The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[TravelDream]

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

He was supposed to arrive at 1309 in time for the lunchtime news from what I saw.
That's 21 minutes late. Not a good day for Avanti PR.

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

Real-time train running information for 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

Just confirmed on news it was platform 13. So definitely this one.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I can't remember any other government in recent times appointing someone known to be massively corrupt to be a minister

Is Siddiq known to be massively corrupt? I hope you can provide evidence for that statement because it sounds rather libellous otherwise.

I certainly wouldn't take what any government in Bangladesh says about a former politician as 100% gospel truth. Especially not when the military in Bangladesh has a long history of runnings-in with Hasina and her family; the military wiped out almost her entire family in 1975 during a coup. Not much has changed in that country.

It's not an appointment I'd have made because of the familial link to Hasina, but that's different to saying Starmer appointed Siddiq knowing she was corrupt.

 

[jfollows]

Just confirmed on news it was platform 13. So definitely this one.

Agreed

 

[Tetchytyke]

Looks at recent by-elections, Reform hasn't won one since Runcorn, despite throwing everything at Gorton and Makerfield.

And they only won Runcorn by 6 votes, with over 2,000 people voting Green there.

If Burnham heeds that particular lesson he'll be doing better than Starmer.

 

[AlterEgo]

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

How did Rishi's and Gordon's premierships go? Did they really grip the issues of the day, or are they also-ran nobodies? Major didn't call one because his government was extremely unpopular and needed time to distance himself from Thatcher's aura. Brown not calling an election in 2007 was a strategic error and hamstrung his political agenda.

Why do you think Theresa May called an early general election straight after becoming leader? It is because she had an urgent programme of constitutional reform to implement and secured the consent of the electorate to make it happen (unfortunately)?

Whether we like it or not Prime Ministers need voter consent if they are to enact wide and sweeping reforms. Just because there is not a direct electoral process does not mean that PMs are impervious to voter opinion and does not mean governments can rule by fiat.

Is Burnham planning to be Continuity Starmer? He will get kicked if he is.

 

[johntea]

Amusingly after all the tracking Sky did of the train they didn't think of the side exit so surprised several hundred normal passengers instead with some media fame, the BBC got a platform interview presumably because some of their staff were on the train!

 

[HSTEd]

Is Siddiq known to be massively corrupt? I hope you can provide evidence for that statement because it sounds rather libellous otherwise.

I have corrected the statement.

 

[greatkingrat]

Why do you think Theresa May called an early general election straight after becoming leader? It is because she had an urgent programme of constitutional reform to implement and secured the consent of the electorate to make it happen (unfortunately)?

No it wasn't. It was because the polls showed the Conservatives with a large lead over Corbyn's Labour. If the polls had been anywhere close to the actual result, there is no way May would have considered an election, constitutional reform or not. Plus she had been leader for nearly a year before calling the election, it was not straight after she was elected.

 

[DoubleLemon]

Whether we like it or not Prime Ministers need voter consent if they are to enact wide and sweeping reforms.

That's not how the current system works though - it needs massive reform- We don't pick a leader, we (supposedly) pick a party. You might not like it. But that's how it works.

The AI bots and content farms shout the loudest and need sorting as if you look online it paints a picture thats not true and funded by russa.

 

[AlterEgo]

No it wasn't. It was because the polls showed the Conservatives with a large lead over Corbyn's Labour. If the polls had been anywhere close to the actual result, there is no way May would have considered an election, constitutional reform or not.

She was about to go into negotiations with the EU about Brexit, it was very important that she could show democratic consent for her position. It may be the case she'd have chickened out if she felt the government was unpopular, but as her government's sole policy was Brexit, this would have had much wider ramifications than just marking time until the next time the election fell due.

 

[Magrar]

I think people are forgetting how Starmer defined himself, or indeed how his backers sold him to the people. That's how he has to be judged, since he was after all, the country's head politician, not the head lawyer or accountant or railway engineer.

