The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Falcon1200]

Andy Burnam will have to hit the ground running, and be decisive, you can be sure the entire right-wing media will be screaming for a general election now,

I'm not a believer in having a General Election whenever the PM is replaced, or a Scottish Parliament election when the same happens with the First Minister (as a lady once said, 'not another one').

However, this situation, should Burnham actually become PM, is surely highly irregular, if not unique; When we voted Labour into power in 2024 he was not even an MP but had a very different, senior political role. The whole charade of a backbench bum-licker resigning his seat (wonder what his reward will be?) to facilitate Burnham's coronation is IMHO an absolute joke and regardless of whatever happens between now and the next General Election, Labour have well and truly lost my trust, respect, and vote.

 

[Cdd89]

I think given the emerging political consensus that something on electoral reform must be done, that Labour could probably just introduce an act of parliament this parliament.

I agree there is a consensus that electoral reform is required but that breaks down as soon as you try to reach agreement on any specific type of reform. A bit like Brexit (not wishing to derail this thread even further ).

 

[Purple Train]

I really don't get the opprobrium towards Starmer (although I haven't been overly impressed by his premiership), and, much as I think Burnham would be a decent PM based on my own political views' alignment with his, I think anyone who thinks he will be more popular than Starmer is failing to consider that nobody would be able to counteract the major criticisms of Starmer, which are as follows:

1) He's too left-wing

This group would not be pleased by anybody to the left of Margaret Thatcher

2) He's too right-wing

This group would not be pleased by anybody to the right of Zack Polanski

3) He's a dictator

Whenever the next riots happen (and there will be at least one more set of them before the next General Election), this group will start screaming if a single rioter goes to prison. This group will also object if group 4 are appeased

4) He silences protesters

Ditto the above but for more traditionally left-wing causes e.g. Palestine and climate change. Less easy for me to satirise personally since I agree (in the main) with the ends of these groups if not the means. But this group will also object if group 3 is appeased

Plus, of course, the fact that trade ties with America displease one camp while trade ties with Europe inflame the other; the only thing more polarising than talking about Palestine is not talking about Palestine; and the mere fact that the next PM will be Labour is enough to displease Rupert Murdoch.

Frankly, I think the country is completely impossible to govern at the minute with how polarised things are, and I fear it will take an extreme government before we come to realise that populism is never going to be a magic bullet. But then again, given much of this is driven by the clickbait media to shape people's views rather than the other way around, maybe it's simply impossible to work out what's best for the country as a whole when so many vested interests are at stake, and everybody who can shout the loudest desires the least nuanced interpretation of their wishes within the next five minutes, on pain of a massive drop in the opinion polls?

 

[AlterEgo]

I really don't get the opprobrium towards Starmer (although I haven't been overly impressed by his premiership), and, much as I think Burnham would be a decent PM based on my own political views' alignment with his, I think anyone who thinks he will be more popular than Starmer is failing to consider that nobody would be able to counteract the major criticisms of Starmer, which are as follows:

1) He's too left-wing

This group would not be pleased by anybody to the left of Margaret Thatcher

2) He's too right-wing

This group would not be pleased by anybody to the right of Zack Polanski

3) He's a dictator

Whenever the next riots happen (and there will be at least one more set of them before the next General Election), this group will start screaming if a single rioter goes to prison. This group will also object if group 4 are appeased

4) He silences protesters

Ditto the above but for more traditionally left-wing causes e.g. Palestine and climate change. Less easy for me to satirise personally since I agree (in the main) with the ends of these groups if not the means. But this group will also object if group 3 is appeased

Plus, of course, the fact that trade ties with America displease one camp while trade ties with Europe inflame the other; the only thing more polarising than talking about Palestine is not talking about Palestine; and the mere fact that the next PM will be Labour is enough to displease Rupert Murdoch.

