Andy Burnham’s “Bounce” Is Now a Slump – The Honeymoon Is Well and Truly Over
For a few weeks, Andy Burnham appeared to be enjoying the kind of political honeymoon that British prime ministers can normally only dream about. Labour’s fortunes improved, Reform UK’s momentum appeared to weaken, and a government that had inherited deep public frustration suddenly looked capable of rebuilding its political position.
The “Burnham bounce” became the phrase of the summer.
But political honeymoons do not last forever. The harder question is what happens when the headlines fade and governing begins.
Now the mood is beginning to change.
Burnham’s initial popularity was built largely on a series of announcements designed to address immediate concerns. Cheaper transport, action on household costs, changes to business rates and a more interventionist approach to the economy created an impression of energy and movement. Labour suddenly looked less defensive and more confident.
But popularity based on announcements is fragile.
A government eventually has to move beyond announcing what it wants to do and explain how it will pay for it. That is precisely where Burnham’s problems begin.
His government faces an extraordinarily difficult financial environment. Public debt is enormous, inflation remains a concern, defence spending is under pressure and departments are competing for limited resources. At the same time, Burnham has made significant political commitments while insisting that Labour’s fiscal rules will remain in place.
That combination leaves remarkably little room for manoeuvre.
The early Burnham bounce benefited from the fact that voters could enjoy the idea of change without yet experiencing the cost of it. A cheaper bus fare is immediately understandable. A reduction in energy costs is easy to appreciate. A promise to make public services work better sounds attractive.
The difficult part comes later.
Someone has to pay for these policies.
That is when political goodwill can disappear.
The danger for Burnham is that he has created expectations faster than his government has created the financial capacity to meet them. Labour voters want better public services. Businesses want lower costs. Workers want higher living standards. Pensioners want security. Younger people want affordable housing. Defence chiefs want more money. Local authorities want additional funding.
Every group has a legitimate argument.
But the Treasury cannot satisfy all of them simultaneously.
This is the central weakness behind the argument that the Burnham honeymoon is ending. The problem is not necessarily that voters suddenly dislike him. It is that voters are beginning to confront the difference between political promises and economic reality.
Recent polling still shows Labour in a relatively strong position compared with the period immediately before Burnham became prime minister. His personal ratings are also considerably better than those associated with his predecessor. But that does not mean the government is secure. The polling evidence suggests that Labour’s initial surge has been accompanied by unusually high expectations, while many voters remain uncertain about whether they will actually be better off.
That uncertainty is dangerous.
A government can survive mediocre popularity if voters believe it is competent. It can also survive difficult policies if voters believe those policies are necessary. What becomes much harder to survive is the perception that ministers are avoiding difficult decisions.
Burnham’s political style could make this problem particularly significant.
He has built his reputation on being approachable, empathetic and practical. Those qualities helped distinguish him from the colder and more managerial image associated with previous Labour leadership. But a prime minister cannot simply be the nation’s most sympathetic politician.
Eventually, the prime minister has to say no.
No to spending demands.
No to unrealistic expectations.
No to interest groups.
No to policies that sound attractive but cannot be afforded.
And sometimes no to his own supporters.
That is where Burnham’s leadership will be tested.
His government is already facing difficult decisions over defence. A promised increase in defence spending has effectively been pushed towards a future spending review, despite a substantial funding gap in existing defence plans. That creates a political problem because national security is not an area where governments can easily postpone difficult decisions.
The same problem exists in social care.
Burnham has spoken about major reform, but social care is one of the most expensive and complicated challenges facing the British state. A serious solution requires enormous sums of money and long-term planning.
Then there is welfare.
Labour must decide how to support vulnerable people while also addressing concerns about rising welfare expenditure and unemployment among younger people. Previous attempts to reform disability benefits produced significant opposition within Labour itself. Any new attempt will therefore require political courage.
Immigration presents another dilemma.
Burnham inherited a system under enormous pressure. Voters want tighter control, faster decisions and a credible approach to people whose asylum claims fail. At the same time, Labour must balance enforcement with its traditional commitment to humanitarian principles.