He only really had one virtue, boringly competent, and that was such a blatant act of mis-selling, he now goes down in history as the shortest serving Labour Prime Minister in history. At the hands of his own party!

And he came into office on a wave of harsh, at times vitriolic, condemnation of what had gone before. The rank stench of corruption, and the signs all around that politics was now infested with the clueless, the feckless, the immature and the irresponsible. Nobody simply served anymore, except in the interests of their own careers.

So how did that go? Well, not great. The standard he set was whiter than white. He leaves office with at best, a murky grey colour marking his time in office, as far as these metrics are concerned.

People didn't vote for Boris for his attention to detail or high moral fibre, just as they didn't vote for Thatcher for her warmth and empathy.

But in so far as we can even say the people who voted for Starmer were making a positve endorsement of him, rather than saying something else about someone or something else, they very clearly did not get what they voted for. And it really isn't close.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's not how the current system works though - it needs massive reform- We don't pick a leader, we (supposedly) pick a party. You might not like it. But that's how it works.

It's not how it works in practice. Many political corpses in the modern era attest to that, and particularly in the age of social media. If you don't have democratic consent your programme of government will falter.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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

No he was on 1A29 which was 21 late into Euston.

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

Good BBC helicopter pictures of the train running into Euston with all the bridges and tunnels.
Now following his taxi to Westminster (would have been quicker on the tube!).

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

For all my criticism of Starmer's Temu Farage act, Badenoch is even worse. With the added bonus that Badenoch is nothing but an anchor baby lecturing us all about the perils of immigration. She has all the self-awareness of a brick.

Reform has finished the Conservative Party as a political force. Either the Tories will go the same way as the Liberals or Reform will eventually conduct a reverse takeover. I suspect the former; Farage would appear to be one to take great pleasure in destroying the Tories.

Restore are useful idiots because they let Reform portray themselves as the sensible ones in the room. It'll be interesting to see what happens if they stop being the useful idiots and start taking election-changing numbers of votes from Reform.

I have corrected the statement.

It still reads like you're accusing Siddiq of being corrupt.

As for Mandelson, well, Mandelson is Mandelson. People weren't really criticising his appointment when it was made, most were saying it was a sensible appointment as it takes a bit of a wrong 'un to be a Trump whisperer. They were probably right. The Epstein things are interesting, too, as Mandelson is the only one to have lost his job because of his link to Epstein. Ironic given that Mandelson is gay and obviously wouldn't have shared Epstein's hebephilia, although he would have shared Epstein's love of money.

Mandelson has many many faults but he is also a very good politician and he is extremely charming. I'm reliably informed he used to have his civil servants eating out of his hand, he always noticed and complimented a new haircut or new shoes, even for the most junior staff in his office, and on journeys away he always got the biscuits in. You'd think this is common sense, and it probably is, but you'd be amazed how few other politicians understand how to do this.

 

[AlterEgo]

But in so far as we can even say the people who voted for Starmer were making a positve endorsement of him, rather than saying something else about someone or something else, they very clearly did not get what they voted for. And it really isn't close.

You may well be correct about this but it seems to me Starmer was voted for as "not Tory" and not many people really voted *for* Labour or their programme of government, which has fed into his fragility. He barely had an agenda, or if he did, voters didn't know about it.

 

[Broucek]

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

I'm really hoping this is tongue-in-cheek

I have no problems with busy senior politicians taking taxis - it allows them to make calls, work on a phone or tablet without anyone seeing, discuss things with their aides and other worthwhile activity. Sadly, it's also safer

 

[HSTEd]

As for Mandelson, well, Mandelson is Mandelson. People weren't really criticising his appointment when it was made, most were saying it was a sensible appointment as it takes a bit of a wrong 'un to be a Trump whisperer. They were probably right. The Epstein things are interesting, too, as Mandelson is the only one to have lost his job because of his link to Epstein. Ironic given that Mandelson is gay and obviously wouldn't have shared Epstein's hebephilia, although he would have shared Epstein's love of money.

Just removed any reference to corruption from the post

On Mandelson, some people were not criticising it, others definitely were.

