that flourishing is relational. Long before the modern welfare state, it was families, communities and local institutions that cared for the vulnerable, nurtured belonging and cultivated civic virtue. It was an important development that the state acknowledged its role in each of these areas, but too often this has been to replace, rather than empower, existing local support networks.
The tides are starting to turn. There are already encouraging initiatives, such as faith covenants, that seek to improve these relationships in modern Britain between the faith groups and local authorities. These are a recognition that a renewed social contract for Britain will not be built by Westminster alone, but through relationships between families, government, churches, charities, businesses and neighbourhoods, each contributing according to their distinct roles. Scripture is clear that we all have a responsibility to alleviate poverty and seek social justice, not just the state. (Deuteronomy 15:7-11)
Yet this opportunity could easily be missed if devolution becomes little more than central government replicated at a local level. Burnham has already signalled a greater role for state intervention across large parts of public life. If not careful, there is a danger that Whitehall is simply moved to the Townhall and that power is just relocated rather than genuinely dispersed. Christian thought has consistently resisted this temptation.
Catholic social teaching’s principle of subsidiarity insists that responsibilities should rest with the smallest and most local institution capable of carrying them. Developed most famously in Quadragesimo Anno by Pope Pius XI, this offers a strong theological foundation for devolution. People and local institutions often possess knowledge, relationships and responsibilities that enable them to contribute more effectively to the common good. The purpose of the state then is not to absorb the responsibilities of families, churches and civic organisations, but to enable them to flourish. Following such an approach could naturally flow from Burnham's own profession of Catholic faith and neatly tie in with a principle valued highly in the European Union as he seeks closer relations with the Continent.
The deeper question is what kind of society he hopes to build. “Manchesterism” is an opportunity to build a government not simply for managerialism, but for relationships, responsibility and service. A politics of relationship reflects the biblical vision of servant leadership, where instead of “lording it over the people”, government can recognise that “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (Mark 10:43).
This is a fundamental shift in attitude. Service cannot exist where relationship is absent; to serve people well requires knowing them, listening to them and understanding the communities they belong to. Power is not merely a tool for managing society, but a responsibility to be exercised in relation to those it affects. This is a lesson that Keir Starmer has learned over the course of his turbulent two years. Politics simply cannot be managerial. If, as Proverbs reminds us, "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18), then government requires more than simply competence and good intentions.
Managerialism may tick boxes, but a relational and servant-hearted vision for politics can inspire genuine care for others. It fosters a desire to speak up for those who would otherwise be voiceless and “defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:8-9). It requires a compelling picture of the common good around which citizens can order their common life.
Beyond Starmer, there is a growing understanding of this. Burnham has spoken of reaching beyond party boundaries, of finding "as much common ground as we can to build that more collaborative approach." He has promised an end to the culture of "finger-pointing" and "point-scoring" that has increasingly defined Westminster. If taken seriously, this would represent more than a change in tone. It would recognise that politics is not merely about defeating opponents but about sustaining relationships. Scripture reminds us that "a gentle answer turns away wrath" (Proverbs 15:1). A politics that prizes listening over performance, collaboration over tribalism and persuasion over perpetual outrage would be a welcome corrective to Britain's increasingly exhausted public life.
Whether Burnham can embody that spirit remains to be seen. Political incentives reward conflict far more readily than cooperation. But if Britain is to move from a politics of revolution to a politics of relationship, then success will not be measured by how well a Prime Minister can manage. It will be measured by whether government has the humility to share responsibility, strengthen the institutions that stand between the individual and the state, and cultivate the community upon which any healthy society ultimately depends.