There is no painless solution.
Prisons are another example. Overcrowding has forced governments to consider early releases, but public reaction to prisoner releases has made ministers increasingly cautious. Again, the government faces a choice between competing priorities rather than a simple policy decision.
This is the point at which a political honeymoon usually ends.
During the honeymoon, a leader can appear to be the answer to every problem.
After the honeymoon, the leader becomes responsible for every problem.
That transition is happening quickly for Burnham.
His greatest political challenge may therefore be managing expectations. The early weeks of his premiership created the impression that he could rapidly improve people’s living standards while simultaneously transforming public services and rebuilding Britain’s economy.
That is an enormous promise.
Britain’s problems cannot be solved in a few months.
But voters do not necessarily demand instant perfection. What they demand is evidence that the government knows what it is doing.
That means clear priorities.
If Burnham wants to preserve his political advantage, he needs to decide what his government is actually for. Is the priority economic growth? Public service reform? Reducing household costs? Rebuilding Britain’s industrial base? Housing? Immigration? Defence?
He cannot make everything the number-one priority.
The danger of trying to do so is that nothing receives enough attention or funding to succeed.
There is also a growing question about whether Burnham’s government is genuinely different from the government that came before it.
This is perhaps the most damaging criticism he could face.
Burnham was not elected simply to become a friendlier version of the previous Labour administration. He was elected after promising a different political direction. If voters begin to see familiar delays, familiar spending pressures and familiar political compromises, the excitement surrounding his arrival could quickly disappear.
The opposition parties will seize on precisely this argument.
Reform UK, in particular, has every incentive to portray the Burnham bounce as temporary. Nigel Farage’s party has already demonstrated that it can recover ground after losing some of its early advantage under Burnham. Recent polling has continued to show a close contest, rather than an overwhelming Labour transformation.
The Conservatives will make a similar argument from another direction, insisting that Labour’s economic policies remain too expensive and too interventionist.
Meanwhile, the Greens can attack Labour for not being radical enough.
Burnham could therefore find himself squeezed from both sides.
The political centre will demand fiscal discipline.
The Labour left will demand more spending and stronger intervention.
Reform will demand tougher action on immigration and national identity.
The Conservatives will attack taxes and government spending.
There is no easy political coalition capable of satisfying everyone.
This is why the autumn budget will be so important.
It will represent a transition from political honeymoon to political accountability. Once ministers have to make concrete decisions about taxes, spending and public services, voters will have much more evidence with which to judge Burnham.
The government’s choices will also reveal whether its promises are compatible.
If taxes rise, Labour risks breaking its political commitments and disappointing voters.
If spending is cut, public services may suffer.
If borrowing increases, markets may become concerned.
If reforms are delayed, voters may conclude that the government lacks courage.
Every option carries a cost.
That is the reality of government.
The phrase “Burnham slump” may therefore be premature if it is used to suggest that Labour has already collapsed. The evidence does not support such a simple conclusion. Labour has benefited significantly from the change in leadership, and Burnham remains in a stronger position than many expected when he entered Downing Street.
But the political honeymoon is unquestionably facing a harder phase.
The question is no longer whether Burnham can make people feel optimistic.
It is whether he can make difficult decisions without destroying that optimism.
That is a much harder task.
A successful prime minister eventually has to disappoint some people in order to deliver for the country as a whole. Burnham’s political instincts have so far emphasised reassurance, intervention and practical help. Those instincts helped create his early popularity.
Now he needs another quality: toughness.
He must demonstrate that he can control spending, confront vested interests, prioritise national security, reform welfare, tackle immigration and still maintain public confidence.
If he can do that, the “Burnham bounce” may prove to have been the beginning of a genuine political recovery for Labour.
If he cannot, the summer of optimism will be remembered differently.
It will become the brief period when voters wanted to believe that a new prime minister could solve Britain’s problems before the realities of governing caught up with him.
The honeymoon is ending.
The serious test has begun.