It took barely a summer for the gloss to start to come off the Keir Starmer government. The news agenda was quickly defined by gloomy warnings that things would get worse, restrictions to the winter fuel allowance and a row over free clothes and concert tickets. Just a few months into the new Labour government, voters in focus groups were already expressing confusion about what Starmer’s aims actually were and frustration that they had not yet seen the improvements they were promised.
Andy Burnham is determined to learn from these mistakes. The opening weeks of his premiership have seen a flurry of announcements – on devolution, the cost of living crisis, rough sleeping, social care, technical education and much more. This has not just prevented the communications vacuum that caused Starmer to lose the media narrative before he’d even properly started; it has given voters, who had no general election in which to get to know their new Prime Minister, a sense of who Burnham is and what he is trying achieve.
And there’s some good news. New research from Queen Mary University of London finds that the public are broadly supportive of Burnham’s aims. Polling of 1,200 British adults on 31 July asked respondents to look at ten policy objectives associated with Burnham’s government and select the three they thought should be priorities. The results? The cost of living was the overwhelming winner, with 70 per cent thinking it a priority. Regional growth came second, on 52 per cent, and social care close behind on 49 per cent.
“Arguably the three biggest policy pitches in Burnham’s first fortnight in power were about social care, devolution-driven growth, and the cost of living – and people broadly agree with prioritising ambitious targets in these areas,” said Dr Matthew Barnfield, who led the research. Burnham’s aims line up perfectly – in particular his promise for measures to provide “breathing space” for struggling households, his big announcement on granting more powers to mayors and his call for a NHS-style social care system that is free at the point of use.
Even more promisingly, 93 per cent of respondents picked at least one of these areas as a priority. That view was broadly shared by supporters of all parties, especially on the cost of living – although the research notes that “Reform UK voters were also much more likely than other parties to freely add in reforming/limiting immigration or asylum as an ‘other’ policy objective that should be prioritised.” Burnham, then, is clearly focusing on what the public want. The challenge is whether he can actually achieve it.
And here, voters are more doubtful. Asked to assess the timeframe within which each objective could be delivered, all three of the top priority areas were considered out of reach before the next election by an overwhelming majority. “After the next election (4-9 years)” was thought much more realistic, followed by “long term (10+ years)” and “never”. For both the cost of living (17 per cent versus 22 per cent) and social care (13 per cent versus 15 per cent), respondents were more likely to think they would “never” be achieved than hope they could be delivered by the next election.
Nor was this pessimism confined to these policy areas. From completing a mass council housebuilding project to bringing essential services under public control, introducing proportional representation to reaching net zero, the consensus was Burnham will need more time than the three years he has until an election must be called – at least another full parliament, possibly more. (Interestingly, people were more likely to think ending rough sleeping could never be achieved than net zero.) Unfortunately, they also lack faith he will have that time. Asked how long Burnham would be prime minister, the median view was up to three years. That was the case regardless of voting intention. In other words, expectations of him winning the next election are not high.
“It may be no coincidence that the public doubts he can achieve these and other targets, while tending to think he will only remain in power until roughly the time of the next election,” Barnfield pointed out. He noted the polling also showed that 65 per cent agreed – with astute self-awareness – with the statement that “Voters are too impatient – they do not give politicians enough time to deliver change”. “If voters are, as those polled seem to think, impatient for change, Burnham may face difficulty at the next election should he fail to deliver on these big targets before then.”
This mismatch between expectations and what was realistically achievable was toxic for Burnham’s predecessor. Barnfield continued: “Under Keir Starmer, our research showed that the public expected improvements delivered in key public services within just a few years, even though they were willing to accept that achievement of some of his ‘missions’ might take much longer.” He suggested Burnham might have to balance the delivery of noticeable improvements to people’s lives in the short term with the pursuit of his “loftier long-term goals”.
I remember sitting in on a focus group in the Kent constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey just over 100 days after Starmer became prime minister. The group had all voted Labour in July 2024. Their disillusionment and despair barely three months later was stark. It was clear that many had expected to see progress even after so little time, and therefore felt not just despondent but betrayed. Half had already completely lost faith with the new government – most thought Labour had abandoned people like them and that those in charge did not fully grasp their struggles.
This is the fate Burnham must find a way to avoid. The policy areas he has highlighted may be the right ones to connect with the public, but they are also fiendishly difficult to deliver or even make noticeable progress on before he once against faces voters at the polls. Does he have a chance? The Queen Mary University London polling suggests a tentative yes. But only if he can find a way to make at least some progress before voters are asked to judge whether his achievements match up with his promises.
[Further reading: Restore voters can’t stomach Nigel Farage]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentNo but he might have to go into coalition with the LibDems………aarrghh!
Plus the Greens. Now that would be a toxic mix.
A mere three things to do. Fix social care which is as big a project as fixing the NHS in 1948 when we had all the doctors, nurses and hospitals we needed. Today we have less than half the resources required for social care. The cost of living is more difficult because everyone thinks they are having a hard time. I suggest the Statistics Office determine a minimum income level for all workers earning less than £50,000 a year and work from there. That will take longer than three years.Regional Growth is dependent on infrastructure and a better internet system. That takes time and faster trains between London and Birmingham are not enough. The Oxford, Cambridge, London triangle is the best place to start as it will affect a large proportion of the population. Better Train services in the North could be started and increased bus services at strategic times could improve employment opportunities. My advice is to legislate for a form of PR similar to the one use by the Welsh Senate in May 2026. It is based on multiple constituencies but is better than FPTP in every respect. That reduces the possibility that Farage can get a majority on 30% of the vote and increases the possibility that Labour can remain in office after 2029.
We must never forget that the Tories are the reason we are where we are. It cannot be repeated to often. How they can bear to show their vacant, gloating faces in public, criticising Labour for their genuine efforts to undo the chaos they created just shows what sort of people they are. And their ‘leader’, she’s taken over from Thatcher as the arrogant, supercilious face I cannot bear to look at.