Burnham’s policy choices show what kind of prime minister he wants to be

By the end of this week, the government is expected to change its position on oil and gas exploitation, and a new energy secretary will be appointed.

Those Labor MPs are concerned about the Green Party taking their seats – but they are much more concerned about whether this will be seen as undermining the government’s commitment to net zero.

He promised to do something about the cost of living in more detail tomorrow about the “breathing space” he is offering struggling families.

Extending Manchester’s £2 bus fare is a concrete step and also a departure from the £3 cap under Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.

There may be action there as energy prices rise again.

Former minister Miata Fanbouleh has spent the past few weeks working on policy options. She is a former head of the New Economics Foundation think tank and wants bolder cost-of-living measures – from rent controls to completely free bus travel for under-25s.

The question is whether Burnham will go beyond announcing specific policies and outline a broader vision.

In his speech, he pointed out how the cost of living will be paid. So does he make the grand argument that he believes – that income taxes are too high, wealth taxes are too low?

Will he expand the Times interview while raising the capital gains tax and promise to raise tax thresholds, at least for basic rate taxpayers?

He has promised to follow Rachel Reeves’ “fiscal rules” that limit debt and borrowing – so it could be a “re-prioritisation” of existing spending rather than new money.

But that can tell its own story about him still thinking about managing it.

By and large, Andy Burnham didn’t quite manage expectations.

It promises less than a new economic model, leaving behind an era of centralization, privatization and industrialization.

Just as a sound sleeper is meant to signal to party members where he stands, he will soon need to come up with symbolic policies that will show both voters and markets what the economic reality behind radical rhetoric might be.