In the end none of it mattered because Trump has proved to be so unstable that it is impossible to have a good relationship with him not based on total obedience.

It was a terrible failure of judgement to believe it was ever going to end anything other than terribly.

 

[jfollows]

I'm really hoping this is tongue-in-cheek

I have no problems with busy senior politicians taking taxis - it allows them to make calls, work on a phone or tablet without anyone seeing, discuss things with their aides and other worthwhile activity. Sadly, it's also safer

It was in the context of Sky saying “the man of the people” was using the tube two hours earlier, although he wasn’t. Nothing against Burnham, just useless stuff by Sky.

 

[Broucek]

It was in the context of Sky saying “the man of the people” was using the tube two hours earlier, although he wasn’t. Nothing against Burnham, just useless stuff by Sky.

Ah, thanks. Our media is hopeless...

 

[Tetchytyke]

You may well be correct about this but it seems to me Starmer was voted for as "not Tory" and not many people really voted *for* Labour or their programme of government, which has fed into his fragility. He barely had an agenda, or if he did, voters didn't know about it.

Our electoral system increasingly rewards a mandate which is wide and shallow and it shouldn't come as a surprise that this makes leaders' positions fragile.

Starmer won a huge majority on barely a third of the vote. So, on day one, he formed a new government for which two thirds of voters had actively voted against. He obtained fewer votes than Corbyn. No wonder his position was fragile.

You can say the same about Johnson too, an 80-seat majority on 43% of the vote. And he only called an election because he sensed an opportunity and manufactured sufficient outrage to bounce Corbyn into stupidly supporting the revocation of the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

She was about to go into negotiations with the EU about Brexit, it was very important that she could show democratic consent for her position.

That's not why she did it, though. She did it because she thought she would wipe the floor with Corbyn. When she first took power the opinion polls said that she would wipe the floor with Corbyn. She probably should have wiped the floor with Corbyn.

As for democratic consent, she only remained Prime Minister afterwards because she could count on the support of the headbangers in the DUP. If she really cared about democratic consent she'd have called a second election. Although that would probably have been very similar because of a Brexit which was pushed through on a gross tiny majority vote and a net minority vote.

 

[DoubleLemon]

As for democratic consent, she only remained Prime Minister afterwards because she could count on the support of the headbangers in the DUP.

Bribing... ahem... offering to send millioms of pounds extra to Northern Ireland probably helped.

 

[Howardh]

His signing in today, does he HAVE to swear his allegiance to god (and help me god)? Is there an alternative?

 

[Andyh82]

He was supposed to arrive at 1309 in time for the lunchtime news from what I saw.
That's 21 minutes late. Not a good day for Avanti PR.

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

Real-time train running information for 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

Just confirmed on news it was platform 13. So definitely this one.

They were making a big thing about the train being 20 mins late on the BBC News, suggesting it reinforces Burnham’s previous views about investing in the rail infrastructure to the north, and saying he’d be eligible for delay repay.

I was thinking, what’s the chances the delay wasn’t Avanti’s fault, politicians and the media have been caught out with stuff like that before.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Bribing... ahem... offering to send millioms of pounds extra to Northern Ireland probably helped.

But only certain parts of Northern Ireland, of course.

To assist with this, the DUP engineered a situation where the Northern Ireland Assembly collapsed and the Executive did not function between 2017 and 2020. Quite amusing that one later result of all of this was that London legalised abortion and same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland in 2019.

 

[JamesT]

His signing in today, does he HAVE to swear his allegiance to god (and help me god)? Is there an alternative?

It's allegiance to the monarch, not God. One of the reasons Sinn Fein don't take their seats.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/swearingin/

Members of both Houses of Parliament are required by law to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown.

MPs cannot take their seat, speak in debates, vote or receive a salary until taking the oath or affirmation. They could also be fined £500 and have their seat declared vacant “as if they were dead” if they attempted to do so.

There are both religious and non-religious versions of the oath.

