*PREVIEW* The One Million Mayors of Manchesterism feat. Dan Davies

Summary

Episode Overview

This bonus episode of TRASHFUTURE, titled "The One Million Mayors of Manchesterism feat. Dan Davies" (May 22, 2026), features the regular TF crew alongside political historian and commentator Dan Davies. The episode critically unpacks the rise of "Manchesterism" as a localist political branding movement, pioneered by figures like Andy Burnham. The hosts dissect what it means for the wider UK, poking fun at the notion of scaling local "vibes" to a national solution, and examine perennial narratives of Britain’s supposed “ungovernability.” The discussion is lively, satirical, and peppered with biting commentary on the British political class and their favorite clichés.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What is "Manchesterism"?

[00:40–01:45]

• Definition & Critique: The hosts mock the idea that Manchesterism is "rooted not in ideology, but in place." They argue it’s a branding exercise more than a substantive shift:

  “Manchesterism is when you don't have an ideology but you're good at politics. Where have I heard that one before?”
  — Political Commentator 1 ([00:40])

• Scaling the Local: Questioning the logic of making local government the model for the whole country:

  “So then you scale it up to the whole country and what you have is a local government for the entire country.”
  — Political Commentator 1 ([01:30])
  "One million mayors."
  — Political Commentator 2 ([01:45])

• Satirical Alternatives: The discussion parodies the "placiness" of Manchesterism, facetiously asking why not “Croydon-ify” the whole nation instead, highlighting the arbitrary nature of these ideas.

2. Parallels with Centrism and Political Performance

[03:24–05:51]

• Comparison to National Politics: The hosts see a resemblance between "Burnhamism" and Blairite/Starmerite iterations of Labour—surface-level branding with little real change.
• Graham the Storm: Through a satirical character, the hosts explain how some politicians and commentators are never satisfied (“never be happy with anything”) and this intransigence can be politically effective:

  “If you are absolutely impossible to work with and a gigantic pain in the ass... you get more and more and more and more of what you want.”
  — Political Commentator 2 ([04:32])

• Cynicism about Change: There’s skepticism that a Burnham-led Labour would amount to much more than a “massive vibe shift and not much of a policy shift” ([05:51]), paralleling previous transitions in Labour leadership.

3. Britain’s "Ungovernability": A Media and Elite Myth

[06:33–10:36]

• Historical Context: Dan Davies provides an insiders’ history, noting how the narrative of British ungovernability is perpetuated by the pundit and political class:

  “...the absolute banker guaranteed to come up question on the first year exams in the Oxford PPE degree is, was Britain ungovernable? ...when these people talk about Britain being ungovernable, it's kind of Proustian. You know, they're going to their happy place...”
  — Dan Davies, Political Historian ([06:33])

• Self-exonerating Narrative: The concept serves to absolve policymakers of responsibility for real decisions or failures:

  “If you say everything's impossible, then it absolves you of any obligation to say which particular things are impossible and therefore which things might be possible.”
  — Dan Davies ([08:53])

• Britain's Real State: The TF crew point out the farcical nature of the "ungovernable" trope given Britain’s highly institutionalized, rule-bound society:

  “Britain is highly governable. …the governing model... has failed.”
  — Political Commentator 1 ([10:04])

• Governed for Whom? Dan Davies notes the country is governed—just not for most people:

  “It keeps on returning to this attractor state of extractive capitalism, privatization and managed decline, which is the revealed preference of all the people who are influential in making decisions about it.”
  — Dan Davies ([10:36])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the hollowness of Manchesterism:

  “Manchesterism is when you don't have an ideology but you're good at politics. Where have I heard that one before?” — Political Commentator 1 ([00:40])

• Scaling up local government:

  “One million mayors.” — Political Commentator 2 ([01:45])

• The arbitrariness of local branding:

  “Why Manchesterify the country, why don't we just like make it all Croydon?”
  — Casual Commentator ([02:01])

• Never being satisfied as a political strategy:

