6 Times Andy Burnham Shamelessly Flip-Flopped – Number 3 Shows Some Real Brass Neck
Andy Burnham has built a reputation as one of the most recognisable figures in British politics. For years, he has presented himself as a politician who understands ordinary voters, speaks for the North and is prepared to challenge the Westminster establishment. His image as a straight-talking, northern Labour politician has helped him develop a political identity that is considerably different from that of many other senior Labour figures.
Yet there is another side to Burnham’s political career that critics increasingly like to highlight: his apparent ability to change position when circumstances change.
Political politicians inevitably change their minds. Circumstances change, new evidence emerges and parties are forced to respond to events that nobody could have predicted. Changing a policy position is not automatically hypocrisy. The problem begins when a politician appears to demand one thing from others while quietly adopting a completely different position when it becomes personally or politically convenient.
That is why Burnham’s critics have assembled a long list of moments they regard as examples of political U-turns. Some are more convincing than others, but together they create an interesting picture of a politician who has repeatedly adapted his message to the political environment around him.
Here are six of the most striking examples.
1. His changing relationship with Labour’s left
Perhaps the most obvious example is Burnham’s complicated relationship with the Labour left.
Burnham has never fitted comfortably into one simple ideological category. He has presented himself at different times as a moderate, a soft-left politician and a champion of traditional Labour values. During the leadership contests that followed Labour’s electoral defeats, he attempted to position himself as a candidate capable of bringing different sections of the party together.
That balancing act has sometimes produced accusations of inconsistency.
Burnham has been willing to appeal to Labour’s left-wing membership when doing so was politically useful, while also trying to reassure more moderate voters that he could be an electorally credible leader.
His critics argue that this has allowed him to occupy whichever political territory appears most attractive at the time.
Supporters would describe it differently. They would say Burnham understands that Labour is a broad coalition and that a successful leader must be capable of speaking to people with different political priorities.
Either way, his positioning has changed considerably over the years.
2. His attitude towards the Labour leadership
Burnham’s relationship with Labour’s leadership has also provided plenty of material for his critics.
He has repeatedly presented himself as a loyal Labour figure while simultaneously making it clear that he has ambitions beyond his current position. His political career has included multiple attempts to position himself for the leadership, and his public interventions have often increased whenever Labour’s leadership has appeared vulnerable.
That has led opponents to question whether his criticism is motivated primarily by principle or political opportunity.
When a leader is popular, Burnham can appear supportive and constructive. When a leader is struggling, however, he can become considerably more outspoken.
This is a familiar feature of politics, but Burnham’s critics argue that he has perfected it.
The accusation is straightforward: he does not necessarily change his political beliefs; instead, he changes how loudly he expresses them depending on who holds power.
That distinction matters because it allows a politician to maintain an image of consistency while changing political direction whenever necessary.
3. The Manchester-to-Westminster question
This is where the accusations of “brass neck” become particularly powerful.
Burnham spent years building his political identity as the champion of Greater Manchester. He became closely associated with regional government, devolution and the idea that political power should be moved away from Westminster and closer to local communities.
His position as Greater Manchester mayor became central to his public image.
Yet the temptation of returning to Westminster and pursuing national political power has never disappeared.
Critics therefore ask an uncomfortable question: if local government and regional leadership are so important, why abandon the mayoral role when an opportunity to return to Parliament presents itself?
From Burnham’s perspective, there is an obvious answer. A politician who believes he can influence the entire country may reasonably decide that Westminster offers a bigger platform.
But critics see something else.
They see a politician who spent years telling the public that Greater Manchester needed strong local leadership before deciding that his own national ambitions were more important.
That is why this issue has attracted accusations of hypocrisy.
The strongest criticism is not that Burnham is ambitious. There is nothing unusual about a politician wanting to become Prime Minister. The criticism is that his carefully constructed image as the champion of Greater Manchester can appear difficult to reconcile with decisions driven by national political ambition.
That contradiction is likely to remain attached to his reputation for some time.
4. His changing tone towards Keir Starmer
Burnham’s relationship with Keir Starmer provides another fascinating example.
At different points, Burnham has praised aspects of Labour’s direction while also warning that the party risks losing voters if it fails to change course.
His criticism has become particularly noticeable whenever Labour’s political difficulties have increased.
To supporters, this is exactly what an independent-minded politician should do. A senior Labour figure should be willing to tell the leadership when something is going wrong.
But opponents see something more calculated.
They argue that Burnham has been careful to avoid completely destroying his relationship with the Labour leadership while simultaneously presenting himself as an alternative.
It is a politically useful position.
He can say that he wants Labour to succeed while suggesting that Labour would perform better under different leadership.
That allows him to appeal to dissatisfied Labour members without appearing openly disloyal.
It also keeps the door open.
If Starmer survives, Burnham can remain a prominent Labour figure. If Starmer falls, Burnham can present himself as the politician who saw the problem coming.
Either way, he benefits.
5. His changing approach to Westminster
Burnham’s political career has also produced an apparent contradiction over Westminster itself.
For years, one of the central themes of his political identity has been criticism of excessive centralisation. He has repeatedly argued that decisions affecting communities should be taken closer to those communities.
Yet Westminster remains the ultimate prize for any politician seeking national power.
There is nothing inherently contradictory about wanting stronger local government while also wanting national political office. In fact, someone could