Frankly, I think the country is completely impossible to govern at the minute with how polarised things are, and I fear it will take an extreme government before we come to realise that populism is never going to be a magic bullet. But then again, given much of this is driven by the clickbait media to shape people's views rather than the other way around, maybe it's simply impossible to work out what's best for the country as a whole when so many vested interests are at stake, and everybody who can shout the loudest desires the least nuanced interpretation of their wishes within the next five minutes, on pain of a massive drop in the opinion polls?

You're focusing on a number of heavily politicised objections there. The major criticisms of Starmer are actually two fold - that he doesn't sincerely hold his own opinions or any political vision (and has to have it downloaded into him by shadowy aides), and also that he is a poor communicator.

Nonetheless I do take your point - the country is basically impossible to govern and is, to be quite honest, on a slow slide towards some sort of totalitarian or authoritarian corrective. The social contract is almost non-existent and has been fraying for several decades; this began before I was born.

 

[HSTEd]

I agree there is a consensus that electoral reform is required but that breaks down as soon as you try to reach agreement on any specific type of reform. A bit like Brexit (not wishing to derail this thread even further ).

Whilst lots of people favour various systems (AMS, STV, closed list proportional, and even more esoteric systems like condorcet), I doubt many people would strongly oppose any actual proportional system that was brought forward by the government.

AV obviously, not being a proportional system, was widely opposed as achieving little.

Given the short time scale AMS is probably the most feasible, given that it could conceptually be imposed with little or no need for boundary changes (although the size of the house of commons might become an issue, although its been 707 seats before)

 

[Magrar]

I think this recent bit of reportage summed it up nicely....

Talk of Starmer staying on to fight is fading fast

After Andy Burnham’s by-election victory, support for the prime minister is evaporating, writes Laura Kuenssberg.

www.bbc.co.uk

One party source told me: "My experience of working with his administration is - the fundamental part of the job of prime minister and Labour Party leader is to be a political leader and he is neither political nor a leader."

The truly scary part is that, well, wasn't this just screamingly obvious to anyone when Starmer first put his hand up and said he'd like to lead the Labour Party? Why wasn't he stopped before he could do the damage he has done?

The story behind how Starmer actually gained control of the Labour Party is deeply disturbing. But with the distraction of Trump and Farage, it seems it was never really told in the news media, or put to him by our so called poltiical interviewers.

I only learned it when reading up on the MP who stepped down, hardly a household name, but critical to getting Starmer into pole position it seems. And then ironically, but perhaps obvious in hindsight, being the one to stab him in the back. It's a story that makes the inner workings and psychodramas of the Labour Party of recent years look no less evil than the Tories or even Reform.

It was clearly a monumental screw up to appoint him, and it's been a slow motion car crash ever since. You could see it coming a mile off. You could see it even if you didn't know that backstory.

What really concerns me is how that piece by the BBC massively overstates his actual victory at the general election, in what feels like a horrendous act of historical revisionism.

They talk as if it was a resounding victory for Labour, when in reality, at best it was the country just being sick and tired of Tory dysfunction and corruption and thinking Labour might finally deserve a shot at power, at worst Labour ending up in power by default and so having pretty much no grace or leeway in the minds of an electorate who had pretty much got so sick of our two party politics they were looking toward Reform or the minor parties (thereby also indirectly helping Reform!).

The man just didn't deliver on his promises, such as they were even identifiable. But where they were, such as bringing back a sense of grown up maturity to poltics, a new dawn where gaffe and scandal would be a thing of the past and we'd all be so bored of things being run so well, he failed miserably.

Andy doesn't fill me with too much confidence. But he at least seems to pass the above test. He is political, and he is a leader.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think this recent bit of reportage summed it up nicely....

Talk of Starmer staying on to fight is fading fast

After Andy Burnham’s by-election victory, support for the prime minister is evaporating, writes Laura Kuenssberg.

www.bbc.co.uk

The truly scary part is that, well, wasn't this just screamingly obvious to anyone when Starmer first put his hand up and said he'd like to lead the Labour Party? Why wasn't he stopped before he could do the damage he has done?

