Andy Burnham’s got the City in his sights — what will Sadiq Khan do?

In April 2019, Hammersmith Bridge closed indefinitely to all vehicular traffic after cracks were discovered in its structure. The following year, in August, following a lack of progress and the crossing still being shut, the New York Times carried on its front page a report headed: “London Bridges Really Are Falling Down”.

Today, vehicles remain banned and the indications are the prohibition will be made permanent. The US newspaper’s headline was in the plural. Back then, there just was one barred bridge. Since then, Albert Bridge has banned vehicles until 2027 while it undergoes repairs. In north-east London, motor traffic has been forbidden from using Broadmead Road Bridge in Redbridge for years. It, too, bears the same warning signs and barriers as Hammersmith and Albert. Other bridges are also thought to be facing similar problems.

The bridges are symbolic of a creaking infrastructure. Built in a different era when the capital was much smaller than it is now, they are part of a transport network that is struggling to cope. As Andy Burnham prepares to take power, there is seemingly not much prospect of that situation being remedied.

Even less, as the new Prime Minister sets out his stall in favour of the North and Manchester.

When The New York Times ran its article, the then Boris Johnson government suddenly went into overdrive, realising what damage the closure was doing to Britain’s image overseas, in the eyes of potential investors. Johnson established a “task force” to push for its full reopening. The label looked good, even if the body failed in its task. At least Johnson got the message, that the rest of the world, when it looks at this country, homes in on London. This is what they know best, it’s where they want to be and to put their cash. In making that decision, they need to be assured their investment is money well spent. Having a river criss-crossed with decaying bridges is not a sign of a prosperous, ambitious city — it’s not something that would be tolerated in New York, London’s arch-rival. Nor does it signify an ambitious, well-funded nation, one that treasures its assets and realises the importance of ensuring the main economic powerhouse is lovingly protected. Johnson understood this. At the time, he was proclaiming “levelling up” as his way of pacifying the clamour for improvement in the North and Midlands and earning the support of those “Red Wall” post-industrial constituencies. The trouble with levelling up was that it also implied a “levelling down”. Given the fragile state of Britain’s public finances, Johnson was unable to spend willy-nilly on giving them what they desired, without reducing expenditure somewhere else.

Hammersmith was a victim of that practice — the locals speculated that if the bridge was in Wakefield, say, Johnson would have ordered its immediate refurbishment and found the funding. With Burnham, nothing has changed, except that the incoming PM is more of an evangelist for all things Northern than Johnson ever could be and the public purse is even tighter than it was back then.

As he prepares to meet the expectations of his supporters, Burnham is going to have to find the readies from somewhere and London and the South-East must brace themselves for being firmly in his crosshairs. Already, he has indicated as such. Just by saying that he aims to continue to reside part-time in Warrington, and Number 10 will establish a base in Manchester, he is knocking London. It’s not unlike the King not living at Buckingham Palace — however the news is spun, the world-famous landmark is done. London, under Burnham, is in the same boat. That might not matter if, like the palace, the city served a largely ceremonial function — the tourists will come and see the Windsors’, historical headquarters, regardless.

But London is more than an empty, tired edifice. It’s a dynamic centre for business, a magnet for investors, a global centre for finance, law and other industries and professions. It’s a springboard to Europe. The city is the destination of choice for those people who influence key investment decisions. They wish to live, as well as conduct their business, here. Burnham plays with this at his peril. There are plenty of financial centres vying for London’s crown, anxious to copy that success. Manchester is not one of them; it is not up there with Milan and Paris. Neither will it ever be, despite Burnham’s strident efforts.

He must be made to realise that every time he boosts the North, he is downplaying the South, with London at its heart. That is economic suicide — the UK is desperate for increased inward investment, not less. If he seeks growth, he should be encouraging the City and London, not, even by implication, denigrating them.

Given the antecedents of those closest to him, it is hard to know where this injection of sense will originate. He is surrounded by a coterie of dyed-in-the-wool, Northern “red” MPs and advisers. Saying that, Lord O’Neill, the ex-Goldman Sachs banker and one of Burnham’s inner economic circle, is no fool, nor is Andy Haldane, formerly of the Bank of England. It must be doubtful, however, that even if they wanted to (and both O’Neill and Haldane are Northerners) they will be able to tone down the pro-North rhetoric.

The City must step up and push back. It needs to, for another reason, which is that as he surveys his absence of options and wriggle-room in terms of available funds to do what he wishes to do, Burnham is bound to contemplate targeting the wealthiest. Not just individual, be it with some form of mansion or wealth levy, but also the most profitable businesses.

In Labour eyes, both are fair game. Invariably, that means those folks who earn the most and live in the priciest homes. That is Londoners and Southerners. As for those in his corporate sights, the banks have long been in Labour’s firing line. They, too, are headquartered in the City. London, in short, is going to be put under pressure to pay and to forego needed funding and investment like never before.

This is where the capital’s elected leader must come in. Sir Sadiq Khan was chosen to do just this, to champion London and fight its corner.

Khan has said he is looking forward to working with Burnham but would challenge him when necessary. Khan said: “I’ve worked with him in the Cabinet, in the Shadow Cabinet, as a Metro Mayor and even on the football pitch. He can see the difference we can make working together. My message is the same one that I gave to David Cameron, to Theresa May, to Boris Johnson, to Liz Truss, to Rishi Sunak and to Keir Starmer — when London succeeds, the rest of the country succeeds.

“I will work with you when it’s in our capital city’s interest, but I will challenge you when it’s not in our city’s interests. We contribute four out of every £10 in taxes raised by the Government. We could contribute even more if there’s more devolution of powers and resources.”

This is also the Mayor who stated he wanted Hammersmith Bridge to reopen to vehicles “sooner rather than later” and called the long-term closure of the bridge, “not reasonable or acceptable at all”. Khan was not heard or if he was, his words had little effect. Where taking from London and giving to the North is concerned, Burnham must be made to listen. There is no excuse. Khan has to defend and robustly, complacency will not suffice. Even if that necessitates an awkward head-to head with a Labour colleague. Revisit the New York Times, Look at London’s bridges.