Digest: “Good Growth in every postcode” – What a Burnham Premiership Could Mean for UK Food System Transformation

Andy Burnham was declared leader of the Labour Party on 17 July and entered Downing Street last week, promising to restore hope to the “forgotten places” and deliver “good growth in every postcode.” What he has said relatively little about is food policy. His mission is about where power sits: the “biggest rebalancing” away from Westminster and towards places. 

That’s why his arrival is important for our food systems, which are themselves integrated systems. They link agriculture, health, land use, infrastructure, employment, supply chains and environmental management. The real question, therefore, is not simply whether a Burnham government would adopt different food policies, but whether it would change the way government itself approaches systemic change. Here’s what a Burnham premiership could mean for food.

Quick Take

• Burnham’s revolution is about power, not policy. Declared Labour leader on 17 July, he entered No 10 promising the “biggest rebalancing” of power from Westminster to places in modern British history, and “good growth in every postcode.” He has said very little about food.
• Food could move from the margins of policy into core regional economic strategy. Under a place-based model, production, processing, logistics, skills and healthy diets could be planned alongside local investment and public services, rather than handled as stand-alone agricultural or environmental policy.
• Procurement is the most practical lever. Burnham’s record on community wealth building points to hospitals, schools, universities and councils buying more through regional supply chains, supporting local producers and retaining value, with no major new food legislation. This is the “relocalising resilience” our Roadmap for Resilience argues for.
• It could route around the Whitehall gridlock. As our January digest on the Covid-19 Inquiry showed, cross-government action — precisely what national food policy demands — is “200% harder.” Delivering through combined authorities and partnerships is a plausible way around that blockage.
• Two risks stand out. Without national coordination, local flexibility could make resilience uneven, with some regions racing ahead, and others falling behind. And because Burnham’s model is built around city-regions, rural areas risk being seen mainly as a source of food and environmental services for cities, rather than as communities with their own needs and priorities, when farming and land management are what resilience ultimately rests on.

Deep Dive

From National Strategy to Place-Based Food Systems

Our Roadmap for Resilience argues that transforming the food system requires joined-up thinking across production, consumption, health, environment and the economy over many decades. Under Keir Starmer, this transformation would most likely have continued to be driven through national frameworks, including climate targets, agricultural policy, national food strategies and centrally designed environmental regulation. This approach offers coherence and consistency but can struggle to reflect the diversity of local economies and landscapes where food systems actually operate.

Burnham’s philosophy suggests a different route. Rather than relying so heavily on central government, he would be more likely to use devolved institutions as vehicles for change. Recent speeches indicate that he sees combined authorities not simply as administrative bodies but as places capable of integrating transport, housing, health, skills, economic development and infrastructure into coherent regional strategies.

Applied to food systems, this would represent an important shift. Food policy would become less of a stand-alone agricultural or environmental issue and more deeply embedded within regional economic development. Questions about food production, processing, logistics, workforce development, healthy diets and land management could increasingly be addressed alongside wider decisions about local investment, planning and public services.

Relocalising Resilience

One of the central messages of our Roadmap for Resilience is that resilience depends upon building capacity throughout the food system rather than relying on increasingly fragile global supply chains.

Burnham’s emphasis on place-based growth could reinforce this approach. Regional authorities could become more active in coordinating producers, processors, distributors, colleges, local businesses and public institutions to strengthen regional food economies. Investment in local infrastructure, food processing, skills development and logistics could become part of broader regional economic strategies rather than isolated agricultural initiatives.

Particularly significant is Burnham’s longstanding emphasis on using public institutions to strengthen local economies. His commitment to community wealth building and to delivering “good growth in every postcode” suggests that public procurement could become an increasingly important lever for food system transformation. Hospitals, schools, universities and local authorities could be encouraged to purchase more food through regional supply chains where appropriate, helping to support local producers while increasing resilience and retaining more economic value within local communities.

