The next few months will reveal whether Andy Burnham aligns with Kemi Badenoch’s assertion that he is a leader overly concerned with popularity, which could hinder his ability to make difficult decisions. However, one aspect is evident from his initial performance during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs): he has a tendency to agree with others.
Burnham’s first response came in reply to a question from Ann Davies of Plaid Cymru, a political rival. He addressed her concerns about the early release of prisoners as though she were a supportive constituent, expressing empathy and reassurance.
By the conclusion of the session, Burnham had engaged patiently with MPs from nearly all parties, including Reform UK, and had pledged to hold multiple in-person meetings—some for himself and some for his colleagues.
While congeniality can be a valuable asset for new prime ministers, Burnham acknowledged that it is a limited political resource. He emphasized the importance of “problem solving rather than point scoring.”
As the session progressed, however, Burnham shifted to criticizing the economic legacy of past Conservative administrations by his third response. By the fourth, he referenced Liz Truss’s mini-budget, a recurring topic for Keir Starmer during PMQs.
This mention of Truss was particularly pertinent given Badenoch’s recent reshuffling of her shadow cabinet, appointing Andrew Griffith to the Treasury position. Griffith had previously defended Truss’s controversial fiscal decisions from 2022.
What did the 45 minutes of Burnham’s carefully measured responses, blended with a few sharper retorts, reveal? As is often the case with PMQs, it didn’t provide many clear conclusions; however, it did offer some intriguing insights.
Mastering the intricacies of PMQs is challenging, even for someone like Burnham, who has over a decade of experience in frontbench roles. He is unlikely to appear as tentative in future sessions. Similarly, Badenoch, facing a new adversary, was testing various lines of attack to identify which would resonate.
Many of her criticisms were rooted in a narrative suggesting that Burnham is overly accommodating, labeling him a “spendthrift prime minister who wants to say yes to everyone.”
Burnham did counter some of these claims, asserting that his early initiatives were financially responsible and emphasizing the need for fiscal prudence. However, he frequently chose to overlook the criticisms, focusing instead on his commitment to restoring the country’s “sense of positivity and possibility,” a promise that Badenoch dismissed as mere “vibes.”
Evaluating performances in PMQs comes with two important caveats. First, this arena is primarily the domain of seasoned politicians and political enthusiasts; the general public often only notices highlights through short clips on social media. Secondly, even a strong performance at PMQs yields limited advantages, primarily boosting morale among supporters. Although Badenoch received accolades for making things difficult for Starmer, her party continues to poll below the levels seen during their significant defeat in the 2024 election, reminiscent of William Hague—a Tory leader who enjoyed the Commons yet struggled for voter affection.
Nonetheless, Burnham and his party members should carefully analyze Badenoch’s lines of attack during PMQs. While his positive demeanor can only carry him so far, the looming fiscal challenges will require him to make some unpopular decisions more transparently.
For Badenoch, her first PMQs encounter with Burnham likely did not yield new insights but reinforced some uncomfortable lessons. Despite his prolonged absence from Parliament, Burnham demonstrated his ability to hold his ground both during PMQs and during an extensive session where he answered 125 questions over three hours.
Badenoch should also take note of the political axiom articulated by pollster Luke Tryl: given equal circumstances, voters tend to favor politicians who appear to enjoy their roles over those who seem burdened by them.
Admittedly, Burnham showed moments of nervousness and hesitation. However, he clearly enjoyed being at the dispatch box, relishing the attention and scrutiny—an aspect that Starmer has rarely managed to convey. These are indeed different times.
