Energy On energy, Burnham found himself considering another reversal of Labour's promise to rule out new North Sea oil and gas exploration licenses. The issue primarily concerns Rosebank and Jackdaw, two fields inherited from previous approvals by the Starmer government, but for which Labour's new policy should have prevented new permits. Burnham instead considered authorizing their development, arguing the need to reduce energy costs and limit dependence on imports, as requested by Washington. Pensions On June 10, during the election campaign in Makerfield, Burnham said that the women of WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality) , the group fighting for compensation for women born in the 1950s who were penalized by changes to the retirement age, "deserved compensation," opening the door to a public outlay of around £11 billion. The next day, his staff toned down those words, clarifying that this was not a spending commitment. Shortly thereafter, Burnham ruled out financial compensation, proposing other forms of support instead. One day: billions to repair an injustice; the next: no compensation. Tax devolution Here, the backtracking takes on a paradoxical form. Burnham presented the transfer of a portion of tax revenues to regional mayors as "the greatest transfer of power from Westminster" in a generation. But when Conservative Ben Houchen, mayor of the Tees Valley, argued that he wanted to use those resources to return money to local taxpayers, Burnham immediately clarified that the plan was not intended to transform mayors into "mini treasury ministers" or allow them to rewrite national fiscal policy. The problem is that the very idea of returning fiscal power to the local authorities had been used by Burnham to present his devolution as a break with Westminster's centralism. However, when that power risks being exercised by a Conservative mayor against the political interests of the central government, devolution suddenly faces limits. European Union Even on Europe, Burnham the candidate quickly became another Burnham. In September 2025, he said he wanted to see the United Kingdom rejoin the European Union. In May, while preparing his candidacy for Makerfield, he shifted focus, speaking of a "long-term case" for rejoining . As prime minister, we arrived at no rejoining the Union, no return to the single market, and no free movement (even a U-turn on Starmer and Reeves's stance, who had spoken of realigning the single market and pursued policies to reintegrate UK regulations with EU ones). Political funding In May, Burnham had argued in favor of a £500,000 cap on individual donations to political parties, adding that the limit should be gradually reduced. However, he withdrew his support for the amendment that would have introduced that cap into the new electoral law because the unions didn't like it. Incompetence or bad faith? The list is significant: not just scaled-down campaign promises, but positions shifting depending on the audience. Voters, markets, unions, local administrators: each with a different version of the same policy. And in just a month, the problem is no longer understanding Burnham's true stance, but establishing whether one exists at all. It took Starmer two years to bridge the gap between the candidate promising change and the prime minister forced to adjust his promises based on the cash flow. And he had some mitigating factors, at least: he had come to power after 14 years of Conservative governments, inheriting a financial situation he couldn't fully understand before the election, and had had to govern through global crises that no campaign platform could have foreseen. Burnham didn't. He didn't promise the impossible because he was ignorant of reality: he promised it knowing what it was.  The issue, then, isn't just the backtracking, but how Burnham came to power. Because those promises were the instrument through which he built his own alternative to Starmer. 2/

In a few words, all @YvetteCooperMP has to say about @Keir_Starmer to make him look bad is that he expected Ministers to do their actual jobs. Which, I suppose, tells us rather more about Cooper and the coup enablers than it does about Starmer. Ministers are not there simply to carry problems into No. 10 and wait for the Prime Minister to solve them. They are appointed, given departments, staff, budgets and considerable salaries precisely to find solutions, make decisions and take responsibility for delivering them. A Prime Minister asking his Ministers, “What are you going to do about it?” is not evidence of poor leadership. It is quite literally the job description.

Of course Andy Burnham is going to soar in the opinion polls. The Boris Johnson lesson is simple: play the clown, become the influencer, announce a new promise every day, keep the media focused on the spectacle, and people will love it. It is an effective strategy in a world increasingly shaped by TikTok politics, where performance is rewarded far more than competence - until reality eventually catches up. What never ceases to amaze me is that, after the Brexit fantasy and after Johnson's circus collapsed against the wall of Covid, when no amount of performance could conceal incompetence, people still fall for the same formula. But what strikes me even more is not what people believe. It is what they never stop to ask. Why is Britain suddenly no longer being "Islamised"? Why has Reform become the target while Labour is no longer the main enemy? Why are so many well-known right-wing and far-right accounts on X no longer attacking the government, with some even praising policies they would have denounced as authoritarian under Starmer? The most revealing part of any information campaign is often not the narrative itself. It is the questions people have stopped asking.