The story behind how Starmer actually gained control of the Labour Party is deeply disturbing. But with the distraction of Trump and Farage, it seems it was never really told in the news media, or put to him by our so called poltiical interviewers.

I only learned it when reading up on the MP who stepped down, hardly a household name, but critical to getting Starmer into pole position it seems. And then ironically, but perhaps obvious in hindsight, being the one to stab him in the back. It's a story that makes the inner workings and psychodramas of the Labour Party of recent years look no less evil than the Tories or even Reform.

It was clearly a monumental screw up to appoint him, and it's been a slow motion car crash ever since. You could see it coming a mile off. You could see it even if you didn't know that backstory.

What really concerns me is how that piece by the BBC massively overstates his actual victory at the general election, in what feels like a horrendous act of historical revisionism.

They talk as if it was a resounding victory for Labour, when in reality, at best it was the country just being sick and tired of Tory dysfunction and corruption and thinking Labour might finally deserve a shot at power, at worst Labour ending up in power by default and so having pretty much no grace or leeway in the minds of an electorate who had pretty much got so sick of our two party politics they were looking toward Reform or the minor parties (thereby also indirectly helping Reform!).

The man just didn't deliver on his promises, such as they were even identifiable. But where they were, such as bringing back a sense of grown up maturity to poltics, a new dawn where gaffe and scandal would be a thing of the past and we'd all be so bored of things being run so well, he failed miserably.

Andy doesn't fill me with too much confidence. But he at least seems to pass the above test. He is political, and he is a leader.

Burnham is a Labour version of Johnson full of bravado and showmanship but no real substance. The country is far better off with Starmer staid, boring just ticking away in the background but thats not what our media driven world wants. Thus we see Labour MPs are equally shallow as their Tory brethren so no wonder most voters response when asked about politicians is "there all as bad as each other".

 

[Magrar]

Burnham is a Labour version of Johnson full of bravado and showmanship but no real substance. The country is far better off with Starmer staid, boring just ticking away in the background but thats not what our media driven world wants. Thus we see Labour MPs are equally shallow as their Tory brethren so no wonder most voters response when asked about politicians is "there all as bad as each other".

I doubt many would agree with this analysis.

Andy has a folsky charm, sure, but as anyone who knows their Manchester buses, he wields facts, figures and arguments with a level of political skill that Boris simply never had. A PMQs between Andy and Boris would be a walkover in favour of the seasoned but passionate politician over the seasoned and passionate populist.

At the end of the day, a showman has to deliver. So does a boring technocrat. The advantage of having a political leader in charge, is that you don't even have to remind them they're in the results business. Time and competency are factors. So is faith and trust. And if the results aren't there, you better have a good excuse.

Just waving your arms about talking complete rubbish, or giving ever more disturbingly inauthentic speeches in some lame effort to convince people you are a living breathing human with emotions, just won't cut it. That's why they are both now part of UK political history, not political reality.

It's become a sad trait of the Labour Party to always reach for the tired old excuse of blaming the media for their failings. It's a myth. Starmer made those mistakes. A country where the news ignores or downplays them, is not a democracy.

Whether the news should have also been trumpeting any and all signs of progress under Starmer, is a good question. But fair's fair, if they didn't do it for Boris, and I don't think they did (compare and contrast how Boris' mandate was reported and how Starmer's was), you can hardly expect them to do it for Kier.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I doubt many would agree with this analysis.

Andy has a folsky charm, sure, but as anyone who knows their Manchester buses, he wields facts, figures and arguments with a level of political skill that Boris simply never had. A PMQs between Andy and Boris would be a walkover in favour of the seasoned but passionate politician over the seasoned and passionate populist.

At the end of the day, a showman has to deliver. So does a boring technocrat. The advantage of having a political leader in charge, is that you don't even have to remind them they're in the results business. Time and competency are factors. So is faith and trust. And if the results aren't there, you better have a good excuse.

