The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Thirteen]

It'd be nuts to call a General Election today, Starmer has only just resigned as Labour Leader and Burnham hasn't even been sworn in as Labour leader and therefore PM.

 

[Magrar]

you have lost me. Sorry. Are you saying that the number one priority of the incoming labour government should have been social media regulation?

if what you're saying about the rich owners of social media is true, then absolutely.

Even if not, given social media's negative impacts on society, it would have been an excellent way to start a premiership whose main selling point was apparently that the growns up as back in the room.

Do anything really, other than address the number one issue as framed by the media and social media, small boats, but which was perhaps in all likelihood, not even in the top ten reasons of why the country is so broken.

He basically let the media and social media dictate what success would look like under a Starmer premiership, and in just two short years, it was pretty obvious he had failed. Hard to see Boris, Rishi or Truss being that clueless.

It's the mark of the man that he even bothered to list "small boat crossings falling" as one of his "acheivements" due to "his decisions". That will have enraged both left and right. The left as it was a reminder he was so easily led down the right wing path, and right because he's barely made a dent, and the policy he came up with is as ridiculous, expensive, ineffective, and cruel, as he himself said the Tory policy was, gloating as he cancelled it on day one.

 

[nw1]

This is what's so crazy about the Labour Party.

Their and Andy's best move right now would be to call a general election today. Farage is clearly on the back foot, but it's not likely to be for long. Now is the time to capitalise on Andy being seen to be able to beat Reform, without having yet potentially shown anyone he might be a complete dud who wilts under the pressure of being PM just like Starmer did.

Bad move I think. People don't really know what a Burnham (assuming it is him) government will be like. Give him a chance to govern.

Plus in three years' time I suspect the risk of a Reform government will be significantly lower. Granted Labour might not win either, but our number one priority should be to save the country from a Reform government and possibly becoming an authoritarian, xenophobic, anti-intellectual hell-hole.

The risk of a Reform government is too high now but I do get the impression their appeal is on a slow downward trend, as people get wind of the "calibre" of their candidates and get to experience them in local government. The longer we put off a GE the better. No wonder Reform want one, because they see the next year or two as their window into power.

This is not about Labour. It's about saving the country from Reform.

I note that the Tories don't seem that keen on a GE either, and with good reason: their trend appears to be upwards but they're not in a position yet where they could do well. They may also perhaps remember their recent experience, they can hardly call out Labour for changing leaders when they made a career of it between 2016 and 2022.

 

[jfollows]

There’s not going to be a leadership contest, nor will there be a general election.

 

[Magrar]

This is not about Labour. It's about saving the country from Reform.

That doesn't track. If Labour getting things right is the only way to stop Reform, then it is by definition, about Labour.

If Andy gives off the impression he is afraid of the voters and is playing for time, he'll end up looking like Starmer.

He needs to show he is not afraid of taking on Reform, that he has a workable plan for fixing broken Britain, and he wants our explicit, democratic, fully informed support to carry it out, over a full, five year term.

Starmer had none of that, his so called huge mandate was essentially a myth, a win by default. Five Live just played the clip of Kemi listing all his u-turns. It's incredible he even lasted this long, and he only has himself to blame.

This is exactly what you would have expected to happen when a man enters Number 10 with no overarching idea, no solid policy framework, no real barn storming support from his party or the country, and a grave, existential threat of the likes never seen before in politics since, ironically, the rise of Labour.

No wonder we saw reset after reset after reset, until the man just gave up, rolled over and played dead. He's even said that classic line, he's off to spend more time with his family. So much for his conviction to be the one man who could save Britain.

Andy needs to avoid repeating that mistake. It starts today.

 

[nw1]

That doesn't track. If Labour getting things right is the only way to stop Reform, then it is by definition, about Labour.

Ah, but it isn't though. There are a number of alternate routes to stopping Reform:

a) Labour fall well short of a majority, losing many seats, but a "progressive coalition" involving them, the Greens, the Lib Dems, left-leaning Independents and the Nationalists could account for more than half the seats won.
b) The Tories recover to an extent that they could form the next government, perhaps with right-leaning Independents. More likely the longer a GE is put off. Not as ridiculous as some seem to insist. Badenoch isn't hated that much it seems, and the Tories offer a softer version of right-wing politics for those inclined in that direction.
c) A "national unity" government involving parties from both the left and the right is able to govern if it gains more seats than Reform.

