Andy Burnham became PM by surfing a wave of dissatisfaction with the Starmer government. This is now his honeymoon period. The whole thing is extraordinarily like the arrival of a new Labour government after a long period of Conservative domination: think 1945 and 1997, and maybe 1964 – not 2024. There are lots of hopes and not all can be realised.

Starmer’s managerialist centrism had opened up a gulf on the liberal left which the Lib Dems seemed unable to fill and into which the Greens were advancing; but the many questions about them left many currently Labour-inclined people deeply dissatisfied. Burnham positioned himself, whether by belief or calculation, to appeal to them.

What did they want?

PR for sure, a cause with majority support now in the Labour Party, plus overwhelming support in the Lib Dems and Greens. On this Burnham had spoken strongly and repeatedly.

A braver, more positive approach to Europe. He had backtracked for the Makerfield by-election, understandably, but now?

Genuine devolution significantly pulling power from Whitehall and (in the view of some) continuing all the way down to street level.

A clear commitment to net zero and a reconsideration of Starmer’s business-over-the-environment planning policies. A reconsideration, at the very least, of draconian anti-protest laws by which peaceful protesters were being sent to jail, and of cheap point-scoring at the expense of asylum-seekers in place of rational asylum and immigration policies.

A less rigidly pre-Keynes orthodox financial strategy to get the economy moving and action on the cost of living for low-and-medium-income people.

More openness so similar-minded people outside Labour, leading to a “Progressive Coalition”.

The first significant pointer would be his cabinet appointments. For the frustrated many, there was good news, but rather more bad. Rachel Reeves went: if that had not been so, it would have signalled no change at all in financial and economic strategy. But her replacement’s views were not well-known, mainly because, before resigning as Defence Secretary, he had been an ultra-loyalist. He was, though, suspected of being lukewarm on green issues and Ed Miliband’s move to the Foreign Office and replacement by a relative unknown raised questions. The reappointment of the crypto-totalitarian Shabana Mahmood as Home Secretary firmly signalled no change at all on civil liberties or asylum. The return to DCLG of Angela Rayner put back in the driving seat the originator of the botched local government reorganisation, who had favoured bigger unitaries than her successor. Burnham did come up with devolution plans, but it was essentially Labour thinking: devolution means transferring power to large, strong local power centres via elected mayors and nothing from those large centres down.

Ed Miliband instead of Yvette Cooper at the Foreign Office might signal somewhat more positivity towards the EU, but it is clear Burnham will make any moves of this sort discreetly. We wait to see.

The economy, the cost of living and the NHS are priorities – but so they were under Starmer. Burnham has clearly decided that, in order not to allow himself to be seen as “woke” and full of middle-class causes – in case the mainly mythical Labour/Reform floaters desert – he will stress nuts and bolts issues. At least that has meant signs of serious movement on social care and that is also the one gain on openness beyond Labour – agreeing to Ed Davey’s proposal of cross-party talks.

So what about PR, the one cause above all else Burnham had been associated with? From him, silence. From his Democracy Minister – an assurance that the Prime Minister “remains committed to PR” – but no commitment to specific action. Now if the PM actually abandoned PR, the reputational damage would be massive. So he won’t. But the timescale is crucial and time is running out. Consider how this thing would be done properly. A Royal Commission or suchlike is set up, takes evidence, deliberates and writes a measured recommendation. The government considers it and puts legislation before Parliament. Both Houses debate this at length and there may be amendments from the Lords. The final vote is taken. I assume no referendum, but any such would take a long time more. Then unless they’ve gone for a simple national list system (which I think would be very unpopular), there must be the drawing of new constituency boundaries, with further consultation.

The next election is almost certainly at most 32 months away, maybe much less. Is there enough time? If not, what can be counted on?

* Simon Banks is an activist, former council group leader, local party chair and so on. He lives in Harwich.