Just waving your arms about talking complete rubbish, or giving ever more disturbingly inauthentic speeches in some lame effort to convince people you are a living breathing human with emotions, just won't cut it. That's why they are both now part of UK political history, not political reality.

It's become a sad trait of the Labour Party to always reach for the tired old excuse of blaming the media for their failings. It's a myth. Starmer made those mistakes. A country where the news ignores or downplays them, is not a democracy.

Whether the news should have also been trumpeting any and all signs of progress under Starmer, is a good question. But fair's fair, if they didn't do it for Boris, and I don't think they did (compare and contrast how Boris' mandate was reported and how Starmer's was), you can hardly expect them to do it for Kier.

Successful countries like Switzerland are run by Starmers who just get on with the role and are not being dictated to by right wing media and clickbait. The right wing media stood by Johnson until the last 24hrs when his own cabinet abandoned him Starmer has been victimised from day 1.

 

[brad465]

You're focusing on a number of heavily politicised objections there. The major criticisms of Starmer are actually two fold - that he doesn't sincerely hold his own opinions or any political vision (and has to have it downloaded into him by shadowy aides), and also that he is a poor communicator.

Nonetheless I do take your point - the country is basically impossible to govern and is, to be quite honest, on a slow slide towards some sort of totalitarian or authoritarian corrective. The social contract is almost non-existent and has been fraying for several decades; this began before I was born.

It's a miracle that covid lockdown compliance was as high as it was given this, although I do have to wonder how much compliance there would be now were something like this to happen again.

On a more trivial note, there is a particular induction event I run in a regional area for new starters in my organisation that I'm due to run again tomorrow, taking place roughly every 6 months. If Starmer announces his resignation tomorrow, this will be the second time since I started doing this in 2019 that one of these events has coincided with a PM announcing their resignation. The other was Theresa May in May 2019. While not a scientific measure, it does say a lot about the state of play in the country that this coincidence could happen twice.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It's a miracle that covid lockdown compliance was as high as it was given this, although I do have to wonder how much compliance there would be now were something like this to happen again.

On a more trivial note, there is a particular induction event I run in a regional area for new starters in my organisation that I'm due to run again tomorrow, taking place roughly every 6 months. If Starmer announces his resignation tomorrow, this will be the second time since I started doing this in 2019 that one of these events has coincided with a PM announcing their resignation. The other was Theresa May in May 2019. While not a scientific measure, it does say a lot about the state of play in the country that this coincidence could happen twice.

Starmer should fight on and be forced out rather than allow Burnham a coronation

 

[Broucek]

The truly scary part is that, well, wasn't this just screamingly obvious to anyone when Starmer first put his hand up and said he'd like to lead the Labour Party? Why wasn't he stopped before he could do the damage he has done?

it was also screamingly obvious that Gordon Brown, for all his achievements as Chancellor, was not suited to being PM and nobody stopped that either….

 

[The Ham]

I think even a "labour largest party" arrangement is now implausible. It is very rare that governments recover from a polling situation like this.

I think Burnham just has to treat this as three years which will be the last labour ever get in majority government, at least for a generation or two. The hard part would be convincing the PLP of this (a lot of careerists in denial even recently), but if he can do so he can probably do quite a lot.

Three years from the 1997-2001 term got a lot of big stuff through, even though I disagree with a lot of it, the volume and impact cannot be denied.

Burnham can't leave PR for the next labour manifesto, because the next labour manifesto is almost certainly not getting implemented.

As I've highlighted before, we are in unusual times as there's 5 significant parties (Labour, Tory, Reform, Lib Dems and Greens) which all have voting intentions of greater than 12% (plus the national parties in Wales and Scotland which are likely to win seats but nationally have limited chance of governing).

That's significantly different to it being mostly 3 significant parties (Labour, Tory and then one of Lib Dems/UKIP/Reform) which have higher than 12%.