The overarching priority should be to prevent Reform getting close to a majority. I suspect this is achievable, but becomes more achievable the longer we leave it. I feel peak Reform has been the past 12 months or so - they are already slowly on the slide, leave it long enough and the risk becomes much lower.

Plus many, I think, underestimate the visceral dislike many of us have towards Reform, and the fact that many of us are prepared to use quite extreme forms of tactical voting to prevent them getting in.

If Andy gives off the impression he is afraid of the voters and is playing for time, he'll end up looking like Starmer.

We don't need a GE right now. We only had one two years ago. We don't need another. We don't have a presidential system here, and even if we did, there wouldn't be a GE. Do you think there would be a presidential election in the US if Trump stood down right now? Of course not, Vance would take over. Not even the most ardent Trump/Vance hater (and I count myself in that camp) would question that.

 

[Yew]

will mean we have to join Schengen and commit to adopting the Euro.

Could you provide a source specific to this scenario for that?

 

[nw1]

Could you provide a source specific to this scenario for that?

It (joining Schengen) won't happen, though I have to say that if it did, it would make our lives in the UK much easier and thus should not be seen as a bad thing. <g, d & r>

 

[dosxuk]

Burnham will be no more successful than Starmer, simply because the far-left and far-right won't let him. Any sign of appeasement of the other side and they'll be flooding the press and social media with their outrage. But that appeasement is supposed to happen in a democracy, it's not supposed to be a winner-takes-all-and-screw-the-losers, government is supposed to act in the common interest, even when that annoys the extremes of the party's support base.

And blocking the bots / limiting the media will do nothing to limit this outrage, because they are genuine fears and angers of part of the population.The missing voice is that of the just-about-satisfied middle ground, which is currently not only silenced by the media in a quest for views, but seen as the opposition by both left and right.

 

[nw1]

Burnham will be no more successful than Starmer, simply because the far-left and far-right won't let him. Any sign of appeasement of the other side and they'll be flooding the press and social media with their outrage. But that appeasement is supposed to happen in a democracy, it's not supposed to be a winner-takes-all-and-screw-the-losers, government is supposed to act in the common interest, even when that annoys the extremes of the party's support base.

And blocking the bots / limiting the media will do nothing to limit this outrage, because they are genuine fears and angers of part of the population.The missing voice is that of the just-about-satisfied middle ground, which is currently not only silenced by the media in a quest for views, but seen as the opposition by both left and right.

I do think a pragmatic approach could be successful. A Labour government needs to show it cares about public services and employment rights and not go cutting things (winter fuel payments, for example). It should avoid any "emphatically left" ideology politics, however, as that may discourage too many: e.g. be careful not to cut areas such as defence. Get that right and it will gain the respect of not only the left but the centre-left and even the centre.

It won't gain the respect of the right through such actions, but we have the Conservatives to speak up for the "sane" right-of-centre.

If you are immediately dismissing Burnham before he's even set foot in power, what government do you think would be successful? Due to our inherent media bias, are you implying that only right-of-centre governments can be successful at policy, as the media will support them?

 

[HSTEd]

My view is Starmer was and is a reptile who would say anything to get to be prime minister and stay there for as long as possible.

He has made constant awful decisions
Plus his constant shapeshifting to fit whatever principles he believed served his objective of becoming and staying PM in any given moment.

One of his first actions after becoming Prime Minister was to hand a plum, powerful, job to the civil servant that just happened to be the one that put the knife in Boris and guaranteed that he would be Prime Minister. That alone demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of optics.

Then there was constant u-turns, giftgate, the total collapse of his authority within the PLP..... Then Mandelson, which was another colossal unforced error.
Then his recent dive towards authoritarianism in the guise of "protecting the children".

The list goes on and on and on.

 

[dosxuk]

If you are immediately dismissing Burnham, what government do you think would be successful? Due to our inherent media bias, are you implying that only right-of-centre governments can be successful at policy, as the media will support them?

I don't believe any government will be successful until after we have had a social reset of our expectations and the realities of the world. A far right government will have the same problems with the right of their party constantly slinging complaints about not going far enough, but the party won't be able to give them what they want and attract a large enough voting base to get into power. A key reason behind the rise of Reform is the shedding of a lot of the UKIP policy and support baggage to more extreme parties allowing them to appear more balanced without them complaining about "appeasing the left".