  “If you are absolutely impossible to work with and a gigantic pain in the ass... you get more and more and more and more of what you want.”
  — Political Commentator 2 ([04:32])

• On "vibes" replacing policy:

  “I wouldn't be surprised if what we end up seeing is a massive vibe shift and not much of a policy shift.”
  — Political Commentator 1 ([05:51])

• On "ungovernability" as elite nostalgia:

  “When these people talk about Britain being ungovernable, it's kind of Proustian... They're writing a succession of failed prime ministers and... the wonderful taste of Pimms on the quad.”
  — Dan Davies ([06:33])

• Reality check:

  “It keeps on returning to this attractor state of extractive capitalism, privatization and managed decline…”
  — Dan Davies ([10:36])

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:40 – The opening critique of Manchesterism and its localist rationale.
• 01:45 – “One million mayors” and the satire on scaling up local politics.
• 03:24 – The concept of political intransigence as a successful strategy.
• 05:51 – Doubts about real change under Burnham and the shift to discussing “ungovernable” Britain.
• 06:33 – Dan Davies’ insightful summary about the longevity and psychology behind the "ungovernable" narrative.
• 08:53 – The tactical use of fatalism by Britain’s pundit class.
• 10:36 – Davies' concluding reflection on the true nature of Britain’s governance.

---

Episode Tone & Language

The conversation is irreverent, sharp, and satirical, using humor and references to pop culture and UK politics. The panelists blend academic analysis with biting skepticism about centrist politics and the self-mythologizing habits of British elites.

---

For listeners: If you want an intelligent, extremely British takedown of localist political branding and elite self-delusions about governance, this episode is essential—and highly entertaining—listening.

Transcript

[Podcast Host]

Hello Trash future listeners, just a quick announcement from some friends of ours regarding the terrible EHRC guidance announced today. Unite for an emergency protest outside Parliament on Saturday 23rd May in response to the new EHRC guidance. It's in Parliament Square on Saturday 23rd May 2026 at 11am the nearest tube station is Westminster which has step free access. Trans rights are under attack from the courts to the EHRC and in our day to day lives we, we need to come together and fight back. Trans inclusion is not discrimination. Join us tomorrow on May 23rd, 11am, Parliament Square. Bring sunscreen, water and your rage. One struggle, one fight. Thanks for being a TF listener and please enjoy this bonus episode.

[Political Commentator 1]

Well, what he says is Manchesterism is rooted not in ideology, but in place. A system built. Yeah, place like, hey, the place. Remember this place? A system built collaboratively, designed to respond to real lives rather than the games that dominate national politics. Now I get that sounds nice, but when you unpack it, what he's actually saying is Manchesterism is when you don't have an ideology but you're good at politics. Where have I heard that one before?

[Political Commentator 2]

Oh, yes, it's, it's, it's about being from Manchester. A thing that everyone from Manchester can agree that they are.

[Political Historian]

It stands from Andy Burnham, who is from vli.

[Political Commentator 1]

It stands in stark contrast to the dysfunctional, centralized, short term Westminster system that shaped British politics for far too long. What I like is, he says there, this is why Manchesterism matters. It's not just a local project, it's a blueprint for a fairer, more ambitious way of doing things that can benefit the whole country.

[Political Commentator 2]

It's not just X, it's Y.

[Political Commentator 1]

And Manchesterism works because it's. So basically, if you say Manchesterism works because it's local, responsive and place based rather than ideological. So then you scale it up to the whole country and what you have is a local government for the entire country.

[Political Commentator 2]

One million mayors.

[Political Commentator 1]

Hey, okay, let's hear them out. And then, you know, you probably need a few levels of authority between you and each individual town or city and

[Political Commentator 2]

congratulations, like regional thing. And then maybe you'd have to coordinate all of those things together.

[Casual Commentator]

You know what this is like, it feels like another example of like you can just kind of just say what you want, like, why, why, why Manchester? Ify the country, why don't we just like make it all Croydon? I don't know, like, tell me, tell me why we can't do that.

