In a recent focus group discussion held on Thursday night, geography teacher Neil expressed strong support for Andy Burnham, stating, “He’s offering something that hasn’t been seen from politicians in a long time. He feels like one of us.” Neil’s sentiment was echoed by other participants, many of whom had shifted their support to different parties during Keir Starmer’s leadership. This group of Labour voters, looking ahead to the 2024 elections, displayed an unusually positive response to Burnham, reminiscent of the favorable reception Boris Johnson received during the peak of the Covid vaccination campaign.
Megan, a talent manager, remarked, “He seems more relatable to those from working-class backgrounds.” Another participant, Simran, a teacher, noted, “In the brief time he has been in position, he has outperformed others.” Linda, who works in banking, added, “He comes across as someone who genuinely cares for the public, unlike his predecessors.”
This admiration for Burnham sharply contrasts with the views on Starmer, whom contracts manager Craig criticized as “a shambles from the time he took office until he stepped down.” The group unanimously agreed that retaining the former Prime Minister would not have been beneficial.
During the discussion, it became clear that Labour’s recent conference had resonated with attendees. Most participants reported having absorbed key points from Burnham’s speech and expressed approval of what they heard. The group responded positively to an emotional moment in which Burnham spoke about the loss of his father, appreciating his willingness to reveal his vulnerability.
When examining Burnham’s commitment to reassess the UK’s relationship with the EU, participants largely agreed that Brexit had been a significant mistake. While many had voted to remain, even Darren, who supported Leave, felt misled: “We were promised that we could stand on our own, but that hasn’t materialized.” The group expressed greater concern over feelings of isolation in a precarious global landscape rather than the economic ramifications of Brexit.
However, when discussing the specifics of potentially rejoining the EU, participants were more hesitant. While some believed rejoining under previous terms would be advantageous, there was apprehension that Britain might end up with a less favorable deal. Neil expressed his concerns, stating, “I voted remain, but we’d be at a disadvantage if we rejoined… What’s in it for them?” Others shared mixed feelings about the potential outcomes, indicating that Burnham’s greatest challenge may lie in addressing the details rather than the overarching principle.
Another contentious issue arose regarding Burnham’s proposal to reform the triple lock to fund social care. The discussion revealed two key insights. First, participants felt that wage increases were less critical than other aspects of the lock, with many believing their salaries have not kept pace with inflation, suggesting pensioners would not be adversely affected. Linda remarked, “My salary hasn’t increased significantly.”
Second, reforming social care emerged as a pressing concern. Tariq, who is in the pharmaceutical sector, highlighted that “sometimes difficult choices must be made.” However, the mood shifted when a clip of Unite leader Sharon Graham opposing the reform was played. This led some participants to express concerns about “taking from pensioners,” while others suggested that higher earners should contribute more.
Further skepticism arose after reviewing an analysis by former Institute for Fiscal Studies chief Paul Johnson, which indicated that reforming the triple lock would not sufficiently fund a national care service in the short term, necessitating tax increases. None of the participants were willing to accept higher taxes for care services. Simran stated, “If income tax rises any further, people will consider relocating.” Joanne, a dental professional, added, “I feel selfish, but I can’t afford to pay more taxes… people are struggling to maintain a decent standard of living.”
This led to broader discussions about the national budget, with concerns that, despite some incremental improvements from Burnham, it might simply be a case of “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” as Linda put it.
If this focus group is representative, Burnham is successfully engaging the electorate that propelled Labour to victory in 2024, securing a level of support that Starmer was unable to achieve. However, significant questions remain regarding the specifics of his proposals. While Burnham may take comfort from the positive reception of his recent speech, he must remain vigilant in the ongoing battle for public support regarding his policies.
(Names of participants have been changed)
Luke Tryl serves as the UK director for the research organization More in Common.