I also don't expect such a reset to happen in the foreseeable future, we're heading along the US path where both left and right are becoming more tribal and spend the first half of their terms in office ripping up anything the other side did simply because they don't like each other.

 

[nw1]

My view is Starmer was and is a reptile who would say anything to get to be prime minister and stay there for as long as possible.

Was he really worse than Truss (no comment), Johnson (Partygate, Brexit), Cameron (austerity), Blair (Iraq war) or Thatcher (multiple reasons) though?

Personally I considered him bland but relatively harmless by the (low) standards of post-1979 PMs. The second-least-bad PM I can remember, from Thatcher onwards. But it seems in the UK, the one type of PM we cant abide is someone who doesn't have a larger-than-life personality. Not only Starmer, but also Brown and (for balance) May were all badly-treated, IMO.

I'd give him a 5/10. Could do better, but not an epic fail.

 

[HSTEd]

Was he really worse than Truss (no comment), Johnson (Partygate, Brexit), Cameron (austerity), Blair (Iraq war) or Thatcher (multiple reasons) though?

Personally I considered him bland but relatively harmless by the (low) standards of post-1979 PMs. The second-least-bad PM I can remember, from Thatcher onwards. But it seems in the UK, the one type of PM we cant abide is someone who doesn't have a larger-than-life personality. Not only Starmer, but also Brown and (for balance) May were all badly-treated, IMO.

Did any of those other PMs appoint the niece of the (then) Bangladeshi dictator (Tulip Siddiq) to be a Minister of the Crown in charge of anti-corruption activities?

A niece which is pictured in numerous photos with her aunt and people like Putin in Moscow.

 

[nw1]

Did any of those other PMs appoint the niece of the (then) Bangladeshi dictator (Tulip Siddiq) to be a Minister of the Crown in charge of anti-corruption activities?

A niece which is pictured in numerous photos with her aunt and people like Putin in Moscow.

And that's worse than mass unemployment in the early 80s, austerity in the early 10s, Truss panicking the markets, and the damage to our international reputation done by Brexit?

Look at most Governments and I think you'll find some less than squeaky-clean characters were appointed every time.

 

[Sorcerer]

I wasn't his biggest fan, but I think people will miss Starmer when he's gone, and his resignation is a bit more sombre than I expected it to be. My issues with Starmer are that he was a terrible communicator who couldn't project the competence that makes up for the lack of charisma, nor did he produce enough results within his tenure. People say it takes longer to make changes but Clement Attlee was able to deliver radical reforms within five years post-WWII when the country was on it's knees.

But while in some ways he didn't go far enough, he went far in the wrong places, somewhat mitigated by not being the most awful things you could do in government. But while I doubt this will happen, I hope he gets a role as Foreign Secretary. He was a fantastic diplomat navigating a world with Donald Trump and I think it's no coincidence that Trump and refusal to get involved in Iran along with supporting Ukraine are where his support was at it's strongest.

Was he really worse than Truss (no comment), Johnson (Partygate, Brexit), Cameron (austerity), Blair (Iraq war) or Thatcher (multiple reasons) though?

The Iraq war was a travesty as far as foreign policy is concerned, but in my opinion that alone shouldn't qualify Tony Blair was a runner for a bad or even worst Prime Minister. If you asked me to name the worst PMs of my lifetime, I'd say Boris Johnson for his total lack of integrity and because he was more interested in the idea of being Prime Minister than the duties of it.

 

[HSTEd]

And that's worse than mass unemployment in the early 80s, austerity in the early 10s, Truss panicking the markets, and the damage to our international reputation done by Brexit?

It is evidence that he is tacitly tolerant of massive corruption, which is so corrosive that any accusation of it must be stamped out.

Corruption will destroy Britain if it is allowed to fester, and will endure far longer than those other issues after a change in government.

 

[nw1]

It is evidence that he is tacitly tolerant of massive corruption, which is so corrosive that any accusation of it must be stamped out.

Corruption will destroy Britain if it is allowed to fester, and will endure far longer than those other issues after a change in government.

And that charge cannot be levelled at any previous government? Corruption is a long-term problem in politics, I think most governments are guilty to some degree. The Boris government PPE scandal, for example?