This would represent one of the most practical mechanisms through which a Burnham government could reshape food systems without necessarily introducing major new food legislation.

The risks, however, remain considerable. Greater local flexibility could produce greater variation. Regions with stronger institutions, more resources or more established food partnerships could move rapidly, while others fall behind. Without clear national frameworks, resilience itself could become unevenly distributed.

Metrocentric Food Systems?

One important question remains whether Burnham’s model of devolution is sufficiently attentive to rural Britain. His political success has been built around metropolitan leadership, and many of his ideas naturally emerge from the experience of city-regions. This creates opportunities to address food poverty, healthy diets, urban logistics and public health. Yet it also raises the possibility that food systems become viewed primarily through the needs of urban consumers rather than the wider landscapes that sustain food production.

Food system transformation cannot simply become another aspect of metropolitan economic policy. Agriculture, land management and rural communities are not peripheral components of resilience. They are its foundation. If devolved governance becomes overly metrocentric, there is a risk that rural areas become viewed principally as providers of food, ecosystem services and carbon storage for urban economies, rather than as places with their own social, economic and political priorities.

Labour Markets, Skills and Good Work

Another dimension that may receive greater attention under Burnham is the food workforce. Throughout his political career Burnham has linked economic renewal with secure employment, local skills and better-quality work. Extending this approach to the food system could mean greater investment in vocational education, regional workforce planning and stronger links between colleges, employers and local food businesses.

Viewed through the lens of resilience, food system transformation is not simply about changing farming practices or consumer behaviour. It is equally about creating skilled workforces capable of supporting new supply chains, food manufacturing, logistics and sustainable land management.

This emphasis on “good work” complements Burnham’s wider ambition to deliver good growth in every postcode, suggesting that the food economy could increasingly be understood as part of regional industrial strategy rather than solely agricultural policy.

Crisis, Climate and Economic Security

Root and Reason has argued that food security is increasingly shaped by climate change, geopolitical instability and ecological degradation. Burnham appears likely to frame these challenges somewhat differently from previous Labour leaderships. Rather than presenting climate policy primarily through emissions reduction, he increasingly links environmental action to economic resilience, energy security, lower household costs and stronger local economies.

Applied to food systems, this could make transformation politically more durable. Investment in resilient domestic food production, regional processing capacity, local procurement and efficient supply chains would not simply be justified as environmental measures but as practical contributions to economic security and community resilience.

A Mayoral Style of Government

Perhaps the most important difference between Burnham and Starmer lies less in policy than in governing style. Burnham has developed a reputation as a convenor who seeks to build partnerships between local government, businesses, universities, public services and civil society. Rather than relying solely on Whitehall departments, he has demonstrated a preference for assembling broad coalitions around shared regional objectives.

Food system transformation might increasingly be driven through regional partnerships, pilot programmes and collaborative institutions before being adopted more widely across the country. The danger, however, is inconsistency. Innovation may flourish, but without sufficiently strong national coordination the result could become a patchwork of different regional approaches rather than a coherent national transition.

Conclusion

A Burnham premiership is unlikely to transform the food system through a series of headline food policies. Rather, it would alter the institutional landscape within which transformation takes place, embedding food within wider strategies for regional economic development, public health and community resilience. That could create important opportunities to integrate agriculture, health, skills, procurement and land use in ways that have often proved difficult within Westminster’s departmental structures.

The challenge would be ensuring that greater local flexibility does not come at the expense of national coherence or rural representation. The goal should not be to choose between centralisation and devolution, but to build a genuinely multi-level system in which national government provides strategic direction, regions coordinate delivery, and local communities innovate and adapt.

The real significance of a Burnham premiership, therefore, would not lie in changing food policy alone. It would lie in changing the way government thinks about systems. If that shift enabled food to become part of a broader programme of place-based resilience and inclusive prosperity, it could create conditions far more favourable to the long-term transformation envisaged in the Roadmap for Resilience.