Burnham could be even worse than Starmer – critics

Britain’s new Prime Minister Andy Burnham could prove an even more damaging leader than his predecessor Sir Keir Starmer, according to historian David Starkey and journalist Michael Murphy, who argue Burnham combines Starmer’s left-wing policies with a far more polished populist style that could make his globalist agenda harder to resist.

The pair described Burnham as a politician driven by slogans rather than substance, accusing him of offering feel-good rhetoric while failing to explain how he would tackle Britain’s deep economic and social problems. Murphy dismissed Burnham as “a man whose mind is brimming with platitudes and slogans”, while Starkey portrayed him as a political performer who presents himself as the embodiment of ordinary people without offering meaningful policy solutions.

Murphy argued Burnham is “more dangerous than Starmer” precisely because he appears to believe his own message. Unlike Starmer, who often came across as hesitant and uncomfortable selling Labour’s policies, Burnham projects confidence and optimism that Murphy warned could make him a far more effective salesman for the same political agenda. “Burnham sort of skips along… and will tell us that it’s all okay. I think that’s a very dangerous temperament to have as a leader,” he said.

The commentators also questioned Burnham’s democratic legitimacy, noting he became prime minister through an internal Labour leadership contest rather than a general election. They argued he has yet to explain how he intends to fund ambitious spending promises, accusing him of focusing on redistribution instead of generating economic growth.

Burnham’s record as Mayor of Greater Manchester was also slammed. Murphy said Burnham promised to build 10,000 council homes but had delivered only a fraction of that target, while rough sleeping had returned to levels seen before he pledged to eliminate it. He argued Burnham has built a reputation on making ambitious promises that fail to materialise once confronted by the realities of governing.

The discussion also criticised Burnham’s choice of advisers, pointing to the expected appointment of former Hope Not Hate campaign director Matthew McGregor to a senior Downing Street role. Starkey argued the move suggested Burnham’s government would continue relying on organisations associated with aggressively targeting political opponents rather than ushering in the fresh start promised during his leadership campaign.

On policy, both speakers accused Burnham of relying on nostalgia for “Old Labour” while offering little detail on how he would restore Britain’s industrial base or reduce energy costs. They argued his speeches contain repeated references to public ownership and state intervention but little evidence of a practical strategy capable of reversing Britain’s economic decline.

Foreign affairs were identified as another potential weakness. Murphy argued Burnham had shown little evidence that he understands the increasingly volatile geopolitical environment, while Starkey suggested the new prime minister risked allowing domestic political considerations to shape Britain’s international policy.

Looking ahead, the pair predicted Burnham’s years running Greater Manchester would come under far greater scrutiny now that he occupies Downing Street, particularly his oversight of policing and other contentious issues during his tenure as mayor. Murphy said the transition to national leadership would expose Burnham to a level of accountability he had not previously faced, warning that “the buck will ultimately stop with him.”