My latest focus groups took place in Wallsend, Norwich and Lowestoft, where recently disgruntled 2024 Labour voters – and some opponents – told us what they made of Andy Burnham’s first days as prime minister.
He’s not your run-of-the-mill posh boy
Many people’s first impressions were good. While often noting that it was very early days and they knew little about him, participants talked about his apparently down-to-earth persona, in contrast with recent holders of the office: “He appears a normal person. I know he’s been to Cambridge and stuff like that, but you can be a normal person even if you’re well educated;” “There’s a warmth about him that we haven’t had for a while. Maybe it’s the up north thing. He’s a millionaire who’s been to Cambridge, but he still comes across as a fairly decent chap;” “I do feel there’s a tad more common sense within him. Previous prime ministers seemed to have that toffee nosed element to them, where there seems to be slightly more normality with him;” “He’s not your run-of-the-mill posh boy. It’s nice to have someone called Andy and he’s quite pretty looking”.
World leaders are not going to say ‘oh, he likes The Smiths, so we’ll do a deal with him’
Even if they liked what they saw so far, some had consciously suspended judgment or emphasised that presentation was not the same as substance and delivery: “He comes across quite well but he might be a really good bluffer. He might be hopeless but he seems genuine;” “I’ve only seen the more surface-level things like bus fares and trying to appear working class, and doing some DJ sets and singing;” “He’s down to earth, and this music culture thing kind of appeals. But when it comes to meeting world leaders, they’re not going to go, ‘oh, he likes The Smiths, so we’ll do a deal with him’. But those decisions will speak for themselves when they arrive;” “It reminds me of Tony Blair, the way he talks and stops and talks again and uses his hands. As soon as he started talking, I thought, oh, I’ve seen this before.” A few had less flattering comparisons: “I know it’s a bit mean to say, but every time you see a picture of him he looks like some little cartoon character. I can’t really take him seriously.”
If I was teaching your children in my Levi’s and trainers and a t-shirt, would you think that was befitting?
Most were relaxed about the new prime ministerial dress code: “Day to day I don’t think it matters much;” “Zelensky doesn’t wear a suit, does he?” There were several dissenters, however: “If I was teaching your children in my Levi’s and trainers and a t-shirt, would you think that was befitting? People who we hold in high esteem should wear a certain sort of dress code to fit the part.”
He’s been picked by the party because he’s the one that will do their bidding
Some disliked the way in which Burnham had become PM, or were at least puzzled by it: “How did he get the job? He was Mayor of Manchester, he wasn’t even an MP, then he slid straight in. There might be a logical explanation, but I don’t know;” “I think there should have been at least another person involved. It was someone they chose to bring back into the fold and what went on behind closed doors we don’t know”. Apart from what they saw as a lack of a democratic process, they worried that his smooth ascent suggested he would be the Labour party’s tame creature: “Since being headhunted and steered into that role without any opposition whatsoever, it’s becoming blatantly clear that he is just the new spokesperson;” “He’s been picked by the party because he’s the one that will do their bidding without arguing with them too much. And that worries me a bit. Has he got the strength to stand up to the rest of the party and say, ‘this is how it’s going to be’?”
Some were less worried about the process, however: “I prefer it that way. It would probably have taken six months to organise an election or even an in-house leadership contest. For me, the decision was made, great, crack on with it”.
He’s giving away lots of little snippets at the moment. We’ll see how he deals with the bigger issues
The groups spontaneously mentioned several policy announcements (or hints), including removing VAT from electricity bills, scrapping digital ID, North Sea oil and gas drilling, ending rough sleeping, building council houses, raising income tax thresholds, scrapping council tax, capping bus fares, reforming social care, changing the benefit system, promoting apprenticeships, reviewing early prisoner release, and the promise of a ten-year plan.
While few objected to most of these ideas, there were questions about the impact and the cost – especially when it came to energy bills, since many had heard the revelation from Darren Jones that the money could come from scrapping digital ID because that programme was unfunded: “He’s talked about the tax threshold, and they were saying that’s £4 billion. Where are they going to find that?” “Yeah, we’ll take away the council tax, but we’re actually going to charge you more X, Y, Z. They’ll give with one hand but take it back double with the other;” “The VAT thing will save £45 on average per year, but it doesn’t start for some time, like six months. So that’s £22.50, on average for each family. And Trump will have wiped that out with his conflict with Iran;” “He said it was going to be because he was going to scrap the digital ID. But then apparently there was no money for that anyway. So where is he going to get it from?”
Several saw these ideas as relatively small measures designed to win people over, and that less palatable changes would come later: “That always seems to be the formula. Clickbait announcements, like scrapping digital ID, which was great, everybody wanted that. But that’s the formula, get us onside, then the month after is when all the side projects start happening”. There was also a widespread view that “he’s giving away lots of little snippets at the moment. We’ll see how he deals with the bigger issues”. One of these, mentioned in several of the groups, was migration and small boats: “He hasn’t mentioned it. He seems more focused on other things;” “I don’t think any of them know what to do about it. I actually don’t think they have a clue;” “He’ll probably send even more money to France”.
What about the south? What about the east?
Some liked Burnham’s regional focus and the advent of Number 10 North, albeit with the traditional objection from our Wallsend groups (“Manchester’s not the true north. It’s basically just above the Midlands”). They liked the principle of boosting neglected parts of the country. However, several considered it an expensive political “gimmick” designed to shore up Labour’s northern vote or saw his apparent Manchester-centric focus as favouritism, rather than a signal that power and wealth were to be spread more widely: “For me it’s a bit worrying. I’m thinking what’s the cost, what’s the effectiveness? Why?” “Is it about winning back the north? Labour have lost a lot of northern voters who think they now represent a sort of London studenty side to the party and not the traditional working class;” “What about the south? What about the east? It’s very unfair;” “It’s about the British person, not just the north, or it should be. Sadly it’s not”. Some wondered if the plan was for Burnham’s own convenience: “Is that what he’s planning to do on a Friday?”
We’ve been so let down, everyone’s just cynical
Previous Labour voters tended to be cautiously optimistic about the Burnham premiership, but would not allow themselves to be too hopeful given recent experience: “He’s been chirping the right things, but time will tell. We’ve been so let down, we’ve had so many prime ministers in the last ten years, everyone’s just cynical;” “I feel like I’m watching the same speech every single time, the promises, promises, promises, and it doesn’t go anywhere;” “I’m a bit sceptical because, at the end of the day, they’ve only got so much money. I don’t know why Andy Burnham thinks he can come in and change so many things when he’s got just the same budget”. Some also worried that, as with Starmer, any plans would be subject to the approval of Labour backbenchers: “Will he get half these things done? He’s got to be backed by the party. He can’t just do everything on his own”.
He seems to be making definite plans
Even so, the groups largely had the impression that Burnham had a plan for government, even if the details were yet to emerge. This in itself was a contrast with the Starmer years: “He seems to be more focused on what he’s doing. He seems to be making definite plans, whereas Starmer was a bit more wishy-washy”.
Though there were some calls for an early general election, these tended to be muted – give the number of “unelected” recent prime ministers. Some made the point that it would depend whether or not Burnham intended to follow Labour’s 2024 manifesto: “If he wants to do something drastically different, those policies should be put to the country”. People also recognised their own partiality on the question: “If you agree with what he says, it’s ‘yeah, good idea’. You turn a blind eye. If you see something that you think is a shocking idea, you’d be ‘this is a disgrace! We should have an election!’” Rather more had had enough political drama for now: “It doesn’t bother me. Give him the three years they’ve got left to see what he can do and then judge”.
