Andy Burnham is discovering that in power, you can’t have it both ways (Image: Getty)
I don’t want to be snarky about Andy Burnham. He seems a modest, pleasant chap. And that’s good. The PM has charm, self-deprecation and the wit to deflect political attacks. He’s a massive step up on Keir Starmer, and has already done the country a great service by helping torpedo Green Party chancer Zack Polanski.
I’d have a beer with Burnham ahead of almost anybody else in Parliament. There’s just one problem. I just don’t think he’ll make a very good PM. He might even be a terrible one. And we saw why on Monday, when he made a total hash of his first big Brexit test.
Charm and a desire to please are useful qualities, until you have to make tough decisions that will annoy half the country, and there’s no middle way. So far, making all the right noises has served Burnham well. Labour MPs swung behind him as he promised more public spending, more nationalisation, more social security and more EU. All that sounds delightful in his Left-wing echo chamber. In power, they’re a total liability.
More spending? We don’t have the money. Nationalisation? It’ll do more harm than good, and we don’t have the money anyway. More social security? What we really need is jobs and growth and, oh, there’s no money. More EU? Is he absolutely flipping crazy?
Reopening Brexit is a recipe for trouble, as Monday showed. The Left lost its mind over Europe years ago. In the 1970s, the EU was seen by much of the Left as a capitalist club to be avoided. Now it’s presented as the answer to every problem we face. Newsflash: it isn’t. Today, it’s got massive problems of its own. Just look at Germany and France.
Burnham just embarrassed himself by claiming that Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum, saying he was given a “clear answer” that it did. We’re still waiting for the evidence to back that up. He’s also insulted Brexit voters, implying they’re dupes. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch nailed him, saying: “We all remember that in 2018, the head of MI5 said that there was no evidence that Russia had influenced the EU referendum result.”
Burnham handed Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage an opportunity to nail him to the wall, and they took it. Johnson said the PM’s “lies have come back to him” while Farage said: “The Prime Minister is a liar.”
Burnham did another Brexit flip-flop by telling MPs that “no one in the House today is proposing a referendum”, before saying the country had to “look at the options”. It’s embarrassing.
Get the latest politics news straight to your phone Join us on WhatsApp
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
The PM is blatantly reopening a debate he promised Makerfield voters would remain closed. During the by-election, Burnham said Britain would be stuck in a “permanent rut” if it kept re-running Brexit arguments. He was right. Now he’s fallen into that rut, and could be permanently stuck there.
He said one thing to Makerfield voters when it suited him, but is now sending different messages to the Green Party and Lib Dem voters he’s trying to woo ahead of a possible snap election.
In doing so, a man who promised a “new path which brings the country back together” has reopened the most divisive political debate of the millennium. For a nice guy, he’s really stirring things up. And this is only the start of the chaos.
Andy Burnham Just Showed What He’s Made Of – and Britain Faces a New Wave of Political Uncertainty
Andy Burnham has once again placed himself at the centre of Britain’s increasingly heated political debate. His recent interventions on Brexit, the country’s relationship with the European Union and the future direction of the Labour movement have raised questions about what he wants to achieve and how far he is prepared to go to change the political landscape.
For supporters, Burnham’s willingness to challenge the existing approach to Brexit represents an attempt to confront problems that have remained unresolved for years. For critics, reopening such a divisive debate risks creating fresh uncertainty when households and businesses are already dealing with economic pressures, strained public services and a lack of confidence in political leadership.
The result is a growing argument over whether Britain should pursue a closer relationship with Europe or concentrate on making its existing arrangements work more effectively.
Burnham’s Brexit Intervention Reopens Old Wounds
Brexit remains one of the most divisive questions in modern British politics. Although the United Kingdom formally left the European Union in 2020, arguments about trade, immigration, regulation and national sovereignty have continued to influence political decisions.
Burnham has argued that the current relationship with the EU should not be treated as untouchable. He has called for a more serious discussion about the economic consequences of Brexit and the possibilities for closer cooperation with European partners.
His position does not automatically mean that Britain is about to rejoin the EU. Instead, the debate encompasses a range of possible arrangements, from improving the existing trade relationship to exploring deeper cooperation in selected areas. Full membership would be a far more complicated undertaking, requiring negotiations with EU institutions and all member states.
Nevertheless, even discussing these possibilities has consequences for the political atmosphere. Brexit was presented by its supporters as a way to restore control over British laws, borders and economic policy. For many opponents, meanwhile, leaving the bloc created new barriers and reduced opportunities that have yet to be fully addressed.
Burnham’s intervention therefore touches a sensitive question: should the country reconsider the choices made in the past, or would doing so risk prolonging a dispute that voters and politicians have struggled to resolve?
Why Critics Are Warning About More Uncertainty
The central criticism of Burnham’s approach is that changing Britain’s relationship with Europe could create another period of uncertainty. Businesses need to understand the rules under which they operate, investors look for predictable policy and workers want confidence that political decisions will not suddenly alter their opportunities.
If the government signals that major changes to trade arrangements may be coming, companies could face questions about future regulation, customs procedures and access to European markets. The scale of any disruption would depend on the specific proposals, the timetable and whether negotiations produced a clear agreement.
Critics also argue that Britain has urgent domestic problems that should not be overshadowed by another prolonged Brexit argument. The cost of living, housing shortages, public-service pressures, weak productivity and regional inequality all require sustained attention.
From this perspective, political leaders should demonstrate how any proposed European reset would improve everyday life. General promises of stronger growth or better cooperation are unlikely to satisfy people who want to know whether their bills, wages, employment prospects and local services would improve.
Supporters of Burnham’s approach counter that these domestic problems cannot be separated from the country’s economic relationships. If closer cooperation with Europe could reduce barriers for exporters, support investment or make it easier for businesses to recruit and operate, they argue, the potential benefits deserve serious examination.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about whether Brexit was right or wrong. It is also about the costs of changing course, the costs of maintaining the status quo and the evidence required to compare the two.