Andy Burnham has maintained the public’s approval through his first 100 days as the UK’s PM – that’s unheard of these days

🔍 WHY THIS STORY MATTERS
Burnham’s early popularity gives his government political room for reform, but delivery, funding and difficult policy choices will determine whether that advantage survives.

KEY TAKEAWAYS...

● Burnham has used his first 100 days to challenge recent economic orthodoxy, promote devolution and pursue a major council housebuilding programme.

● His government remains constrained by fiscal rules and higher defence commitments, limiting the money available for public services and investment.

● Brexit is returning to the political agenda, with Burnham advocating a new discussion about Britain’s long-term relationship with the EU.

● Burnham retains positive personal ratings after 100 days, although his popularity has declined from its August level.

I n his first 100 days in office, Andy Burnham has challenged the economic consensus shared by UK governments in recent decades and set up a prime ministerial office outside London with a remit to rewire the state and devolve power. He has also reopened the debate on Brexit and set in motion the biggest social house-building programme since the post-war period.

These are big moves for the prime minister, not unlike those proposed in the king’s speech a month after the 1945 Labour landslide. Then, the Attlee government set out a blueprint focused on nationalising key industries, creating a universal health service and expanding social security.

In some ways, the political bar today is not set very high. Burnham has been preceded by six prime ministers in ten years: Theresa May (1,106 days), constantly undermined by her own MPs; Boris Johnson (1,140 days), destroyed by his own dishonesty; Liz Truss (49 days), now a byword for policy disaster; Rishi Sunak (619 days), the leader behind the biggest Tory electoral defeat ever; and Keir Starmer (717 days), who conjured broad unpopularity out of a landslide election victory.

Burnham’s first task in office was therefore simply to look like he could stay there. His second task was to build upon one of the largest parliamentary majorities (currently 158) in the past century. Doing so has meant making big moves.

The most potent message that voters have sent to all politicians and parties is that they want to see tangible change. They are tired of austerity in its various versions; of relentless national decline; of the political state appearing to be incapable of delivering anything worthwhile; of having to live with the bad decisions of the past; and of identikit politicians who seem devoid of imagination.

In his first speech as prime minister in Downing Street on July 20, Burnham proposed “making this moment a circuit-breaker for Britain, bringing forward the biggest changes in the last 40 years.” Not business as usual.

In his speech to the Labour party conference in September, Burnham spelled out what he meant by change. He told delegates that Britain had been on the “wrong path” for years, citing deindustrialisation, deregulation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. He said this had created a country “run for vested interests” rather than in the public interest, stating that he was ready to do things his predecessors would not.

In that short section of the speech, he separated himself from both the policies and the stylistics of his six predecessors. First, in speaking about the past 40 years he was clearly referring to an era in which every policy, need and sentiment has had to defer to the rationale of the market. To challenge neoliberal doctrine in these times is in itself an act of radicalism.

Second, by stating openly that Brexit was an economic disaster he distanced himself from the isolationist fantasy to which UK prime ministers have felt forced to adhere since 2016. In a world of dangerously unreliable geopolitical blocs, renegotiating the settlement with European neighbours would point to a new relationship with reality.

Third, references in the same speech to “power held in too few hands” and the promise of a “new politics” speak to the possibility of decentralised state power. They also signal a fairer method of determining who will wield it. Such boldness has not marked the first 100 days of any British prime minister since Margaret Thatcher in 1979. Back then, proposals to sell off nationalised industries, break trade union power and give the market free rein within her first 100 days laid the groundwork for what would become Thatcherism.

The looming threats

Of course, the power to enact these big changes is not entirely in Burnham’s hands. In agreeing to stay within the fiscal rules established by its predecessors, as well as to meet the Nato target for defence spending, the new government is extremely constrained in how much money it can invest in public services.

The bond markets, traditionally hostile to the risk they perceive around policies shaped by social justice, stand as a threat to radicalism. The right-wing press has lost no time in casting Burnham as (alternately) incompetent and dangerous.

And at his heels, in the shape of Reform UK, is a mega-funded populist party. Its reputation and poll ratings are currently diminished, but it is constantly waiting in the wings to exploit any deflation of public mood.

That said, after 100 days Burnham remains the most popular party leader in the UK. His 46% approval rating comfortably beats those of Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch (33%), Reform’s Nigel Farage (25%) and Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats (24%). This is the longest period in nearly ten years that a prime minister has gone without recording a negative net favourability rating. The British electorate is not used to feeling approval. Let’s see if it lasts.

🔮 WHAT MATTERS NEXT...

🎯 WHAT TO WATCH NEXT:

● Whether the government can translate its housing ambition into construction at scale as councils face financing and borrowing constraints, with additional housing support under discussion.

● How Burnham develops the UK-EU relationship after arguing that the existing settlement is “not good enough”, while ruling out rejoining during this parliament.

● Whether fiscal rules and defence commitments leave sufficient room to finance the public-service and economic reforms underpinning Burnham’s programme.

● Whether Burnham can preserve positive personal ratings as attention shifts from early announcements towards implementation and measurable results.

🎯 MOST LIKELY OUTCOME:

● If fiscal constraints persist, the government’s political position is likely to depend increasingly on demonstrating visible progress from reforms that do not require large immediate increases in spending.

🎯 WHAT COULD CHANGE THE PICTURE:

● A deterioration in economic conditions, failure to deliver housing and public-service improvements, or intensified disagreement over Britain’s EU relationship could narrow Burnham’s room for manoeuvre.

🎯 WHY THIS MATTERS:

● Burnham’s early political capital gives him unusual scope to challenge established policy, but its durability will depend on whether ambitious promises become tangible improvements.

GOING FURTHER

• How has Andy Burnham used his first 100 days in power? | The Guardian

• Andy Burnham promises ‘serious dialogue’ over UK’s relationship with EU | The Guardian

• Brexit deal is not good enough for British public, says Andy Burnham | The Guardian

• From Brexit to electoral reform: key takeaways from Andy Burnham’s conference speech | The Guardian

• Burnham blames Brexit and Thatcher for ‘wrong turns’ in first Commons speech as PM | The Guardian

• Andy Burnham vows to set up No 10 North as ‘nerve centre of rewired Britain’ | The Guardian

• Labour MPs urge chancellor to forgive councils' debt to boost house building | Sky News

• Is Nigel Farage shifting from Reform's greatest asset to polling liability? | Sky News

Sources:

▪ This piece was originally published in The Conversation and re-published in Europeans TODAY on 28 October 2026. | The author writes in a personal capacity.

▪ Cover: Dreamstime/KORWEN.