Why Burnham might regret his No.10 North plan

How realistic is Andy Burnham’s plan to make No. 10 North responsible for the government’s ‘growth mission’? The Prime Minister’s argument is that taking that function away from the Treasury and giving it to No. 10 ‘means you’ve got maximum power to unlock the blockages where they exist in the wider Whitehall system’ – and that basing that mission in Manchester rather than Downing Street is part of a ‘huge transfer of power’ out of Whitehall. Burnham also wants to make more use of the Treasury’s Darlington campus, which is still being built and which Rachel Reeves worked from just twice in 2025 when she was chancellor, so it’s quite a low bar to do ‘more’ with that.

Burnham insists that his Chancellor John Healey is on board with the plan, which in effect strips Healey of the growth side of his job and hands it to Louise Haigh, the First Secretary of State who has ministerial oversight of No. 10 North. This splitting up of the Treasury is something Tim Shipman covered as an idea back in November 2025, though in that iteration, the chancellor would remain responsible for growth, with spending control and decision-making going into Downing Street, instead. Either way, it is not a huge surprise that Burnham, long a critic of the Treasury mentality, wants to take away some of its functions and do things differently.

What will be fascinating will be whether that split really will address the blockages that the Prime Minister has identified, or whether it will in fact just create more work as officials and ministers have to negotiate with one another over differing agendas and priorities where previously they were working in the same building with the same mentality. John Healey is a collegiate and pretty undramatic ministers, whereas Louise Haigh has a reputation for being rather more stubborn. That might not be a negative if Burnham wants her to stand up to the penny pinchers for him.

The political dynamic will also change: Prime Ministers can often rely on their chancellors to suck up negativity on their behalf: that’s why the Second Lord of the Treasury often develops a rather austere persona.

Of course, a chancellor can traditionally also take the credit if there is economic growth, whereas under this new model GDP will become much more closely tied to Burnham himself rather than Healey. Fine when the economy is going gangbusters, but the Treasury’s own forecasts don’t suggest that this is going to be the case any time soon. And so rather than the Chancellor performing a human shield role for the Prime Minister, it will be Burnham himself who faces far more questions about his handling of the economy – and without the luxury of being able to blame or move his Chancellor. He might not enjoy that so much in reality.