In the early weeks of Andy Burnham’s premiership, the Labour Party has seen a notable shift in public support and internal morale following a prolonged period of stagnation behind Reform UK in the polls. A recent BMG poll places Labour five points ahead of Nigel Farage’s party, marking a reversal of fortunes for Burnham, who assumed office two weeks ago.

Labour MPs, many of whom had delayed their summer breaks due to the leadership change, are expressing cautious optimism. Yet, despite the improved polling figures and renewed spirits, there is widespread recognition that significant policy challenges lie ahead, particularly regarding welfare reform—a contentious issue that previously undermined former Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer’s position.

Reform UK insiders remain skeptical, anticipating that welfare cuts will once more cause internal strife within Labour. They argue that Chancellor John Healey’s intention to increase defence spending will necessitate reductions in the benefits budget, a move they believe Burnham will struggle to secure support for from Labour backbenchers.

Labour MPs, however, counter this view, suggesting the party is now more prepared to endorse welfare reforms. Some who opposed the previous benefits cuts argue that circumstances have changed, with a stronger consensus on the need to boost defence expenditures and an understanding that electoral success may hinge on addressing welfare spending. In contrast to the past, only a minority of Labour’s left wing have publicly criticized Burnham’s approach, which emphasizes strengthening conditions for receiving benefits while promising enhanced support for employment and training, rather than implementing “crude cuts.”

The government’s Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden and youth employment adviser Alan Milburn have reportedly played key roles in engaging Labour MPs and preparing the ground for reforms. Behind-the-scenes dialogue has helped alleviate earlier concerns that the party leadership had approached welfare cuts in an overly authoritarian manner.

Efforts to mend ranks within the Labour Party have included Burnham’s appointment of three members of the Socialist Campaign Group as parliamentary private secretaries, a stepping-stone to ministerial roles. The Prime Minister has also restored the party whip to Diane Abbott, who was suspended amid an antisemitism controversy, with expectations that Karl Turner, another suspended MP critical of Starmer, may soon be readmitted.

However, this outreach has caused friction among MPs loyal to Starmer, some of whom express frustration and dismay at Burnham’s engagement with the party’s left flank. One Starmer supporter criticized the promotion of figures who had previously moved to investigate Burnham’s predecessor, describing it as a serious lapse in judgment. Concerns have also been raised about the appointment of Anneliese Midgley as Chief Whip, citing her reputation as a disruptive influence.

Beyond welfare, questions remain about how Burnham will finance other key priorities, such as increased defence spending and social care reform. The upcoming Chancellor’s Budget, scheduled for late October, is expected to be an early test of the new government’s fiscal strategy. Some within Labour suggest that Healey faces significant pressure to deliver higher defence spending after previously stepping down from his role.

Speculation is growing around the possibility of an early general election, particularly after Burnham’s recent comments on ending longstanding inaction on social care funding, which many interpreted as a signal that tax rises may be necessary. A senior Labour source indicated that Burnham’s early policy announcements, including removing VAT from electricity bills, might be designed to bolster his standing ahead of a potential snap poll, which he could call to secure a mandate for difficult fiscal measures.

Others within the government reject this interpretation, stating that Burnham is capitalizing on favourable political conditions to promote a refreshed agenda more effectively than his predecessor. They argue that the Prime Minister’s current approach reflects a desire to inject a positive momentum into the political landscape without necessarily precipitating an immediate election.