open polity

Tag: communications

  • Andy Burnham’s Sport-Centred Communications Have Backfired

    Andy Burnham’s Sport-Centred Communications Have Backfired

    Andy Burnham has been praised for his communications strategy since becoming Prime Minister. Through his digital-first approach, combined with engagement with traditional media, he has reached millions of voters and projected an image of authenticity and relatability. His speech at this year’s Labour Party conference was praised for its exceptional emotional delivery and his authentic “everyman” stage presence.

    Something that has been a part of this positive image is his relationship with football. Burnham has leaned into the Mamdani playbook by using sports to show authenticity and communicate his politics. He recently appeared on the popular YouTube series Shirt Shopping with Ellis Platten, using a backdrop of classic football kits at Classic Football Shirts in Manchester to connect personal memories with community-focused politics. 

    He recognises that Football is culturally significant, and it gives him a way of speaking to people outside the traditional political bubble. His identity as an Everton supporter gives him an authenticity that many politicians struggle to manufacture. His knowledge of football allows him to communicate in a language that feels less formal and more culturally familiar.

    This strategy did not work for his predecessor, Keir Starmer. Starmer was a well-known Arsenal fan, but his passion for the game did not translate into political capital because, ultimately, it was unbelievable. Starmer’s attempts to use football to build a “man of the people” persona often backfired. Whilst Andy Burnham’s love of football seems more genuine, his sports-centric communications are starting to backfire. Recent comments and policy ideas have dampened his image as an authentic football fan and have drawn significant criticism.

    His first misstep began last week when he signalled that he may lift the ban on drinking alcohol in the stands at football matches. This ban has been in place in the top 5 tiers of men’s football since 1985, when fears over football hooliganism and violence were at their peak. This ban applies only to football, and so in other sports such as rugby and cricket, drinking in view of the pitch is allowed. Andy Burnham believes this to be unfair and outdated.

    The prime minister said: “I don’t think it’s fair for football fans to be singled out in that way.”

    “I think that legislation dates to an era where football was very different, and I do believe there is a case to remove that discrimination,” he added. He also said: “There are different ways it could be done, perhaps on a trial basis. But I’m not going to back away from what’s been a long-held view of mine. I don’t see how it can be fair that some supporters of one sport can be treated differently.”

    The response to this idea wasn’t what the Prime Minister would have hoped for. It is understandable why he thought this would score him political points; drinking is a massive part of UK football culture, and so having to wait until half-time to grab a pint without missing the match creates a logistical bottleneck. However, he failed to understand modern stadium demographics, where many newer fans and families value the current safety protocols. A YouGov poll found that 64 per cent of people oppose him, while more than half think it would make the match-day experience worse. Many fans cited concerns about family-friendly atmospheres being ruined, spilt beer, and constant disruptions from people leaving their seats.

    The UK Football Policing Unit said it would be “incredibly rash” to change the rules without proper consultation. “Other sports simply don’t see the violence and criminal behaviour from their supporters that football does, albeit a minority, with alcohol often playing a significant part in violent and disorderly behaviour,” it said. In attempting to use football to look like a “man of the people”, Andy Burnham has scored a major political own goal by misreading the very supporters he is trying to appeal to.

    Burnham’s insistence that this is a policy matchgoers want illustrates what happens when a politician’s desire to appear culturally in touch gets ahead of reality. To make matters worse for the Prime Minister, his recent comments on Manchester City’s ownership have done him no favours. Football fans and journalists have suggested that Burnham communicated his stance on the club’s guilty verdicts poorly, with many labelling his statement as wrong and unimpressive.

    On Wednesday, the Premier League confirmed that Manchester City were found guilty of all charges related to breaches of Premier League financial rules between the 2009-10 and 2017-18 seasons. An independent commission ruled that the club systematically engaged in a disguised funding scheme through “sham” commercial deals between 2009 and 2018. The club has continued to deny any wrongdoing. While no official punishments have been finalised, the verdict leaves the club facing unprecedented sanctions as rival clubs push for extreme penalties. Some fans and pundits have questioned how the club’s owners can remain if they deliberately breached rules over nine years.

    When asked about Manchester City’s owners potentially having to sell the club, Burnham said on Wednesday: “I would be really concerned to lose them”. “They’ve been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester and obviously the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is.” He added: “I do actually thank the City Football Group and the wider ownership for the money that they didn’t just put into the Etihad [Stadium] and the campus around it but also into the city.”

    These comments have not landed well at all. There is no doubt that what he said is true. The foreign investment from the owners has brought significant benefits to Manchester. Given that he served as Mayor of Greater Manchester until June, his remarks are not surprising. However, they represent a massive communication misstep because he failed to consider how they could be negatively interpreted.

    His comments have been interpreted as being sympathetic towards the City owners. He has created the impression that the economic and civic benefits associated with Manchester City’s ownership are being prioritised when scrutiny of that ownership is at its greatest. Ultimately, a sitting Prime Minister expressing concern over the departure of owners who systematically breached financial rules undermines the credibility of the sport and the rule of law. Considering millions of voters are also football fans, this communications misstep carries massive political risk.

