Wajahat Ali Khan
The debate over immigration has once again become central to British politics. From record net migration figures and pressure on public services to labour shortages in key sectors, immigration remains one of the defining issues shaping public opinion. Against this backdrop, the growing national profile of Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has prompted speculation about whether he could influence or even reshape the United Kingdom’s immigration policy in the years ahead.
Burnham has never been associated with the hardline rhetoric that has increasingly characterised Britain’s immigration debate. Instead, he has consistently argued for a more balanced approach, one that recognises immigration as both an economic necessity and a social challenge. His position differs from those who advocate either unrestricted migration or sweeping restrictions. Rather, Burnham has sought to frame immigration within the broader context of regional development, labour market needs and community cohesion.
As Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham has frequently highlighted the contribution migrants make to the National Health Service, social care, hospitality, construction and higher education. Like many urban leaders, he has argued that cities depend on international talent to sustain economic growth and public services. At the same time, he has acknowledged that rapid population growth can place pressure on housing, schools and local infrastructure if governments fail to invest adequately.
This emphasis on local capacity distinguishes Burnham from many voices in Westminster. He has argued that immigration should not be viewed solely as a border issue but also as a question of local governance. If councils and city regions are expected to accommodate new arrivals, they should receive the resources and powers necessary to manage integration effectively. Such arguments reflect his long-standing advocacy for greater devolution rather than a fundamental overhaul of immigration rules.
However, it would be mistaken to assume that Burnham alone could transform national immigration policy. The UK’s immigration framework remains firmly under the control of Parliament and the Home Office. Since Brexit, Britain has operated a points-based immigration system designed to prioritise skilled workers while reducing dependence on free movement from the European Union. Any significant changes require the support of the governing party and Parliament rather than regional leaders.
Moreover, the current Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer has adopted a cautious approach to immigration. While rejecting some of the previous Conservative government’s policies, Labour has also pledged to reduce net migration, strengthen border security and reform the asylum system. The political reality is that public concern about immigration remains high, and both major parties recognise that the issue carries significant electoral consequences.
If Burnham were to play a larger national role in the future, his influence would likely be more subtle than revolutionary. He could encourage Labour to place greater emphasis on regional labour shortages, devolved migration planning and stronger integration policies. There has also been discussion among policy experts about giving mayors a greater voice in determining local visa needs, similar to arrangements seen in countries such as Canada and Australia. Burnham has shown interest in ideas that allow regions to recruit workers according to local economic requirements while maintaining national oversight.
His approach may also resonate with businesses seeking greater certainty in recruitment. Employers across health care, engineering, digital technology and hospitality continue to report shortages of skilled and semi-skilled workers. Burnham’s pragmatic stance that immigration policy should serve economic needs while ensuring adequate investment in local communities offers a middle ground between ideological extremes.
Yet challenges remain. Immigration has become deeply intertwined with debates over national identity, border security and public trust in government. Any leader advocating a more flexible immigration policy must also address concerns about illegal migration, asylum processing and the capacity of public services. Burnham’s success in local government demonstrates his ability to build consensus, but translating that experience into national policy would require navigating a far more polarised political landscape.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Andy Burnham will single-handedly change Britain’s immigration policy, but whether his ideas can shape the direction of future reforms. His record suggests he favours a pragmatic, economically driven and locally informed approach rather than dramatic ideological change. Such a perspective may gradually influence Labour’s thinking, particularly if regional leaders gain greater authority within the UK’s evolving system of devolution.
For now, Burnham remains an influential regional politician rather than a national policymaker on immigration. Nevertheless, as debates over economic growth, labour shortages and regional inequality continue, his voice is likely to become increasingly important. Whether that influence translates into lasting policy reform will depend less on Burnham’s ambitions than on the willingness of Westminster to embrace a more decentralised and evidence-based approach to managing immigration.