[Political Commentator 2]

Yeah, Croydon's got traps,

[Casual Commentator]

has trams, Has a lot more fast food spaces than you really need.

[Political Commentator 2]

True.

[Casual Commentator]

It has a, you know, it's a

[Political Commentator 1]

good link to an airport.

[Casual Commentator]

There's some good culture, There's a link to an airport.

[Political Commentator 2]

I went to sixth form in Croydon and I haven't been since, but I believe that Croydon has at least one restaurant that does things a little differently. So, yeah, I think we could scale that up.

[Casual Commentator]

It's got like a big Nestle building and no one knows what really happens in there.

[Political Commentator 2]

But, you know, eating in the restaurant in Luna House, that does things a little differently, that is themed after Home Office deportations.

[Casual Commentator]

That's right.

[Political Commentator 1]

For example. Also, by the way, remember how like GB Rail is this like fake nationalization of the various train operating companies, though, changing the fundamental underlying economics of the industry, leaving the operating companies just there? That's what the B Line is now. The B line is better. And again, this is. I'm going to harken back to a phone call that we had. But the thing that Graham the Storm does is he's never happy with the immigration version of the B Line bus, right? Graham the Storm is never happy with that because he needs it to be negative numbers somehow, right? And so, yeah, well, the thing is,

[Political Commentator 2]

Graham the Storm, right, or rather the guys in Sri Lanka who are piloting Graham the Storm's brain want to make money forever. And the way that they've identified that they can do that, and equally the way that someone like Nigel Farage has recognized that you can sort of like weigh politics in your direction, is to be vocally unsatisfied with everything, right? To be absolutely intransigent, to never be happy, right? And to never accept any progress in your favor whatsoever, because it's always never enough.

[Political Commentator 1]

And so Burnham ism is, if he does become, if he wins his by election in Makerfield, which is a big if, by the way, if he does become Labour leader, which is still an if, and then if he does try to do Manchester local government, but like for the whole country, and if he does maybe do something like the kind of Blair ism where they remember that you have to distribute some crumbs as well as trying to hypercharge growth in a few select industries, with him, it would be different industries, but still probably more property development, you must, you always have to remember you are Graham this, you must be Graham the Storm and never be happy with anything.

[Political Commentator 2]

You must embrace Graham the Storm thought, right? Because it does work, right, as we've seen, with any number of, like, interest groups, pressure groups, for instance, I think turfs are a good. A good example of this. Right. If you are absolutely impossible to work with and a gigantic pain in the ass and absolutely intransigent, you get more and more and more and more of what you want. Right. I would like to see the left be more like that. I don't have much faith in that because I think a lot of people are looking for an excuse to go back to labor. And I think Andy Burnham will be able to successfully present himself as that. And I think we might get some more surface level niceness which will enable some people to go, oh, good, our long national nightmare is over. The left is a serious force in the Labour Party.

[Casual Commentator]

The adults are back in power because

[Political Commentator 2]

we can get some meter. Exactly. Exactly. Right. And it's like, no, Even if you do decide that, like, you want to make labor your vehicle rather than the Greens, I think in both cases, you need to be as big a pain in the ass as possible.

[Political Commentator 1]

Yeah. And just to finalize, sort of Burnon, before we move on to this bigger question.

[Political Commentator 2]

Yeah. Because the reason why I brought up being sort of unsatisfied is because I think this does tie into the next bit, which is bond markets. So we'll get there. But yeah, that's. That's sort of like the first part of the thing I'm constructing.

[Political Commentator 1]

Yeah. Because just. Just to sort of finish out this segment, right, this is a person who has worked with Burnham says, I wouldn't be surprised if what we end up seeing is a massive vibe shift and not much of a policy shift. I think he believes, probably correctly, that he can turn a lot of it around in vibes and personality alone. When have I heard that before? But this man is not the guy. He is Keir Starmer. To Keir Starmer's Rishi Sunak, he's just Keir Starmer again and Keir Starmer's Rishi Sunak. And as part of this larger discussion about this endlessly recirculating meme that Britain is somehow magically ungovernable, suddenly you can't move. But for headlines about the UK being in permanent decline because it's ungovernable. We've seen them in the 70s and so on and so on. But, Dan, what do we mean by ungovernable?