It also matters where the vote share is, a 10% vote share in (say) Surrey for Labour is likely to be background noise compared to Lib Dems or Tory votes and so are likely to vote tactical for another party and it shows with results of a few percent.

Likewise, getting 30% or more of votes should be a winning result, but as Reform have found out that's not certain.

As such, whist a vote share of 18% would historically have meant coming 3rd, but that's not a given, it could still result in being the largest party.

For example if there's 20 seats with national vote share of:
28% Reform
20% Tory
20% Labour
17% Green
15% Lib Dems

(Note these have been scaled up by circa 12% to factor out others)

If Reform get 25% to 35% in all seats but Lib Dems, Labour and Torys get like 3% in some seats but higher in others.

In such a case you could have:

Party	Total Vote Points	National Vote Share	Seats Won
Reform	560	28%	2
Tory	400	20%	2
Labour	400	20%	11
Green	340	17%	2
Lib Dem	300	15%	3
Total	2000	100%	20

With the individual results being:

Seat	Reform	Tory	Labour	Green	Lib Dem	Seat Winner
1	24%	9%	34%	33%	0%	Labour
2	24%	0%	34%	33%	9%	Labour
3	24%	33%	34%	0%	9%	Labour
4	24%	33%	34%	8%	1%	Labour
5	24%	33%	34%	0%	9%	Labour
6	24%	9%	34%	0%	33%	Labour
7	24%	33%	34%	0%	9%	Labour
8	24%	7%	35%	0%	34%	Labour
9	24%	7%	35%	34%	0%	Labour
10	24%	34%	35%	7%	0%	Labour
11	24%	34%	35%	7%	0%	Labour
12	33%	32%	2%	32%	1%	Reform
13	33%	32%	2%	32%	1%	Reform
14	33%	34%	2%	0%	31%	Tory
15	33%	34%	2%	0%	31%	Tory
16	33%	6%	2%	59%	0%	Green
17	33%	30%	3%	34%	0%	Green
18	33%	0%	3%	0%	64%	Lib Dem
19	33%	0%	3%	30%	34%	Lib Dem
20	32%	0%	3%	31%	34%	Lib Dem

That's not to say that it's likely, just that mathematically a 20% national vote share (18% when allowing for minor parties) could still return a majority.

There's been quite a lot of anti Starmer sentiment (and from sources which I wouldn't necessarily expect it) which may influence voting intentions and that hasn't just been since he became PM, it was leading up to the general election.

A shift to Barnham may counter some of that and give Labour a poll boost. Especially if some of the things which Labour have brought in start to be noticed by individuals after he gains power (if that is indeed what happens).

 

[Brightonboy]

Streeting and Rayner are 42 and 46 respectively, and both have been MPs for only 11 years. They have at least 20 years to have a crack at becoming PM. And IMO this is actually to be welcomed. A lot of the recent political turmoil has been down to PMs to having had a short 'apprenticeship' as MPs and ministers - in contrast to the historical situation where a PM would have had 20 to 30 years' experience as an MP prior to getting to No. 10.

Al of which is true. However, on the experience of past governments, if Burnham does well enough to survive 10 years as PM (which would require 2 GE victories) it is quite possible that he would either stand down before a 3rd GE or fight it and lose because governments (of either colour) generally seem to run out of goodwill and success after about 10 years. Consequently the chances of Streeting or Rayner having the opportunity to go for the top job and enduring in that role at that point are, imho, slim; especially as by then there will likely be other young, fresh, rising stars willing to throw their hats in the ring.

I agree that a longer pre-Prime Ministerial apprenticeship in Parliament and ministerial or shadow roles is desirable but we live in a time when youth is seen as the answer and older (i.e. experienced) people are seen as part of the problem. I don't see that changing.

 

[DerekC]

Al of which is true. However, on the experience of past governments, if Burnham does well enough to survive 10 years as PM (which would require 2 GE victories) it is quite possible that he would either stand down before a 3rd GE or fight it and lose because governments (of either colour) generally seem to run out of goodwill and success after about 10 years. Consequently the chances of Streeting or Rayner having the opportunity to go for the top job and enduring in that role at that point are, imho, slim; especially as by then there will likely be other young, fresh, rising stars willing to throw their hats in the ring.

