Andy Burnham says on entering No 10 he’d been told of “clear” evidence Russia interfered with the 2016 Brexit referendum.

Speaking to The Rest is Politics podcast at the weekend he said: “I asked the question coming to Downing Street, was there interference in the 2016 referendum from ​Russia? And I’ve had the clear answer that yes, there was.” 

By Monday, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty, who drew the morning media round short straw, squirmed his way through a series of interviews. Russia “attempted but not succeeded” to alter the result, Doughty said. Burnham’s spokesman later spent half of the daily briefing clearing up the mess to reporters.

In 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee said the government had failed to establish whether Russia interfered, begging the question about whether Burnham had been presented with fresh evidence of meddling yet to be released in the public domain.

In the House of Commons on Monday afternoon, Burnham said there was evidence Russia had interfered in the 2019 general election, therefore “we think it’s inconceivable that this was the first time”. Later, invited by Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey to publish any fresh documentary proof, Burnham answered a different question.

Among Whitehall’s coterie of Sir Humphreys, eyebrows are being raised at whether the Prime Minister’s loose-lipped pronouncements are becoming a pattern. Is this a leader who shoots from the hip and leaves others to clean up the mess?  

In September, at Prime Minister’s Questions, Burnham said national security “can’t come at the expense of social security”, as he was challenged over funding for defence. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch couldn’t contain her surprise that the Prime Minister had effectively indicated he was committed to the UK’s soaring welfare bill.

That hadn’t been what Burnham meant. Brought up under Thatcherism, Burnham was alluding to social security in its widest sense of a safety net. But, mindful of the reaction of the bond markets at any hint the Government might not tackle the welfare bill, Treasury officials spent that same afternoon reassuring investors of what the Prime Minister had meant, if not said. “There were some clarifying phone calls,” according to a City source.

Burnham is now more careful. He still uses the phrase but in the Rest is Politics podcast released on Monday, he instead said: “I also say don’t make a choice between social security in the broadest sense and national security.”

Then, there is the fuss over the Manchester City case. Last week, Burnham told the BBC he would be “really concerned” if its Abu Dhabi owners sold the club after the independent commission found it had breached Premier League financial rules. He credited the owners as “a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester”.

The next day a No 10 spokesman said the initial judgement is serious and there can’t be any suggestion that anyone is above the rules. Burnham himself then insisted during a trip to Berlin that he hadn’t “played down” the verdict. The clarification didn’t stop Premier League clubs from expressing “astonishment” and concern about political interference and now Burnham is set to release his dealings with the Emirates during his time in Manchester.

“I think this is the growing pains of a rookie Prime Minister,” a member of the Shadow Cabinet said. “I expect he will get more careful.”

But others think this is who Burnham is. “It’s the new straight-talking politics,” a Labour source said. “Candour is part of his brand. His appeal as a politician has been that he says things other Labour figures won’t.”

In which case, is some of what looks like indiscipline actually intentional?

On the specific issue of Brexit, is this a case of a premier trying to soften up the public to his way of thinking? His opponents think so. “Burnham is clearly laying the groundwork for rejoining by casting doubt on the result and throwing red meat to his base,” according to Tory MP Ben Obese-Jecty.

During his visit to the United Nations General Assembly in New York last month, Burnham was already making a point of calling out Russia’s disinformation campaign and dating it back to Brexit, even if he didn’t namecheck the referendum.  

“The Kremlin spends around £1.3bn each year on manipulating information. We’re talking about an insidious campaign that reaches into people’s homes and twists what they feel about their own country and community creating a narrative of decline, stoking division and sowing despair,” Burnham told the UN.   

“Over the last decade, we have given too much ground to those who want to run a negative, corrosive narrative about life in Britain, which bears no resemblance to reality,” he added.  

Burnham’s allies argue he is a clear communicator with a real connection to the public’s concerns. 

Any damage so far is contained. So far, Burnham’s loose lips have yet to sink any ships but if many more Labour ministers have to do the same verbal hokey-cokey as Stephen Doughty on national security or the economy, they might start yet taking pot shots.