    His saying “I am not getting directly involved” also hasn’t helped. He may not think he is getting involved; however, realistically, he was getting involved by making these comments because they, whether intentional or not, put political pressure on the Premier League. Football governance is no longer operating in isolation from international politics. Football fans have argued that his statements show how sportswashing successfully influences politics: state-backed owners intentionally inject vast sums of money into local infrastructure precisely to buy political goodwill.

    Thus, Andy Burnham’s strategy of using sports-centred communications to connect with voters has backfired. Instead of looking like a relatable fan, he looked like a politician in the pockets of billionaire club owners, a toxic image for millions of voters who want a leader to stand up for the average person, not the elite. 

  • How Andy Burnham Is Reshaping Communications In British Politics

    How Andy Burnham Is Reshaping Communications In British Politics

    A lot of politics and news today is consumed through social media platforms. People are glued to their tablets and phones. Print and other traditional media are dying as trust in them is low. Politicians, therefore, need to have a strong online presence to communicate with voters and engage audiences. Trust in politics in general is low, and so people need to feel connected to their leaders.

    Since Andy Burnham became UK Prime Minister, one thing has clearly distinguished his approach from that of his predecessor: his communications strategy. Unlike Keir Starmer, Burnham has adopted a digital-first approach to connect with voters and create an authentic, relatable image.

    Instead of relying primarily on traditional media and the Westminster lobby, Burnham has made social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram central to his political communications. Burnham has bypassed traditional media filters and speaks directly to citizens. He has adopted a similar approach to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, collaborating with various influencers to communicate his policies. Informal video formats and direct-to-camera messaging have helped the Prime Minister reach audiences who may never watch a political press conference or read a government press release. By doing this, he has effectively reached a wider demographic and increased public trust.

    A good communications strategy will not completely solve the issue of public trust. Ultimately, the success of Burnham’s government will be down to its actions, real results for the public, and honest delivery of its promises over time. Nonetheless, a good communications strategy can help to build confidence and maintain public trust. Many have argued that Keir Starmer’s poor communication strategy is partly why he was so unpopular and consequently resigned. Keir Starmer did not completely disregard digital channels when communicating his government policies; he simply went about it the wrong way.

    Politicians, particularly in British politics, use social media only to broadcast a scripted message. They regurgitate the same information, just on a different platform. They do not engage with the real people on these platforms. This leaves people feeling unable to connect with political leaders, as it creates the idea that they are detached from the everyday concerns of ordinary people.

    What makes Burnham so different and so effective is that he is engaging authentically with his audience. He and his team understand that people do not want to read a caption that has gone through several rounds of editing. When people go to Instagram or TikTok, they are not going there to consume policy; they go to consume people. Burnham recognises this and has adapted his content to the native behaviours of each platform.

    A good example of this is when he teamed up with Bemi Orojuogun (Bus Aunty) to announce the £2 bus fare cap. It got over 2.1 million views and nearly 79k likes because it felt natural to the platform, not forced. It was a smart way of communicating a policy that will affect people’s pockets. In the past, political leaders would’ve used TV stars and other celebrities to get a message like this out. This has shifted to online influencers, as they are seen as more authentic and trusted by voters who have abandoned traditional news media.

    The perception of Burnham as a strong online communicator clearly aligns with the data. In June, ahead of the Makerfield by-election, he launched his TikTok account and has gained over 450,000 followers since. In the last month, his videos were viewed more than 34 million times, six times the views generated by Nigel Farage. The sentiment towards the Prime Minister online is increasingly positive. LBC classified more than 175,000 comments left on Burnham’s videos and found that net sentiment towards him has risen steadily over the past four weeks.

    Another smart way he has used social media is by directly talking to people in a way that feels real and natural. A good example of this is when a user named Saz commented, asking him not to visit Heron House, No. 10 North, on a specific date because it was her wedding day; he replied: “Noted, Saz.” He congratulated her in a video sent during her wedding. It is rare for a Prime Minister to jump in on a viral joke like that, and for many people it is refreshing. It makes him appear relatable; a deliberate contrast with Keir Starmer’s more rigid, institutional presence.

    Following his first Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), he launched his own version on his social media, People’s Major Questions. In this, he answers questions directly from the public, further enhancing his relationship with them. In less than 24 hours, the video garnered over 600,000 views, suggesting that this is the type of content people want to see.

    Critics have argued that by relying so heavily on social media, he might be evading proper scrutiny and real debate. This is a weak argument. Just because he is prioritising digital channels does not mean he is ignoring traditional media. He has embraced traditional media by adopting an integrated approach. Alongside his activity on social media, he has undertaken selected longer-form interviews, including a sit-down BBC Panorama interview with Laura Kuenssberg, signalling that he is willing to engage with hard questions.

    Nonetheless, the media is not the only form of scrutiny and accountability. The UK’s robust parliamentary system means that Andy Burnham will inevitably face intense, non-negotiable institutional scrutiny as Prime Minister. Ultimately, no communications approach, whether that be digital or traditional, can shield him from the constitutional mechanisms of Parliament.