 

[EYFanatic]

And with that, he's resigned.

Well, look on the bright side... The pair at Altnabreac have a new lawyer to engage!

Shades of Blair and Brown’s dinner at Granita here?

Very much sounds and seems like it

This is a very dark day for the integrity of British politics and the history of this country - if Burnham actually does manage to become Labour Leader, let us hope he actually knows how to do a good job in Government because the only good thing he did as Health Minister was launch the investigation into Stafford hospital

 

[Howardh]

It's allegiance to the monarch, not God. One of the reasons Sinn Fein don't take their seats.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/swearingin/

There are both religious and non-religious versions of the oath.

He took the religious one. Does seem ridiculously outdated. maybe the oath should be towards parliament itself (or even the speaker) as we elect representatives there, and not Buckingham Palace?!

 

[Horizon22]

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.

I think making “incompetent” is too strong, but perhaps misguided or perhaps even naive about what being the PM meant. Certainly his - or the people around him - who managed his communications were fairly awful. The media also clearly didn’t take to him which doesn’t help.

Some of the policy making was a bit hit and miss and no doubt unpopular things have to be done but they couldn’t be escaped. There were also a number of clear missteps - winter fuel payment - which whilst I don’t disagree (wealthy pensions don’t need a universal credit), the messaging around it was so bad and still haunts Labour and Starmer 18 months on.

In the background some decent policies have been done, but frankly it’s all lacked leadership. It’s almost like he’s a civil servant, trying to be a PM.

I’m not convinced Burnham is going to have loads more success or even has the ability to be this sort of ‘lauded saviour’ given the cards he’s got dealt or if we won’t just renege on some of his promises when the economic reality faces him. But at the same time, he’s a much much better communicator and also rightly or wrongly gives a more positive image that “things can get better”.

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

He took the religious one. Does seem ridiculously outdated. maybe the oath should be towards parliament itself (or even the speaker) as we elect representatives there, and not Buckingham Palace?!

Technically it’s the monarch’s parliament of course as every piece of legislation needs their approval as they are the de jure head of state.

For those who do feel it is outdated, they can of course affirm which is what many do.

 

[DarloRich]

there has been a complete loss of perspective in this country in relation to politicians and politics. Utter head loss driven by social media nonsense and the credulity of many in society. Does no one else see it?

 

[nw1]

How did Rishi's and Gordon's premierships go? Did they really grip the issues of the day, or are they also-ran nobodies? Major didn't call one because his government was extremely unpopular and needed time to distance himself from Thatcher's aura. Brown not calling an election in 2007 was a strategic error and hamstrung his political agenda.

Perhaps yes, but Brown was popular enough in 2007 to likely win, and the worst that could have happened if he did not win would have been an early arrival of Cameron. For all Cameron's many, many faults, we weren't facing the prospect of a genuinely hard-right party gaining power.

Why do you think Theresa May called an early general election straight after becoming leader? It is because she had an urgent programme of constitutional reform to implement and secured the consent of the electorate to make it happen (unfortunately)?

I guess she thought she could retain or even improve that majority. To be fair it wasn't straight after - it was about nine months or so after.

From the point of view of a Brexiter (of which I am obviously not), you could argue that the referendum was the consent to make it happen, no need for a GE.

Whether we like it or not Prime Ministers need voter consent if they are to enact wide and sweeping reforms. Just because there is not a direct electoral process does not mean that PMs are impervious to voter opinion and does not mean governments can rule by fiat.

Is Burnham planning to be Continuity Starmer? He will get kicked if he is.

So what do you propose from the following options, which appear to be the only three?

a) Burnham being more of the same - from your argument presumably not a viable option.
b) A general election, which I'd say right now has a 50% risk of leading to a Reform Government - and then we are all screwed and will look back on the days of Starmer, or indeed Sunak and even Johnson, as some kind of utopia in comparison. This would be a colossal and catastrophic mistake, IMO.
c) Burnham offering something different to Starmer without a GE. This to me seems clearly the best option, or the least worst at any rate.