My A-Level politics teacher told a story about Harold Wilson that I so wanted to be accurate, I haven’t dared check its provenance until just now. Happily, it’s true: the pipe which was always to be found clamped between the prime ministerial teeth or being brandished expressively in his hand was largely a prop. In private, away from the cameras, he preferred cigars.
That famous pipe not only provided working class credentials to a politician whose first career was in dusty academia, fiddling with it also helped him control his nerves. Remarkably, given modern sensibilities, he would fill and puff away on the thing during television interviews and so convey an image of approachable avuncularity.
Andy Burnham doesn’t have a pipe, but the first major achievement of his premiership is the successful establishment of both working class credentials and approachable avuncularity. And unlike Wilson, his are almost certainly not confected. This may well prove to be the key to seeing off the threats posed by Nigel Farage and, increasingly, Kemi Badenoch.
It is easy to pooh-pooh the prioritisation of style over substance but, as Wilson’s story shows, it is nothing new and is more relevant now than ever. Consider, for example, the case of Ed Miliband, whose appointment as Foreign Secretary constituted the second biggest surprise of Burnham’s first Cabinet.
Despite his ridiculous tabloid nickname, “Red Ed” is a ruthless ideologue. Driven and fearless, he has survived years of hysterical attacks from right-wing media – including an unconscionable assault upon the reputation of his dead, war hero father – and dashed his own brother on the rocks of his political ambition.
For much of the British public, however, he remains haunted by a bacon sandwich he struggled to eat decorously in unfortunate proximity to press photographers and a passing but undeniable resemblance to Wallace of Wallace and Gromit fame. The gulf, in other words, between the perception and the reality of Miliband the politician is enormous and, it has transpired, impossible to close.
Keir Starmer is (or was) a victim of the same curse. Like Miliband, he has a “weedy” voice and a set of political skills at odds with the image he presents to the public. He was, in many ways, very lucky to rise to prominence when he did, first, as not-Corbyn and then as not-Johnson.
Defined in both cases by the men he was not, when the floor was finally his, he struggled to tell a convincing story of who he was and what he believed. In the end, this mattered more than his extraordinary successes sanitising the Labour Party and winning a general election by a landslide.
It’s also why Badenoch became progressively better at facing him during PMQs. Admittedly, the bar was on the floor when she started, but the arc of improvement was steep enough to send her rival Robert Jenrick scurrying for the cover of Reform, and was built largely on her own peculiar brand of authenticity. A charming performance at Starmer’s valedictory outing only served to highlight how charmless she normally is. But ignorance and cruelty have their fans, and Badenoch, who looks increasingly comfortable in her own skin, is clearly determined to fight Farage for them.
The latter’s pint glass is, like Harold Wilson’s pipe, gloriously inauthentic. When the photographers have packed up their cameras, he reportedly prefers expensive wines to utilitarian ales. And with Christopher Harborne’s secretly gifted £5 million, he can finally afford to pay for them himself.
And yet, the Reform UK leader remains one of the most effective negotiators of the gulf between perception and reality in British political history. More people are waking up to the fact that the approachable avuncularity he so carefully cultivates is a million miles away from the greed and preening petulance on display more recently. But it’s far too soon to write him off and, as Michael Crick wrote in these pages on Monday, he remains the biggest threat to Burnham’s political fortunes.
All of which explains why the most significant thing Burnham has done this week is to be Burnham. I last sat down with him properly four years ago and, during a long conversation in which his leadership ambitions were never far from the surface, was most struck by two things.
First, the contention that championing the cause of Hillsborough families and effecting real change in Manchester had cured him of self-diagnosed “imposter syndrome”. In contrast to the dithering and failure that characterised his Westminster career after Labour’s 2010 election defeat, he knows who he is now and will no longer try to mould himself into what he thinks a Westminster politician should be.
Second, and rather more improbably: buses. The cap he introduced on Mancunian fares, he told me during a conversation that took place next door to Parliament, “makes me happier than anyone here would understand”. It seemed a strange boast at the time but I get it now. Meaningful and measurable change to the lives and experiences of normal people is the metric by which Andy Burnham version 2.0 judges success. It’s why he has already announced the abolition of VAT on electricity bills and it’s why he has prioritised the end of rough sleeping.
And it’s why, with the sorry consequences of previously misplaced optimism still in my rear-view mirror, I not only believe that he really will endeavour to “rewire” the country, but also that he may succeed. Burnham is now a politician who is exactly as he appears. There is no pipe, no gulf between the perception of Andy Burnham and the reality. We’ve almost forgotten what that looks like.
Farage Is Totally Inauthentic. Burnham Really Can Beat Him
British politics has always been shaped not only by policies but also by personalities. Voters often make decisions based on whether they believe a politician understands their concerns, represents their values, and appears genuine. The headline “Farage Is Totally Inauthentic. Burnham Really Can Beat Him” reflects a growing debate about two very different political figures: Nigel Farage, known for his outspoken approach and anti-establishment image, and Andy Burnham, recognised for his regional leadership and focus on local communities.