[Political Historian]

Well, I mean, there is a bit of background law here, right, because you guys are all somewhat younger than me, but I am in tune with the British pundit and governing class because, like them, I was around in the 90s, and like them, I did the politics, philosophy and economics degree at Oxford University. And the thing is that the absolute banker guaranteed to come up question on the first year exams in the Oxford PPE degree is, was Britain ungovernable? You have to learn two things to get through those exams. Fourth republic in France and Edward Heath calling an election on the question of who governs Britain. And so when these people talk about Britain being ungovernable, it's kind of Proustian. You know, they're going to their happy place, they're writing a succession of failed prime ministers and they're thinking, oh, she was so beautiful. My first real relationship. They're kind of writing the media was unable to satisfy and the international financial markets brought down a succession of policy initiatives. And they're just thinking, oh, the wonderful taste of Pimms on the quad. It's completely being in their intellectual happy place because they are a group of people, and nor am I personally totally innocent of this, who have never really stopped writing about how Britain is fundamentally difficult to govern for whatever reason happened to be in the news that day for, what is it now, closer to 40 than 30 years. So you shouldn't take Britain is ungovernable necessarily as a serious statement about politics. It's absolutely a psychological statement about the way that the British pundit class views absolutely everything.

[Political Commentator 2]

I viewed it as a kind of as much as anything else, like a retreat into fantasy. Yeah, sure, in the university sense, but also in the sense that, like, we got to elect a new populace here, you know, like these people aren't behaving like we want them to, so we really. We have to dissolve the electorate and elect another one.

[Political Historian]

Well, that's it. If you say everything's impossible, then it absolves you of any obligation to say which particular things are impossible and therefore which things might be possible. And you no longer have to make any decisions because as long as you say absolutely everything's screwed up and there's nothing that anybody can do about it, then it's not your fault that the particular solutions that you chose didn't work.

[Political Commentator 1]

I mean, we must be one of the most highly institutionalized, allegedly ungovernable countries in the entire world, apparently.

[Political Commentator 2]

Well, we have huge amounts of, like, you know, sort of very storied institutions dedicated to the art of not governing us, I guess.

[Political Commentator 1]

Yeah, the places that are ungovernable might be places that are incredibly remote, very difficult to reach. Maybe there are high levels of, like, violence endemic to them, and trying to extend central government authority to them is very difficult. I Don't. I think that's, it's quite, it's supremely parochial.

[Political Commentator 2]

We're not in a situation where you can be like, yeah, I'm not going to pay my taxes and nobody is going to follow up on that, or like, I'm not in a situation where I'm going to run a red light in front of a police car, you know.

[Political Commentator 1]

Yeah, there's. In fact, Britain is highly governable. I think what we're going to explore in the next segment is it's just that the, the governing model that they all, that they all believe is the only alternative has failed. And to see, and it's worth looking at all, every single deployment of this same argument, which is there are dumb versions of it and sort of more nuanced versions of it, but they're all boiled down to the same argument, which is either the political class is too stupid or the people are too stupid in order to see what's really good for them.

[Political Historian]

Or of course, you know, this is what governance looks like. You know, I mean, without wanting to get too far into cybernetics and the study of stable systems, this is a governed system. This is a system in which the steady states that it returns to, whether you might or might not like to write about it in your newspaper column, actually pretty much works pretty well for the people who are making the decisions. It is not actually. Now, the saying that it's ungovernable is in many ways the opposite of the truth. Because it is governed, it keeps on returning to this attractor state of extractive capitalism, privatization and managed decline, which is the revealed preference of all the people who are influential in making decisions about it.