The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Railwaycat]

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 ==



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For those who do feel it is outdated, they can of course affirm which is what many do.

Excellent post, thank you - I think you've got it spot on.

 

[dosxuk]

Burnham offering something different to Starmer without a GE. This to me seems clearly the best option, or the least worst at any rate.

Does Burnham have the ability to offer anything different within the constraints of the real world and keeping the entire Labour party behind him?

And if it's so easy to just do something different, why haven't the rest of Starmer's cabinet pushed him towards those other options?

 

[nw1]

Does Burnham have the ability to offer anything different within the constraints of the real world and keeping the entire Labour party behind him?

And if it's so easy to just do something different, why haven't the rest of Starmer's cabinet pushed him towards those other options?

For clarification I was trying to suggest that, from the POV of those arguing that Starmer has been a disaster (I don't really agree), that would presumably be the least worst option. I was referring to a post with quite a strong anti-Starmer perspective.

The worst worst option would of course be a GE. This is what I am really trying to argue, the GE really needs to be pushed as far down the road as possible to allow Peak Reform to decline.

 

[Mojo]

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?

I disagree it’s much to do with social media. There was plenty of scandal and incompetence under previous governments, but by and large people felt their lives getting better so were perhaps willing to let it slide. We now have a situation where the economy has been virtually stagnant, living standards are being maintained at best, communities feel less clean, neighbourly and safe, and therefore any minor failing by government is latched onto with calls for resignations.

 

[DarloRich]

I disagree it’s much to do with social media. There was plenty of scandal and incompetence under previous governments, but by and large people felt their lives getting better so were perhaps willing to let it slide. We now have a situation where the economy has been virtually stagnant, living standards are being maintained at best, communities feel less clean, neighbourly and safe, and therefore any minor failing by government is latched onto with calls for resignations.

but that has been the case for a decade.

 

[nw1]

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?

You win this thread, perhaps. This is probably the most sensible post I've seen today on this matter.

As stated above I don't think Starmer is particularly great. But I am struggling to understand why there is so much irrational hatred towards him, when several recent PMs have been far worse. Almost seems like a Starmer hate cult to me.

But I suppose the UK is now a post-truth country, unfortunately, and we have been for, ooh... 9 years and 364 days, precisely.

 

[HSTEd]

Does Burnham have the ability to offer anything different within the constraints of the real world and keeping the entire Labour party behind him?

Well Burnham can now discard any and all promises Starmer made because he is not attached to them, if he wants.

And if it's so easy to just do something different, why haven't the rest of Starmer's cabinet pushed him towards those other options?

I think the bulk of the cabinet are empty suits appointed for loyalty to the leader above all other considerations - as it always was.

Only one of them really has any intellectual heft, Ed Milliband, and he is vastly outnumbered.

Starmer had years to prepare a policy programme on par with 1997, and he made no serious attempt to do so. The manifesto says almost nothing at all other than untenable populist giveaways like promises on tax and the triple lock.
He brought this upon himself.

 

[Oxfordblues]

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.

Were Avanti Control aware if just how prominent this train was and if so why didn't they prioritise it? Just VSTP the headcode to 1X01 as per the Royal Train!

 

[Horizon22]

Does Burnham have the ability to offer anything different within the constraints of the real world and keeping the entire Labour party behind him?

I would think so - Starmer was getting to the 'open rebellion' stage with his cabinet, so it is clear that they had go to the point where "something must be done". However, I think there's a lot of disagreement and complexity about what that actually means, both for Labour MPs and activists but also the wider public, many of whom want to see dramatic change and quickly which frankly is near impossible.

However if Burnham can give the impression that this is happening - or at least things are progressing in the direction people want to see - there might be more success.

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

Were Avanti Control aware if just how prominent this train was and if so why didn't they prioritise it? Just VSTP the headcode to 1X01 as per the Royal Train!

At this point he's purely a newly-elected MP.

 

[oldman]

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?

We have populism - right and left - offering simple, immediate solutions. Real solutions take too long.

There are lines in Yeats' poem The Second Coming which suit our current political climate.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

 

[Horizon22]

I disagree it’s much to do with social media. There was plenty of scandal and incompetence under previous governments, but by and large people felt their lives getting better so were perhaps willing to let it slide. We now have a situation where the economy has been virtually stagnant, living standards are being maintained at best, communities feel less clean, neighbourly and safe, and therefore any minor failing by government is latched onto with calls for resignations.

There's definitely a part to play. If you are often seeing social media stating that the country is declining, society if failing, crime is on the rise then you are more likely to take examples of such things that you see as evidence of that. If you aren't constantly being fed information about it online, you may not think so closely and try and correlate it even if you see an isolated incident happen. It's easy to fall into the doom loop.

That is not to say that there are not some objective data that suggests living standards are not really improving. But for example the difference between the perception of crime by the general public and actual statistics are quite misbalanced.

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

We have populism - right and left - offering simple, immediate solutions. Real solutions take too long.

Indeed. It's quite frustrating to watch.

