Andy Burnham is set to enter 10 Downing Street on Monday (Image: Getty)
Has anyone seen Andy Burnham? He’s set to be Prime Minister in a matter of days, but he’s been dodging scrutiny like the plague.
Other than going for his daily run, he’s barely shown his face. He even banned journalists from asking questions at the one speech he gave.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
It doesn’t inspire confidence that he is a strong leader with a plan to turn our country around when he walks into Downing Street on Monday.
It all begs the question: who on earth is he? What does he stand for?
In reality it’s hard to pin down what Burnham believes. During his by-election he performed five U-turns in a matter of weeks – enough to make Keir Starmer look like a vision of stability.
So to work out what we can expect, Reform UK went back and looked at his record over his long political career.
What we found is that Andy Burnham has spent twenty years reaching for other people’s money.
These include a death tax on family homes, a graduate tax on young people getting their first pay cheque, a £14 billion raid on savings and investment, and new taxes on everything from your parking space at work to your weekend away.
In total, Andy Burnham has supported or not ruled out over £38billion of new or higher taxes.
Combined with the top of the £66 billion of tax rises already imposed by Rachel Reeves, Labour could hit more than £100 billion in higher taxes by the next election.
That amounts to £3,450 per family – eyewatering stuff. All at a time when people are struggling as bills and prices keep going up and up. And when the tax burden is at a post-war record.
Andy Burnham may have more charisma than Keir Starmer (that’s not hard!) but it’s clear he’s still the same establishment politician that believes we can tax our way to prosperity. He’s another career politician that thinks it’s acceptable to say one thing to the public at a general election and do another in practice.
That’s why Reform is launching our summer campaign to stop Burnham’s tax rises.
We are demanding that Andy Burnham rules out each of the 10 measures he has previously supported. He has no mandate to impose them on the British people.
Express readers can be reassured that Reform UK will always take the side of those who have worked hard and done the right thing.
Andy Burnham Has No Mandate to Impose Tax Rises on the British People
Andy Burnham is facing growing political pressure over the prospect of tax rises, with opponents arguing that the new Prime Minister has no direct electoral mandate to increase the tax burden on British households.
The dispute comes only months after Burnham entered Downing Street following an uncontested Labour leadership process. He became Labour leader on July 16, 2026, and Prime Minister four days later.
Since taking office, Burnham has repeatedly been asked whether he will rule out tax increases at the autumn Budget. He has declined to make such a blanket commitment, arguing that the Chancellor must be allowed to set out the government’s full financial plans.
That position has fuelled criticism from opposition parties and sections of the media, particularly because Burnham has announced a number of major policy ambitions since becoming Prime Minister.
The argument over his “mandate” is therefore closely connected to a broader question: how much freedom does a newly installed Prime Minister have to change taxation when he did not lead his party into the general election?
A Prime Minister Who Did Not Win a General Election as Leader
Burnham’s unusual route into Downing Street is at the heart of the controversy.
Keir Starmer resigned as Labour leader and Prime Minister in June 2026. Burnham subsequently returned to Parliament and entered the Labour leadership contest.
No rival ultimately secured enough nominations to force a membership ballot, leaving Burnham as the only candidate.
He therefore became Labour leader without a contested leadership election.
That distinction has allowed opponents to argue that he lacks a personal electoral mandate for major changes to taxation.
However, the constitutional position is different.
British voters elect MPs rather than directly electing the Prime Minister. The leader of the party capable of commanding a majority in the House of Commons normally becomes Prime Minister.
Burnham’s government therefore derives its parliamentary authority from Labour’s existing Commons majority, rather than from a separate nationwide vote for Burnham personally.
That distinction is central to the current political argument.
Burnham’s Tax Position
Burnham has repeatedly refused to guarantee that there will be no tax increases in the autumn Budget.
During an interview in August, he said that Britain was in a “challenging position” and that he would not be unrealistic about the country’s finances.
The Budget is scheduled for October 28, when Chancellor John Healey is expected to set out the government’s taxation and spending plans.
At his first Prime Minister’s Questions in September, Burnham faced further pressure from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch.
Asked to rule out tax rises, Burnham said he would not “write the Budget” at the dispatch box.
Instead, he argued that the Chancellor should present the government’s complete fiscal package.
He also said the decision to hold the Budget relatively early was designed to reduce prolonged speculation about the public finances.
For his critics, however, that response leaves an important question unanswered.
If the government intends to raise taxes, they argue, voters should know before the measures are introduced.
Labour’s Existing Tax Commitments
There is another important part of the debate.
The Burnham government has said it will honour Labour’s existing manifesto commitments on major taxes.
The House of Lords Library notes that Burnham has pledged to honour the Labour manifesto commitment not to increase income tax, National Insurance or VAT.
This means that the headline question about “tax rises” needs to be treated carefully.
A government can raise some taxes without increasing all major taxes.
It can also change thresholds, reliefs, exemptions or taxes on assets while maintaining a pledge concerning particular taxes on working people.
That is why the details of the Budget will matter far more than general speculation.
Why Opponents Say There Is a Mandate Problem
The strongest criticism comes from the argument that Burnham did not campaign at the general election as Labour’s national leader.
The Labour manifesto was therefore written and presented to voters under Starmer’s leadership.
Critics argue that Burnham should not be able to introduce major changes that were not clearly presented to the electorate before he became Prime Minister.
This argument is particularly strong when it concerns significant tax changes.
A large increase in taxation can affect household finances, business investment and consumer spending.
Opponents therefore say that major changes should be explicitly endorsed by voters rather than introduced after a change of Prime Minister.
The argument is political rather than a statement of Britain’s constitutional rules.