I agree that a longer pre-Prime Ministerial apprenticeship in Parliament and ministerial or shadow roles is desirable but we live in a time when youth is seen as the answer and older (i.e. experienced) people are seen as part of the problem. I don't see that changing.

I don't think youth is necessarily seen as the answer, but charisma is valued above experience, judgement and coherent policies. Clement Attlee was arguably one of the best prime ministers in living memory, but he wouldn't get anywhere near the job now.

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree that a longer pre-Prime Ministerial apprenticeship in Parliament and ministerial or shadow roles is desirable but we live in a time when youth is seen as the answer and older (i.e. experienced) people are seen as part of the problem. I don't see that changing.

Our current prime minister is 63 and the pretender is 56, this is hardly an endorsement of youth.

Burnham is 56 which makes him exactly the average age for a prime minister to take office over the last 300 years.

 

[The Ham]

Our current prime minister is 63 and the pretender is 56, this is hardly an endorsement of youth.

Burnham is 56 which makes him exactly the average age for a prime minister to take office over the last 300 years.

It is youthful compared to the recent US presidents!

 

[Uncle Buck]

There is nothing improper with Burnham’s entering Parliament and then immediately becoming PM. In fact it is a good solution to the current situation.

In America the current president is like Caligula, and his predecessor was a senile old fool. In France the current President is even more unpopular than Starmer and cannot get anything done. Yet their arcane constitutions prescribe strict procedures and keep these men in office.

Here the only principle is that the prime minister must command the support of the majority in the Commons. The current prime minister is a dud. He has no support left and cannot fulfil his agenda. Time for him to go. Here is Andy Burnham, who has charisma and momentum- for now. A majority of MPs will undoubtedly rally behind Burnham. Starmer resigns, Burnham is appointed in his stead, problem solved in afternoon.

I am unsure as to why a leadership contest is somehow seen as superior or more legitimate. Under the traditional system the prime minister needs the approval of elected MPs, and I can accept the legitimacy of this because they are elected; they also have an electoral incentive to pick the most moderate candidate. But I personally cannot think of a group of people whom I would rather less have picking my rulers than Labour Party members (or more accurately, the Labour Party’s Byzantine Electoral College). How is a victory in that group more legitimate than commanding a majority in the elected House of Commons?

Look at what happened when the Tory members chose Liz Truss. They chose someone with extreme views, distrusted by her colleagues, with predictable results. Among other problems with her premiership was the constitutional aspect: most Tory MPs wanted Sunak, but the members imposed Truss on them. You then had a prime minister who was handicapped from the off. The second Tory leadership election of 2022 was really the Tory MPs re-asserting their primacy.

One problem with this scenario is of course that the neutral umpire who facilitates this system is the monarch and that they are neither truly neutral nor truly qualified to be this umpire. But still, I think this flexible system far superior.

Likewise why do we need a “transition period”? More pompous American ideas. It would be a waste of time. If Starmer’s time is up, get him out and get cracking with Burnham. Why delay?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jun 2026 ==

Our current prime minister is 63 and the pretender is 56, this is hardly an endorsement of youth.

Burnham is 56 which makes him exactly the average age for a prime minister to take office over the last 300 years.

Francois Mitterrand liked to say that politics was not a science, or an art, it was a trade. Starmer has only been a politician since 2015.

As for Burnham, a 56 year old is not what it was; people look so much younger nowadays (the same goes for Starmer too).

I don’t think anyone should be prime minister who is under 55 and over 75.

