Does Andy Burnham’s pivot from press to social media put scrutiny at risk?

In an interview this week Andy Burnham said he believed the traditional media was less relevant and the world was “not like that any more”. But some people are now asking: does this change in approach mean less scrutiny?

The question was in part prompted by Burnham’s decision to travel to the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (Chogm) without the usual accompanying pack of reporters, instead bringing just one TV crew and a news agency journalist.

Across three days of the event, which featured discussions of an apology for slavery and possible reparations, and during which significant global events occurred, including the US midterm elections, Burnham faced just seven-and-a-half minutes of media questions, via two brief BBC chats.

Downing Street officials say Chogm is unique in offering very limited access to journalists, and that the prime minister had done other interviews and media events beforehand.

But it was nonetheless a change. At the last Commonwealth summit in 2024, Keir Starmer took along a full press contingent, submitting himself to both a press conference and a “huddle” – an off-camera but on-record Q&A on the government plane on the way over, in which each travelling journalist gets a question.

When it comes to communications, Burnham and his team are unapologetic about doing things differently. As well as talking to influencers and podcasters, the prime minister is an adept social media performer himself, with an output that ranges from more traditional pieces to camera to a YouTube video where he and the chancellor, John Healey, ranked pub snacks.

Asked about the pub snack video in an interview with ITV that was broadcast this week, Burnham said he hoped such content “connects with people, particularly younger people who may have felt quite distanced from politics”.

Asked whether his focus on that sort of output was a sign he cared less about what rightwing newspapers such as the Sun and the Daily Mail said about him, Burnham replied: “Definitely. I left Westminster for a reason. I got fed up with commentators deciding things down there, and the whole world is meant to believe what they believe. Well, sorry, the world’s not like that any more.”

While no one in politics disagrees with the need for leaders to keep up with the fast-changing ways in which people consume news, it is undeniable that an interview on a lifestyle podcast, or a brief TV clip in which the reporter has to cover all the news of the day, is less taxing than a full press conference with specialist journalists.

No 10 is insistent that Burnham does not dodge scrutiny, pointing to recent longer-form interviews, as well as a grilling last month on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, where the comfy sofas generally come with robust questioning.

Some observers nonetheless detect what they see as efforts by his team to make Burnham’s mix of media engagements slightly less onerous than it might be.

“When the going is good, he can probably get away with it,” said one former media adviser who worked with several Conservative prime ministers. “But if things get worse and it feels like the press is getting shut out, or not being given the chance to properly scrutinise policies, then in my experience the media are pretty good at working as a pack, and will come down quite hard.”

There is a particular incentive for a prime minister to dodge the traditional on-plane media huddle en route to a summit, which can often involve more than a dozen questions, ranging from global events to relative trivia.

The repercussions can be significant, usually more so for prime ministers already under pressure. In a passing remark on a flight to China in 2018, Theresa May said she planned to fight the next election, galvanising critics on her own backbenches.

“Misadventures have a way of happening when prime ministers go out on the road,” said Paul Harrison, who was May’s press secretary.

“A huddle with the travelling press pack is about as unpredictable a high-wire act as there is for a PM – potentially 15 journalists each asking blind questions on absolutely anything they like. And a bad answer delivered en route to a summit can still be making headlines long after you’ve got home.”

Liz Jarvis, a Liberal Democrat MP who is a former journalist and sits on the culture, media and sport select committee, said while it was undeniable that politicians needed to communicate differently, it felt as though Burnham was being shielded at times.

She said: “He is a very skilled orator, but when you break down his PMQs answers, for example, there sometimes isn’t much substance to it. When the honeymoon period ends he will be held to account, so he can’t avoid media scrutiny for ever.”