Labour MPs are demanding to know who is actually in charge of drafting Andy Burnham’s 10-year plan for government, amid fears inside the party that the long-term strategy will lack both the detail and the ambition ministers have promised.
The concerns come from members of the Reindustrialisation Research Group (ReRG), many of whom hold the “red wall” seats that proved vital to Labour’s landslide in 2024. On Wednesday the group is due to meet Sally Jameson, the Cabinet Office minister, to set out its objections to the prime minister’s long-term strategy directly.
At the centre of the dispute is a question of ownership and accountability. MPs say they are unclear on who is leading the process of writing the plan. Peter Hyman, who previously advised Keir Starmer on his missions, is reported to be overseeing the writing process, though officials insist Burnham himself will make the key decisions. The involvement of Boston Consulting Group, a company that previously employed Burnham’s chief of staff, James Purnell, to help draw up the plan, has deepened unease among backbenchers. One MP said: “The idea that BCG are going to be involved in reindustrialising Britain feels like a tragic joke.” Downing Street has said BCG is only providing one consultant to help with the process, while Burnham has insisted the plan will be more radical than many think.
The prime minister sought to push back against scepticism when he told the Economist last week: “People are underestimating the significance of this. There’s been briefing around this week, inaccurate briefing … to try and play [it] down. I will lay out my very clear vision for Britain, and it will be substantial, and it will also be, in my view, compelling because I am weaving the different threads together.”
Burnham has billed the 10-year plan as the defining blueprint for what he wants to achieve in government, including bringing utilities under public control, reducing bills and establishing a national care service. MPs had been told to expect it before the end of the year, but the prime minister said last week it could be delayed until January.
The ReRG’s specific complaint is that the government’s reindustrialisation strategy contains gaps that remain unfilled. Andy MacNae, the head of the group, said: “There are a lot of gaps in the government’s reindustrialisation strategy which are not yet filled. The 10-year plan is a chance to fill them, but in the briefings we have been given that is not what we are seeing. We have had really good engagement from ministers, but we need to see something more constructive and we are just not seeing that at the moment. The risk is we don’t see reindustrialisation at all, and continue to see deindustrialisation.”
Jonathan Hinder, another member of the group, was similarly blunt about the direction of policy. “Making reindustrialisation cannot just be about political slogans,” he said. “We are going in the wrong direction and we need pretty drastic action, but we are not yet seeing that from this government.”
Meanwhile, the group’s anxieties reflect a wider worry among parts of the Labour party that the plan could fall short of the high expectations the prime minister himself has set. Burnham has suggested industry will sit at the heart of his economic agenda, while the chancellor, John Healey, promised at this year’s Labour conference to bring in “a new age of industrialisation”. Many MPs, however, are concerned that the government is not yet matching its rhetoric with policy support.
The ReRG called before the budget for Healey to expand the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which reduces energy costs for about 10,000 businesses. But while the chancellor used his budget to announce a £100 council tax rebate to help households pay their energy bills over the winter, he did not announce changes to the business support scheme.
MPs in the group are now calling on the prime minister to use the 10-year plan not only to announce immediate energy bill support for industrial companies, but also to create a minister for reindustrialisation and to empower No 10 North in Manchester to oversee the agenda. Some say they are concerned by briefings held by ministers in recent days which, in their view, suggest the plan will be a modest document, subject to lengthy consultation.
Whether Wednesday’s meeting with Jameson resolves those concerns remains to be seen, but the group’s intervention makes clear that the credibility of the plan, and of the government’s industrial promises, will be judged against the commitments already made.