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

The Iraq war was a travesty as far as foreign policy is concerned, but in my opinion that alone shouldn't qualify Tony Blair was a runner for a bad or even worst Prime Minister. If you asked me to name the worst PMs of my lifetime, I'd say Boris Johnson for his total lack of integrity and because he was more interested in the idea of being Prime Minister than the duties of it.

Yes, to be fair I don't dislike Blair that much and don't consider him a bad PM. But was just pointing out that in the Iraq war, Blair did something worse than anything Starmer has done IMO, even though I don't dislike Blair too much. Like Starmer, I'd give Blair 5/10. Boris would be a 1/10, and Truss a big fat zero, for comparison. You'd have to go back to Attlee to find someone I'd rate really highly though.

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

But while in some ways he didn't go far enough, he went far in the wrong places, somewhat mitigated by not being the most awful things you could do in government. But while I doubt this will happen, I hope he gets a role as Foreign Secretary. He was a fantastic diplomat navigating a world with Donald Trump and I think it's no coincidence that Trump and refusal to get involved in Iran along with supporting Ukraine are where his support was at it's strongest.

I agree. People underrate Starmer's foreign policy, IMO. He was able to "deal with" Trump without being his lapdog. And he seems to have gone some way towards restoring good relations with the EU, something we desperately need in a world of rogue actors. He works with Macron and Merz, and doesn't see them as some kind of enemy.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ah, but it isn't though. There are a number of alternate routes to stopping Reform:

a) Labour fall well short of a majority, losing many seats, but a "progressive coalition" involving them, the Greens, the Lib Dems, left-leaning Independents and the Nationalists could account for more than half the seats won.
b) The Tories recover to an extent that they could form the next government, perhaps with right-leaning Independents. More likely the longer a GE is put off. Not as ridiculous as some seem to insist. Badenoch isn't hated that much it seems, and the Tories offer a softer version of right-wing politics for those inclined in that direction.
c) A "national unity" government involving parties from both the left and the right is able to govern if it gains more seats than Reform.

Which of those is what Labour want to happen? None of them.

Sorry but this weakens the case for Burnham's impending ministry and means he lacks voter consent.

We don't have a presidential system here, and even if we did, there wouldn't be a GE. Do you think there would be a presidential election in the US if Trump stood down right now? Of course not, Vance would take over. Not even the most ardent Trump/Vance hater (and I count myself in that camp) would question that.

Vance was on the ticket though, and in a different electoral system too.

 

[cactustwirly]

Starmer is largely competent but has been dragged into a desire to be popular despite this not being necessary this early in a Parliament. He could and should have stuck to his guns on stuff like taxation as there is plenty of time until the next General Election for him to prove he was right (or otherwise). Otherwise he lacks charisma a bit like John Major (who was also competent, bar the rail privatisation decision). Burnham has charisma, almost the "man you'd have a pint with in the pub" as Farage pushes, so he may do better but his policies are in practice unlikely to be wildly different.

I would argue the mess we are in is because Starmer is incompetent. The unpopularity is because of a failure of leadership, failure of policy making.
Seems like Starmer has no idea what he is doing and his aides like Morgan McSweeney were doing all the work.

Like the decision to appoint Mandelson was a colossal failure of judgement, as well as the U turns on benefits etc.

Hopefully Andy Burnham has a clear policy agenda and has the ability to make good political decisions

 

[johntea]

Somewhat amusingly on the railways Andy will at least be able to claim some delay repay as his 10:55 Avanti Manchester Piccadilly - London Euston journey to Number 10 has been delayed over 20 minutes and counting!

Realtime Trains | 1A29 1055 Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston | 22/06/2026

Real-time train running information for 1A29 1055 departure from Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston on 22/06/2026. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[AlterEgo]

And that's worse than mass unemployment in the early 80s, austerity in the early 10s, Truss panicking the markets, and the damage to our international reputation done by Brexit?

Look at most Governments and I think you'll find some less than squeaky-clean characters were appointed every time.

Whataboutery to excuse sleaze and disgrace.

 

[nw1]

Vance was on the ticket though, and in a different electoral system too.

Did Rishi have an election? Did Gordon? Did John Major, immediately after taking over? No, no and no. So why should Burnham?