 

[ValentaFan1974]

There isn't a hope of him having 10 years in power. All the structural issues that brought down Sunak and now Starmer, will also bring down Burnham within several years at most. Cost of living being the mainstay - the PMs can't fix it because the UK economy is broken as a result of excess borrowing and Brexit. Unless and until we set conditions for re-entry into the EU and Single Market, we are going to burn through PMs. And we probably have a dreadful and crippling diversion through the far-right before we get to a position where we can re-enter the EU.

The economy in the EU is in a worse state than the UK, we’ve had more growth post-COVID than they have.

Rejoining would cost us £15bn a year that we don’t have (hell, we can’t even give that to our defence budget), will mean we have to join Schengen and commit to adopting the Euro. Amongst other things. We’re far better off staying out.

The real issue here is that we no longer have steely politicians who want to make a difference. They’re all just in it for themselves.

Brexit caused none of this. Incompetence did.

 

[martin butler]

If we are Honest the right-wing media only wanted one man to become PM, and we all know who that is, now ask yourself why?

He's never been a minister, never exactly shown a willingness to serve anyone except maybe his own ego and his own greed what's in it for them?

A party that's failing in local government has no recognisable policies except to make him, and his friends richer, and to blame everything on minority groups.

 

[JamieL]

The economy in the EU is in a worse state than the UK, we’ve had more growth post-COVID than they have.

Rejoining would cost us £15bn a year that we don’t have (hell, we can’t even give that to our defence budget), will mean we have to join Schengen and commit to adopting the Euro. Amongst other things. We’re far better off staying out.

The real issue here is that we no longer have steely politicians who want to make a difference. They’re all just in it for themselves.

Brexit caused none of this. Incompetence did.

Not sure where you got your figures from but the EU zone is growing slightly faster than the UK as of the period up to end of Q1 2026. The relative performance against EU partners though is a little moot, the issue is what has Brexit cost the UK - and the answer is Brexit has cost and continues to cost the UK economy £201billion per year:

The UK economy has taken a 6% hit from the effects of Brexit, according to economists' analysis of internal Bank of England data about the decisions, views and financial results of thousands of British companies since the referendum a decade ago.

Source:

Brexit cost 6% of UK economy, Bank of England company data suggests

Analysis showed how much the UK could have grown if it had not exited the EU.

www.bbc.co.uk

...and why? Well...

The pound is below its pre-EU referendum level
...
UK growth has slowed
...
Trade has suffered from more border friction
...
Uncertainty sapped business investment
...
Employment has suffered
...

Source:

How Brexit has made Britain poorer – in charts

Forecasters were wrong about an immediate recession but right that we would be worse off outside the EU

www.theguardian.com

So regardless of the impending change of Prime Minister, there is little that can be done to turn the UK around whilst we are outside the EU. Burnham will want to spend and so will have to borrow more meaning more debt to be serviced from a declining economy. His attempts to do so will simply cost more investment, hurt the UK economy even more and result in disillusionment with his leadership. And then we will change Prime Minister again.

 

[The Ham]

Not sure where you got your figures from but the EU zone is growing slightly faster than the UK as of the period up to end of Q1 2026. The relative performance against EU partners though is a little moot, the issue is what has Brexit cost the UK - and the answer is Brexit has cost and continues to cost the UK economy £201billion per year:


Source:

Brexit cost 6% of UK economy, Bank of England company data suggests

Analysis showed how much the UK could have grown if it had not exited the EU.

www.bbc.co.uk

...and why? Well...



Source:

How Brexit has made Britain poorer – in charts

Forecasters were wrong about an immediate recession but right that we would be worse off outside the EU

www.theguardian.com

So regardless of the impending change of Prime Minister, there is little that can be done to turn the UK around whilst we are outside the EU. Burnham will want to spend and so will have to borrow more meaning more debt to be serviced from a declining economy. His attempts to do so will simply cost more investment, hurt the UK economy even more and result in disillusionment with his leadership. And then we will change Prime Minister again.

Indeed, and even if the UK growth was higher than the EU's, the thing with the UK having less trade with the EU also impacts the EU as they have less trade with the UK and so harms their economy.