Under the UK’s parliamentary system, a change of governing-party leader does not automatically require a general election.
The new Prime Minister inherits the existing parliamentary majority unless and until an election or parliamentary developments change that position.
The Government’s Fiscal Argument
Burnham’s government has a different argument.
Ministers have inherited a difficult fiscal environment.
The House of Lords Library’s September assessment said borrowing costs were rising and could reduce the government’s headroom against its fiscal rules.
It also noted that the tax take is forecast to reach a historic high within five years and that public spending remains above pre-pandemic levels.
At the same time, Burnham has announced major ambitions.
He wants significant reforms to adult social care, has committed to higher defence spending and has pursued a major programme of devolution.
Each policy has potential financial implications.
The Prime Minister has argued that his government must balance these commitments with fiscal discipline.
That is one reason he has resisted making a blanket promise about every possible tax.
Social Care and the Cost of Reform
Adult social care is particularly important.
Burnham has made reform of the system one of the central priorities of his premiership.
He has spoken about improving pay and career opportunities for care workers and developing a more integrated national system.
However, major social-care reform costs money.
The precise funding model remains a major political question.
Some commentators have argued that tax increases may eventually be required if the government wants to deliver a substantially expanded service.
Others believe that greater efficiency, changes in public spending priorities and economic growth could provide some of the necessary resources.
The Government has not yet announced a comprehensive tax package specifically designed to finance the entire social-care programme.
That is another reason why the autumn Budget is attracting such attention.
Devolution Creates Another Tax Debate
Burnham has also moved quickly to expand the financial powers available to regional mayors.
In July, the Government announced that mayors would receive a share of income-tax receipts and business-rates revenues, allowing communities to benefit more directly from local economic growth.
The Government described this as one of the largest transfers of power from Westminster in a generation.
The House of Commons Library has stressed, however, that the arrangements do not currently amount to a new power for mayors to introduce higher national tax rates.
Existing mayoral taxation powers are relatively limited, mainly involving council-tax precepts, certain business-rate arrangements and, in specific circumstances, road charging.
Nevertheless, the devolution programme has fuelled speculation about whether regional governments could eventually gain greater control over taxation.
That possibility has become another point of political debate surrounding Burnham.
The Economic Pressure Behind the Argument
The tax controversy cannot be separated from Britain’s broader economic position.
The September fiscal assessment by the House of Lords Library highlighted the pressures created by government borrowing, debt and rising borrowing costs.
At the same time, the government wants to increase spending in areas such as defence and social care.
That leaves ministers with several broad options.
They can reduce spending elsewhere.
They can seek stronger economic growth.
They can borrow within the limits of their fiscal rules.
Or they can raise additional revenue.
The eventual Budget will show which combination the government chooses.
Opposition Parties Demand Clarity
The Conservatives have used the tax question to challenge Burnham’s credibility.
At PMQs, Kemi Badenoch questioned how the government would pay for its commitments and argued that financial markets were concerned about the direction of government spending.
Burnham rejected the comparison with Liz Truss’s government and argued that Labour was maintaining fiscal discipline.
He also blamed some of Britain’s economic vulnerability on the legacy inherited from the Conservatives.
Reform UK has gone further, arguing that Burnham’s policies could eventually require substantial additional taxation.
Tax Policy UK has independently identified dozens of possible tax reforms that could theoretically raise additional revenue, although its analysis does not represent government policy and explicitly treats potential tax increases as possibilities rather than announced measures.
The existence of possible tax options, however, should not be confused with a confirmed government decision.
What Does “Mandate” Actually Mean?
The political argument over Burnham’s mandate ultimately depends on how the word is defined.
If “mandate” means a personal endorsement from voters for Burnham’s specific tax programme, he does not have one.
He did not lead Labour into the most recent general election, and voters were not presented with a Burnham-led national manifesto.
If “mandate” means parliamentary authority to govern, the situation is different.
Burnham became Prime Minister because he became leader of the governing Labour Party, which holds a Commons majority.
His government therefore has the normal parliamentary authority to introduce legislation, including taxation measures, provided those measures pass through Parliament.
Whether voters believe particular tax increases are legitimate or politically justified is a separate question.
That will ultimately depend on political debate, parliamentary votes and, eventually, electoral accountability.
The Autumn Budget Will Be the Real Test
The most important date is now October 28.
Until Chancellor John Healey delivers the Budget, claims about a coming tax raid remain predictions or political warnings.
The government could increase some taxes.
It could maintain existing rates while changing allowances or thresholds.
It could cut spending instead.
Or it could combine several approaches.
The final package will provide the clearest evidence of how Burnham intends to finance his programme.
It will also allow voters and Parliament to judge whether the Government is keeping its existing tax commitments.
A Debate That Goes Beyond One Budget
The argument about Burnham’s mandate is unlikely to disappear even after the Budget.
It touches on a much wider question about how Britain’s parliamentary system works when a Prime Minister changes between general elections.
Burnham inherited a government elected under a different Labour leader.
He now has the authority that comes with being Prime Minister and leading the governing party, but he does not have a personal general-election mandate for every policy he may wish to pursue.
That distinction will remain important as his government develops its programme.
For opponents, the absence of a personal electoral mandate makes major tax changes particularly controversial.
For the Government, the argument is that governing requires responding to economic conditions that can change after an election.
The final answer will therefore depend less on the headline and more on the details of the policies Burnham actually introduces.
For now, one fact is clear: Andy Burnham has refused to rule out all tax rises ahead of the autumn Budget, while his government says it will honour Labour’s existing commitments on income tax, National Insurance and VAT.
The question of what British taxpayers will ultimately pay will be answered not by speculation, but by the Chancellor’s Budget and the parliamentary process that follows.