The argument that Farage is “inauthentic” is a criticism frequently made by political opponents who question whether his public image matches his political record. Supporters of Farage, however, argue the opposite, claiming that he has built his reputation by speaking openly about issues that many traditional politicians avoid. The debate demonstrates how perceptions of authenticity have become central to modern elections.
Nigel Farage has spent decades presenting himself as a politician outside the traditional Westminster establishment. His supporters view him as someone who challenges political consensus and gives a voice to voters who feel ignored by mainstream parties. His role in the Brexit campaign strengthened his image as a politician willing to challenge powerful institutions.
However, critics argue that Farage’s political style relies heavily on campaigning rather than governing. They claim that his public image is built around opposition and criticism, while questions remain about how his movement would translate promises into practical government policies. For opponents, this creates a gap between political messaging and the realities of leadership.
Andy Burnham represents a very different model of politics. Rather than presenting himself as an outsider, Burnham has built his reputation through government experience and regional leadership. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, he has focused on issues such as transport, economic development, public services, and giving regions more control over decisions.
Supporters of Burnham argue that his experience demonstrates practical leadership. They believe he understands the problems facing ordinary communities because he has worked closely with local authorities, businesses, and residents rather than operating only within Westminster.
The contrast between Farage and Burnham therefore reflects a wider political question: do voters prefer politicians who challenge the system or those who demonstrate experience managing it?
Farage’s appeal has often come from his ability to communicate frustration. He has successfully connected with people who feel dissatisfied with immigration levels, economic pressures, and what they see as the failures of traditional parties. His supporters argue that his willingness to discuss controversial issues makes him appear honest and direct.
Critics respond that strong rhetoric alone is not enough to run a country. They argue that leadership requires detailed plans, compromise, and the ability to bring different groups together. From this perspective, Burnham’s more practical approach could appeal to voters looking for stability and delivery.
One of Burnham’s greatest strengths is his connection with communities outside London. British politics has increasingly focused on the divide between Westminster and the rest of the country. Many voters feel that national decisions do not always reflect local realities.
Burnham has attempted to position himself as a champion of regional Britain. His political message focuses on spreading investment, strengthening local economies, and giving communities a greater voice. Supporters believe this approach could challenge Farage’s appeal among voters who feel left behind.
However, defeating Farage would not be easy. Farage has built a strong personal brand over many years. His communication style is highly recognisable, and his supporters often view him as someone who says what others will not.
A political contest between Farage and Burnham would therefore involve more than competing policies. It would be a battle between two different political identities. Farage represents rebellion against the established system, while Burnham represents reform through experience and local government.
The question of authenticity would likely become a major theme. Farage’s critics argue that his outsider image is difficult to maintain after decades as a prominent political figure. They question whether someone who has spent so long in national politics can still present themselves as anti-establishment.
Farage’s supporters would reject this criticism. They argue that being experienced in politics does not prevent someone from challenging the system. They see him as a politician who has consistently maintained the same views despite opposition.
Burnham would face his own challenges. Critics may argue that his long career within Labour politics makes him part of the establishment he claims to challenge. They may question whether his approach represents genuine change or simply a different style of traditional politics.
This demonstrates that authenticity is not only about background but also about perception. Different groups of voters can look at the same politician and reach completely different conclusions.
The importance of leadership style has increased in modern elections. Social media, television interviews, and online campaigns mean voters are constantly exposed to politicians’ personalities. A leader’s ability to communicate effectively can sometimes become as important as their policy programme.
Farage has been particularly effective at creating memorable political moments and attracting media attention. Burnham’s strength has been building relationships through local leadership and presenting himself as a practical problem-solver.
A potential Burnham challenge against Farage would also depend on the wider political environment. Economic conditions, public concerns, and the performance of the government of the day would influence how voters respond. Political popularity can change quickly when circumstances change.
The key question would be whether voters prioritise anger and disruption or experience and delivery. Farage’s supporters may argue that Britain needs a major political shake-up. Burnham’s supporters may argue that the country needs effective leadership capable of delivering practical improvements.
Both approaches have advantages and weaknesses. Populist movements can highlight genuine public concerns, but they may face challenges when moving from protest into government. Experienced politicians may understand how institutions work, but they must convince voters that they can create meaningful change.
In the end, elections are rarely decided by one issue alone. Voters consider leadership, trust, economic conditions, personal connection, and whether they believe a politician can improve their lives.
The claim that “Farage is totally inauthentic” represents one side of a political argument, while the belief that “Burnham really can beat him” reflects confidence in a different style of leadership. Whether Burnham could defeat Farage would depend on his ability to persuade voters that practical experience is more valuable than political rebellion.
In conclusion, a contest between Nigel Farage and Andy Burnham would represent a clash between two competing visions of British politics. Farage’s strength lies in his ability to channel public frustration and challenge established thinking. Burnham’s strength lies in his experience, regional leadership, and emphasis on practical solutions.
The battle would ultimately be about trust. Voters would have to decide which type of politician they believe can best represent their future: the outsider promising dramatic change or the experienced leader promising steady transformation.