That's the whole point of trade agreements it's to benefit both parties.

As such, it's shouldn't be surprising that getting rid of trade agreements remove those benefits to both parties.

 

[dosxuk]

if Burnham does well enough to survive 10 years as PM

That actually made me laugh out loud. There's zero chance of him making it that long in charge.

Unfortunately one of the jobs of Government is to make unpopular decisions that are in the interests of the country as a whole. We seem to have slipped into an era where making an decision that isn't acceptable to the entire population requires resignations.As soon as he has to announce any sort of cut, the claims of "we appointed you to stop this sort of Starmer nonsense" will begin, the media will latch on, and a new successor will be searched for.

We can only hope the Labour party don't have their own Liz Truss moment.

 

[martin butler]

That actually made me laugh out loud. There's zero chance of him making it that long in charge.

Unfortunately one of the jobs of Government is to make unpopular decisions that are in the interests of the country as a whole. We seem to have slipped into an era where making an decision that isn't acceptable to the entire population requires resignations.As soon as he has to announce any sort of cut, the claims of "we appointed you to stop this sort of Starmer nonsense" will begin, the media will latch on, and a new successor will be searched for.

We can only hope the Labour party don't have their own Liz Truss moment.

What's the alternative? a hard right reform government propped up by what's left of the Tory Party, Farage won't stay very long as PM, because he won't be able to grift from it, he will resign, both as PM, and as an MP, so what you will get in an ideology pure former tory, and it will be policy by mob, not rule,

 

[AlterEgo]

What's the alternative? a hard right reform government propped up by what's left of the Tory Party, Farage won't stay very long as PM, because he won't be able to grift from it, he will resign, both as PM, and as an MP, so what you will get in an ideology pure former tory, and it will be policy by mob, not rule,

Of course the Labour Party could be in power but Burnham not be the leader. But don't underestimate Labour. They have been superb at frittering away what little goodwill and political capital they had. Don't forget these clowns had 411 seats two years ago. Does it feel like that now?

 

[dosxuk]

What's the alternative? a hard right reform government propped up by what's left of the Tory Party

The same problem will happen to Reform if they ever get the opportunity to govern. We're already seeing it in councils where they've ended up having to increase council tax despite saying on their manifestos that they won't and they'll get doggy to find savings instead. Hence the rise of the Reform alternatives who can still make the empty promises safe in the knowledge they're no where near needing to implementing them.

Imagine the outcry from Reform's voting base when it turns out that actually you do need to have agreements with international partners to deal with the boats, and no, you can't just turn them around and let France deal with them.

 

[Bantamzen]

Starmer has said he will resign as leader of the Labour Party:

BBC News Live Feed On Starmer Resigning

Starmer announces he will 'resign as leader of the Labour Party​

​

Starmer says the question his party is asking is whether he is best placed to lead it into the next general election.

He says he has "heard the answer" of his party to that question and "accepts that answer with good grace".

Every decision he says he has taken has been about "putting the country I love first".

"I will resign as leader of the Labour Party," he says.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Starmer has said he will resign as leader of the Labour Party:

BBC News Live Feed On Starmer Resigning

So Labour MPs have let the right wing press dictate how this country is run and thus shown themselves to be utterly shallow and disrespecting of the population. There should be general election but there wont be despite all the rhetoric against the Torys over them changing leader. Burnham will shift to the left might benefit some but the wider economy wont. So come 2029 there will be no winners except those that see a coalition as the only tenable outcome being ready for it.

 

[styles]

And with that, he's resigned.

 

[Magrar]

Well there you have it.

All he had to do was be more sensible than Boris, more relateable than Rishi and more competent than a lettuce.

That's such a low bar even a caterpillar would have struggled to get under it.

When will the Labour Party ever learn? Government is hard. Opposition is easy. It isn't the media's fault, it isn't a conspiracy of the super rich, and it isn't anything to do with the character of white British people.

It is not us, it is you.

Wake up and smell the coffee already.