Andy Burnham takes office with little public record on foreign policy. Consuelo Thiers profiles his political personality to offer an interpretation on how he may act on the world stage. She argues that Burnham is likely to be more consultative than his predecessor, but no less determined to shape events his own way
Burnham became prime minister at a time of increasing global insecurity: wars in Europe and the Middle East, the rise of illiberal democracies, shifting alliances, and economic pressures. Existing assessments of how he might act remain speculative rather than grounded in systematic analysis.
Political psychology and foreign policy analysis offer a rigorous way to assess leaders' personalities and their likely decision-making styles.
Here, I draw on decades of research profiling political leaders, and apply that approach to analysing Burnham. My findings offer some insight into how he may handle the challenges of his new position.
Political leaders can exert considerable influence over foreign policy. Their personalities, beliefs and motivations shape how they interpret constraints, assess threats, and respond to crises.
Understanding this psychology is central to explaining leaders' past choices and anticipating how they may behave in future situations.
Studies link personality traits to leaders’ willingness to violate international norms, escalate or de-escalate conflicts, go to war, and manage crises.
Political leaders are rarely accessible for direct psychological evaluations. Researchers therefore use what they call at-a-distance assessment, based on the idea that how leaders speak reveals their psychology.
The most widely used of these approaches is the Leadership Trait Analysis, developed by Margaret Hermann. Hermann identifies seven traits relevant to leaders' foreign policy behaviour.
Burnham's shift from Manchester mayor to prime minister could affect the manner of his leadership in unpredictable ways. And new Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband will bring his own decision-making style
I applied this analysis to a sample of interviews with Burnham, chosen because spontaneous speech has less influence from speechwriters. I then compared his scores against a sample of past UK leaders – and against Keir Starmer specifically.
A couple of elements are worth noting. Firstly, leaders react to context. The shift from mayor to prime minister could thus affect Burnham's style in ways this profile cannot predict. Moreover, it is rarely the prime minister alone who shapes foreign policy. New Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband will bring his own psychology and decision-making style, particularly in areas where Burnham has less experience.
Burnham's profile stands out: on most traits his scores sit either well above or below the mean of past UK leaders.
He shows a very high belief in his ability to control events. This is a trait associated with leaders who take responsibility for initiating action, stay closely involved in policymaking, and seek control over situations to ensure things happen as intended.
He is also highly focused on relationships and group morale, sometimes at the expense of task completion. Leaders with this combination tend to be attuned to what people want. They move forward only when the group is ready, and they prioritise camaraderie, loyalty, and collegiality.
Burnham scores high on self-confidence. This tends to go with trusting one's ability to handle people and situations, and filtering information through a strong sense of personal worth.
Burnham's strong belief in his ability to control events suggests he will remain closely involved in policymaking, and seek control over situations to ensure things happen as intended
He also scores high on the need for power, a trait linked to gaining and maintaining control and influence, and to spotting opportunities and the tactics needed to seize them.
Burnham's score on conceptual complexity, too, is high. This suggests an ability to hold several perspectives at once rather than seeing things as binary. He is also likelier to consider more information, including opposing views, before deciding.
His distrust of others and in-group bias are moderate. This suggests he's the type to perform a case-by-case reading of the world rather than take a default confrontational or cooperative stance.
Starmer and Burnham share some characteristics but differ considerably in others. Both score high on belief in their ability to control events, in their self-confidence, and in their need for power. This renders both assertive and willing to push back against constraints.
Yet Burnham is considerably less distrustful than Starmer. This makes him less prone to suspicion and hawkish decision-making, and more inclined to collaborate with other leaders and countries.
He is also more conceptually complex, giving him greater flexibility to weigh up the pros and cons of a situation. This could, however, make him slower to decide.
Burnham is more relationship-oriented than Starmer, whose style was more balanced between tasks and relationships. This may help Burnham bring others with him, but could also make him less willing than Starmer to take hard decisions when needed.
We can expect Burnham to be active, challenge constraints and use direct and indirect influence to achieve his aims. In a foreign policy crisis, he is likely to involve himself personally at moments of acute pressure instead of delegating to ministers or officials.
Burnham's openness to information and competing views also suggests he would rely on institutional machinery, such as security and foreign policy bureaucracies, rather than a small circle of trusted advisers.
In a foreign policy crisis, Burnham is likely to involve himself personally at moments of acute pressure instead of delegating to ministers or officials
His relationship-oriented approach points to what Hermann considers a directive leadership style. Burnham will push his own agenda while remaining attuned to how his actions land with others, and adjust it where this helps protect his own standing, and that of the country.
In practice, Burnham is likely to consult widely and pay close attention to how ministers, allies and the public read his decisions, without losing sight of what he wants. This could help strengthen ties with Europe and other allies. His concern with maintaining support among his base, however, may also pull him further from Washington at a time when relations with Trump are already strained. Managing that tension will be a key test of his time in office.
Allies and observers, still trying to understand who Burnham is, will be watching his early months closely. This profile cannot settle that question definitively, but it offers a more systematic starting point than guesswork, and a clearer basis for interpreting the choices he makes in office.
