Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has overseen a more than threefold increase in taxpayer-funded consultant spending, from £8.7 million in 2019 to £26.9 million in 2025, according to data compiled by analytics firm Tussell. This surge comes despite Burnham previously labelling similar consultant spending as 'indefensible' waste. the disclosure intensifies scrutiny on Burnham's fiscal management as he considers a return to Westminster politics, with critics highlighting a simultaneous 600 percent increase in his share of council tax.

A £26.9 Million Contradiction: The Consultant Spending Surge

The figures, reported by Tussell, reveal that spending on external consultants under Burnham's authority has more than tripled since 2019, reaching nearly £27 million annually. This directly contradicts Burnham's earlier stance, where he criticized NHS consultant spending as 'indefensible' waste. conservative Party chairman Kevin Hollinrake seized on the discrepancy, accusing the mayor of hypocrisy with the phrase 'do as I say, not as I do.' The TaxPayers' Alliance echoed these concerns, calling the situation 'rank hypocrisy' and a 'kick in the teeth for local taxpayers .'

The Sheriff of Nottingham Tax Strategy: Doubling Council Tax and a £2 Bus Fare

Burnham has drawn comparisons to the 'Sheriff of Nottingham' after boasting of implementing the highest mayoral precept in England. His precept has doubled from £76 to £154 per household since 2019, a more than 600 percent increase in his share of council tax. Burnham defends the tax hikes as necessary to maintain a £2 bus fare cap, but critics argue the soaring consultancy costs undermine that justification. As reported by multiple outlets, the mayor's office did not immediately repond to requests for comment on whether the consultant spending yields tangible benefits for residents.

Labour's £1.2 Billion Savings Promise vs. Greater Manchester's Spending Spree

The controversy unfolds against a national backdrop where the Labour Party has pledged to halve consultant spending and projected £1.2 billion in savings. Burnham's local record stands in stark contrast to that pledge, casting doubt on Labour's ability to deliver fiscal discipline if it returns to national power. The figures from Tussell show a trend that is hard to reconcile with Burnham's previous condemnation of similar expenditures. This disconnect raises questions about the mayor's credibility as he eyes a potential return to Westminster, where consultant spending would be a key political battleground.

Who Benefits? The Unanswered Questions About Value for Money

The source report leaves several critical questions unanswered. First, what specific services or outcomes did the £26.9 million in consultant spending purchase? The mayor's office has not provided a breakdown, leaving taxpayers to guess whether the money went to management consultants, IT specialists, or other advisors. Second, does the spending deliver value compared to in-house alternatives? Neither Tussell's data nor Burnham's office offers an assessment of efficiency. Third, how does this spending align with Burnham's own past statements condemning consultant waste? The lack of public justification suggests that the mayor may be struggling to justify the expenditures, especially as local residents face higher bills. These gaps underscore the need for greater transparency from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.