What is going on with Andy Burnham's social media?

[msagent]

I swear every post I see is following a formula:

• personal anecdote
• link to current issue
• why this means I understand you
• how I'm going to change the world
• join us in doing so

The way they are written makes me cringe. Almost poetic and overly emotive. Maybe it just doesnt work on me.

Anyone else just want some normal?

Yes I feel the same , just wondering how he will now justify giving the go ahead for North Sea oil drilling with his ‘I’m just like you’ image!

’Have you ever seen a house on fire? I’m a regular guy so I’ve seen loads. But maybe you have seen more than one, maybe even your own house has been on fire before.
It’s not right. It’s not fair, and we are going to sort it out.
North Sea oil drilling will make climate change accessible to all. You won’t need to worry about accessing fire when we can make the whole planet burn now and for future generations too.
Just another way we are helping Shell…. I mean YOU’

I do think it’s a shame to be so dismissive of anyone who thinks differently to you.

But I think your post also very clearly demonstrates the point that Andy Burnham’s social media is obviously not aimed at you, so it’s fine if you don’t like it.

There are plenty of people who are never going to like Andy Burnham because of their pre-existing opinions that anyone who considers voting Labour is “on benefits, have a vested interest in higher immigration” etc etc. Those people are probably unlikely to realistically ever be won over by the Prime Minister’s communication style, so, he doesn’t need to tailor it to them.

Yup. I don't get a good feeling about him at all, I don't trust him.

Hes just the latest in a long line of puppets. Only this one is a northerner, designed to appeal to the plebs. Only so badly, it’s laughable.

“I’m one of you guys!”

Give me fucking strength. I don’t know why people refuse to see through the facade of this life.

Well, yes - as I say my interpretation of that story is that his aspiration for social care
is that someone like his Nan would not have had to sell stuff and move into a care home, because she’d be properly looked after, with high quality, funded personal care at home. But, as I’ve said - I do see how other people may interpret the story differently.

I think as the detail of the policy emerges though, there’s going to be more communication around it, so, I don’t think people’s understanding will rest on the wording of one social media post. It isn’t unusual for a politician to have to explain a complex policy more than once.

As I say, Andy Burnham’s communication style works for me - but it’s interesting hearing the ways it doesn’t work for other people. The world would be very boring - and politics would be simple - if we all thought the same!

No but it makes it look like he's doing something about fuel prices when actually there are already 30 apps that have been doing this for years and half the population use waze now anyway.

yeah and all done with the “help” of ChatGPT by the sounds of it. What an amateur.

He had strong reach and engagement for the showing cost of petrol on Google maps one for all the wrong reasons.

Apparently by shopping around you can save a whole £40 per year too, according to the MP for York. A week in bed with the flu would save me more.

He did, and I can definitely see why people found that post patronising and why it was so roundly mocked. I think it’s telling though that a politician’s social media showing negative engagement outweighing positive engagement was literally headline news, when actually for most political leaders, that’s the norm.

And I think the way he handled the backlash was a master class in online communication - he didn’t brush it under the carpet, he made a second post, sharing a load of the negative feedback and saying, “I get it”. The fuel map post could’ve been the start of a negative engagement spiral, but because of how he responded, it wasn’t.

For me, that’s all part of him talking and behaving like a human - he made a mistake and then responded in a refreshing, digitally savvy, way. I do think that’s what alot of people like about his online presence. But of course that kind of communication isn’t going to be for everyone and it’s interesting to see how responses to his messaging differ.

That's really interesting. I didn't see the subsequent post but I did see his MPs reposting the original one for the next week and that felt very tone deaf to the response.

It’s not the case. KB gets mostly positive engagement on IG, I’m not on other platforms but probably the same.

If you only follow AB and read his comments you won’t be seeing it though.

That's not exclusive to the left. People across the political spectrum are influenced by both emotionm. What differs is which issues trigger an emotional response. The right might respond more strongly to anecdotes about crime, security or threats to national identity, while the left might respond more strongly to those about inequality, injustice or exploitation.

In both cases, when something resonates with our existing values and beliefs, we're more likely to accept it without scrutinising it as we might otherwise. That's why the tactic is employed by all politicians.

KB who lied that she got offered a scholarship to Stanford University?

I can see why Tories want to ignore that lie.

Is that it? I can see why Labourites use that still.

Sadly for those who do try still she gets a lot of support online which they won’t like.

The difference can be big though. There is a petrol garage 8 miles from me where petrol is usually 15p per cheaper per litre than my local.

If I’m nearby I do opt to fill up there instead.

I don’t think a lot of people do know to check on Google. It’s a recent widget that Google have been pushing to their search results when you search a petrol garage name.

No, that’s not it. But a candidate for PM capable of telling such whoppers is not a good look.

I’m obviously not basing my analysis on what I see on my own social media feed. There’s been extensive articles written about how unusually high Andy Burnham’s positive engagement online is. Isn’t that the whole reason Kemi Badenoch criticises him as a Tiktok Prime Minister? I don’t see how that would make sense as an attack line if her own online reach and engagement were as high as his.

This is slightly dated now (August 2026) but is a good over view on political leader’s online engagement: https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/andy-burnham-has-been-crowned-britains-first-tiktok-pm-5Hjdgbw_2/

I wonder if it has a shelf life. Ik you like his social media. Over exposure on the other hand to his style, we’ll see.

I’m sure it has a shelf life - at some point, all political leaders have to adapt their messaging to reflect the changing political landscape. It’s definitely very early days for Andy Burnham, and you’re totally right we will have to wait and see if he can live up to expectations.

Do you follow Andy Burnham on IG? Or any other politician?

So people will be preferentially using the cheaper petrol stations thus creating competitive pricing?
Is free market economics a socialist policy now.

I wonder where the profit squeeze will be. Internet tells me 60p/litre duty & 20% VAT, nice tax take for government, can't afford to change that.
Everyone that can afford it is moving to electric vehicles, hope the grid and peoples pockets can cope with that.

I highly doubt that Burnham's highly experienced social media team are using ChatGPT.

Political rhetoric has always looked like what we now recognise as AI...symmetrical phrasing, tripartites and so on. You could read any Blair speech and think the same.

If the policy is properly funded and implemented” is precisely the issue.

You have explained why someone’s personal bill might fall. You haven’t explained why care would become cheaper to provide, or how the state would afford the additional commitment. Will changing the triple lock raise enough? Unlikely. The government is already struggling to fund its current commitments, and with the costs of servicing it's current debts cant borrow any more. Who will pick up the shortfall?

How will this policy be implemented? Neither the NHS nor local councils have resources to spare. Private and investor-backed companies are already filling gaps, at great cost to tax and bill payers. Shareholder interests and the publics interest don't necessarily make great bedfellows... The water companies are a great example of this. Talk is cheap but the consequences are not for tax payers/bill payers, time and time again.

And we haven't even started on eligibility.

He has been explicit in that he does not have the detail yet he knows enough detail to know that people wont have to sell the family home...

The bar needs to be much higher than that.

There is the small matter of lithium...

Oh you know..somebody else's problem of course.