Do you not understand that a GE right now could lead to a Reform government? Do you want that? Because some of us certainly don't, some of us have massive fears of that on both social and financial grounds. Are you prepared to accept the risk of a Reform government just because you think that morally a new leader "needs to be" confirmed as PM by the public?


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

Whataboutery to excuse sleaze and disgrace.

I say again, was Starmer really worse than Boris, for example, in this respect? What about the countless scandals involving ministers in the Major era?
I was just trying to counter the notion that the sum total of wrongdoing by Starmer exceeds that done by Thatcher, Boris and Truss. I would argue it doesn't.

 

[HSTEd]

And that charge cannot be levelled at any previous government? Corruption is a long-term problem in politics, I think most governments are guilty to some degree. The Boris government PPE scandal, for example?

I can't remember any other government in recent times appointing someone that is closely associated with a foreign dictator to be a minister..... or indeed to appoint someone with a history of sleaze as an Ambassador for that matter.
If the people on the street know anything about politics they know that Mandelson is dodgy.

EDIT:

Starmer had literal years to prepare a coherent policy programme and apparently did none of it because the Conservatives might steal their ideas.

He believed the purpose of the party was to win the election and make him PM, not to see its programme implemented - so he didn't bother to write one.
This has now undone him.

 

[martin butler]

Burnham, will IMHO have to come out with all guns blazing against the right wing, and its disinformation programme,
A lie is halfway round the world before truth even gets out of the blocks, and then we have the agents provoctica always spreading their own version, aimed to ignite the terminally stupid,

So how do you defeat it? by punishing not just the idiots who riot, but the politicians who supported them, by targeting the media houses that give them airtime, including the BBC, by closing down bot farms and far right financiers whose activities could legitimately be said to not be in our national interest.

 

[nw1]

I can't remember any other government in recent times appointing someone known to be massively corrupt to be a minister..... or indeed an Ambassador for that matter.
If the people on the street know anything about politics they know that Mandelson is dodgy.

I agree. That was a big mistake. My guess is that he felt backed into a corner when dealing with Trump, so it's a sign of weakness rather than anything else. But enough to make him entirely unsuitable as PM? I'm not convinced. As I said, sum up the total wrongdoing of all our PMs and the total will be greater, IMO, for Thatcher, Johnson and Truss. I am not saying Starmer was a great person, I'm just saying he was less bad than some of his predecessors.

 

[jfollows]

Sky going bonkers showing Burnham’s Pendolino arriving at Euston.
I’m sure their commentator said two hours ago that, as a ”man of the people” he was taking the tube, showing a picture of him at Manchester Piccadilly heading for platform 5. I guess it shows how little the Sky commentariat uses public transport, unlike Burnham.

EDIT And the “man of the people” used a taxi from Euston, out of the side entrance into Eversholt Street.

 

[JamesT]

The news coverage is slightly ridiculous today. Helicopter coverage of a Pendolino coming into Euston and cameras waiting on the platform.

 

[Howardh]

Burnham, will IMHO have to come out with all guns blazing against the right wing, and its disinformation programme,
A lie is halfway round the world before truth even gets out of the blocks, and then we have the agents provoctica always spreading their own version, aimed to ignite the terminally stupid,

So how do you defeat it? by punishing not just the idiots who riot, but the politicians who supported them, by targeting the media houses that give them airtime, including the BBC, by closing down bot farms and far right financiers whose activities could legitimately be said to not be in our national interest.

Firstly, did Burnham arrive off the Avanti less than 15 mins late so they won't have to pay delay repay?!

Secondly referring the the above - don't panic. The world is full of bots who can't vote. Looks at recent by-elections, Reform hasn't won one since Runcorn, despite throwing everything at Gorton and Makerfield. It's shown that the main party of opposition is the Anything But Reform party, no matter how much publicity they get, the rest of us will vote tactically to keep them out.

In the medium term, in order to get that tactical vote, the Tories have to work out exactly who they are; think they have a choice of either being Reform-lite and go to bed with them in a coalition; or be the party of the centre-right and pro-Europe again and be a real place for that tactical vote.

TV presenters only get one vote, bots get none!!

 

[jfollows]

If he was on 1A30 it was only 9 minutes late.

Realtime Trains | 1A30 1115 Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston | 22/06/2026

Real-time train running information for 1A30 1115 departure from Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston on 22/06/2026. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk