What Do We Know About Prime Minister Burnham’s Approach to Tackling Violence Against Women?
By Purna Sen – Visiting Professor at Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit (CWASU)
At the end of August, Prime Minister Andy Burnham commented on the urgent need for specialist rape and sexual office investigation teams in the police. He is reported to have said, ‘The scale of violence and abuse suffered by women and girls in this country is unacceptable. We must be laser focused on stamping out these vile crimes’. This suggests a welcome position on violence against women: ‘stamping out’ and acknowledging scale are a good start. But he needs to show that there is a good understanding behind his words. We need to know that the elimination of violence against women is central to his vision for the country and a priority in his foreign policy. Elimination – or ‘stamping out’ – requires the Government to do all that it can, in all of its work, with appropriate framing, informed by specialist knowledge, with timelines and reviews undeterred by powerful or noisy opposition.
His time as Mayor of Greater Manchester gives us more clues about his approach. Burnham communicated the need for men to change their behaviour, launched a ten-year strategy and listed ‘streets, workplaces, schools, universities and homes’ as where he wanted to see change. The strategy launched under his Mayoralty promised ‘additional funding for specific services’. It sought to address ‘domestic homicides, domestic abuse and coercive control; rapes and sexual assaults; street and workplace harassment; stalking on and offline; sexual exploitation; and threatening behaviour directed towards women’ and talked of a whole systems approach.
There are elements here that might give us hope for the future. For me, these include the naming of rape and sexual assaults, harassment, sexual exploitation and threatening behaviours, and increasing funding for specialist services. But as we know, it takes much, much more than words and intentions to change the world for women.
We don’t know how PM Burnham thinks about VAWG: is it woven into his broader vision for the country or is it a distinct and separate strand of work? Does VAWG matter because it limits women’s lives, because it stymies our economy or because women should be protected? What is the value to government of the specialist sector – is it to take the delivery load off government or to enrich government with the knowledge derived from holding survivors through the harms they endure and the building of new lives?
The answers to these and a host of other questions will help to see the nature and scope of what we might expect from him as PM.
We know for certain that we have to keep shouting about the elimination of violence: that this is women’s right and that governments have signed up to this (in SDG 5.2 and via The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women). It is non-negotiable and must be foremost in our framing and ambition. The Prime Minister will likely declare his hand at some point, hopefully soon. He must illustrate that at least two foundations will inform his work: first, understanding that VAWG is not exceptional, that it reaches into almost every woman’s life whether first, second or third-hand and shapes how she engages with the world. I don’t believe that many powerful men appreciate the prevalence of VAWG, especially of sexual abuse; in my conversations with politicians and policymakers in many countries, over very many years, such recognition has been rare.
The British Crime Survey figures on sexual assault (including attempts) estimates 900,000 victims (sic) of sexual assaults in the year ending March 2025, of which 739,000 were against females and 162,000 males; that is 2,466 every day, on average. Despite being immersed in issues of sexual abuse I still find that figure difficult to digest, it is so enormous. But it is lodged in my brain and needs to be in Burnham’s too. Secondly, elimination is not confined to political borders.
The PM has proclaimed Manchesterism to be a foundation of his Government and approach. A shift in structures, and thinking, away from London should be a good initiative but I would like to see it coupled with an internationalism; once again, we know little of his approach. He takes office at a time when geopolitics and the international order are being challenged and are ripe for re-structuring. Will the Burnham premiership contribute to shaping it with the elimination of VAWG as a core ambition? Ending VAWG cannot be envisaged only for Manchester, or London, or the country. The UK remains a global player despite Brexit, though certainly less central than previously, and any serious commitment to elimination means recognising the continuity of VAWG across political boundaries.
Your and my work sees and joins hands and minds internationally towards elimination, for we know that elimination is unattainable if women in Sudan, Guatemala, Ukraine, Vanuatu, Mali… aren’t in our hearts and efforts. Afghanistan has just marked five years under Taliban control; FGM continues to violate young girls and UK arms supplies contribute to conflicts, which impact VAWG. The UK has international plans and strategies on women’s rights, on violence against women and girls in which there is rights-based language. How about recognising that ending violence is a human rights issue and an obligation in all of this Government's work – both domestic and international?
Awareness has been growing of how men’s sexual entitlement to and sexual abuse of women crosses borders. The infamous brothers who started their initiatives in the UK and travelled to Europe and the USA to spread their creed of women’s violation are but one example. Epstein’s network was international, poisoning the lives of women and girls in the UK. Yet Burnham has ruled out a Public Inquiry to look into this, despite Alex Davies-Jones’ dogged advocacy. Perhaps there is a secret, splendid alternative planned for Epstein and Fayed survivors but all we have to go on for now is silence and rejection.
Whispers from those who worked with PM Burnham in Manchester suggest he does care about VAWG. He inherited a manifesto commitment when he became leader: to halve VAWG in ten years. Two of those years have passed. Sexual violence remains a neglected area of work in a necessary joined up approach towards elimination. Is this Prime Minister serious about making substantial progress? If so, what will that look like and why have we heard so little from him on this, yet?