Or we act with short-term policies which causes us long-term damage. A clear example of this is our inability to build infrastructure on time, within the initial spec or anywhere near budget.

Unfortunately people want systemic cultural, economic and structural issues fixed quicker and quicker and I think patience and critical thinking has severely declined in recent years. That's not to say people aren't 'fed up' but some people are quite detached from reality and like the quick gimmicky politics populist offer. But this is a playbook that has been employed for generations.

 

[TravelDream]

The bulk of the cabinet are empty suits appointed for loyalty to the leader above all other considerations - as it always was.

Only one of them really has any intellectual heft, Ed Milliband, and he is vastly outnumbered.

Starmer had years to prepare a policy programme on par with 1997, and he made no serious attempt to do so. The manifesto says almost nothing at all other than populist giveaways like promises on tax and the triple lock.
He brought this upon himself.

On the first point, why would anyone with intellectual heft want to get into politics? It's a dirty business where you are constantly under attack (often unfairly) and are, I know this will annoy some here, very poorly paid compared to many senior roles.
It takes a certain sort of person and there's a reason parliament is filled with career politicians (like Burnham who went straight from university to politics).

On the latter point, very fair.

Starmer did well in opposition, but there was clearly no plan for government. No plan for how he saw the country is 5 and 10 years. Some say he is a bad communicator and couldn't bring people with him, but he had no vision to communicate.

At this point he's purely a newly-elected MP.

Most new MPs don't have television crew helicopter following them and a scrum of media in London awaiting them (timed for the lunchtime news no less).

 

[Horizon22]

Most new MPs don't have television crew helicopter following them and a scrum of media in London awaiting them (timed for the lunchtime news no less).

No, and I thought that was excessive.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

Well, what is most likely is something like d) which will be Burnham ends up accidentally being Continuity Starmer, with broadly the same policies having been forced to water anything down to homeopathic levels of change. In my view Burnham lacks the political nous and acumen to manage conflicting priorities and keeping subordinate MPs happy. He will struggle to implement any significant changes and will struggle to make difficult decisions on policies traditionally seen as bastions of conservatism (borders, immigration, defence, etc). A big part of that is because MPs would not have been voted into office off the back of Burnham's (whatever it will be - radical?) policy agenda; this will make them fragile and undermine their democratic legitimacy, which in turn feeds into their likelihood to tire of the leader.

I would prefer b) - Reform are actually at their weakest right now and an election now would expose several structural issues with the party. They are being found out at council level, they are at risk of tactical voting, they are at risk from Lowe's Restore Party on the right, Farage's personal brand is closely intertwined with the party and at an all time low since Reform was launched, Reform's little friends in Putin and Trump are suffering significant setbacks, there is still the smell of establishment Tory around the place with all the defections, and there is an unenviable economic outlook which makes Reform's programme for government impossible.

This is all happening *now*. Regardless of the merits of Burnham's parachuting in as leader, the Labour Party appears to have united behind him for now. An election would be a show of confidence and allow Burnham to set out a radical programme of government. The argument against this appears to be "I am afraid of Reform's ideas being deemed more appealing by the electorate" - which by the way, is fine. I accept when my side loses in an election; I do not have to like it, but if Reform get in, they get in. I'll hate it, but I also live in a society and have to accept others have just as much a say as I do. I am not scared of pitting my own worldview against Reformers and neither should anyone proposing a radical change of government from Starmer.

But I rather suspect there won't be much change. Burnham was a very good mayor and I would have voted for him as mayor. But he is not Prime Minister material.

 

[dosxuk]

Well Burnham can now discard any and all promises Starmer made because he is not attached to them, if he wants.

But as you say, Starmer didn't really have any policies that he would have to distance himself from.

I think the bulk of the cabinet are empty suits appointed for loyalty to the leader above all other considerations - as it always was.

Only one of them really has any intellectual heft, Ed Milliband, and he is vastly outnumbered.

Is this the same cabinet who've been resigning because they've decided they don't agree with Starmer when it became clear the media was after a new leader?

It used to be cabinets had collective responsibility. They were all too be held responsible if the government did something that proved to be unpopular. Instead we've got the same brand of accept the praise for the good stuff and pass on the blame for the bad that has infected much of this country.

 

[HSTEd]

On the first point, why would anyone with intellectual heft want to get into politics? It's a dirty business where you are constantly under attack (often unfairly) and are, I know this will annoy some here, very poorly paid compared to many senior roles.
It takes a certain sort of person and there's a reason parliament is filled with career politicians (like Burnham who went straight from university to politics).

I think that, ultimately, even if they wanted to get into politics (and some probably still do), they wouldn't get past MP selection because its not in the Party leaderships' interest to have MPs that are any good.

Good MPs eventually turn into leadership contenders.

I don't really have a good solution to this but I think about it a lot.

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

But as you say, Starmer didn't really have any policies that he would have to distance himself from.

Well there is still stuff that wasn't in the manifesto and Starmer just made up on the hoof (or just lifted it from Blair's unfinished business). For one there is the attempt to abolish most jury trials.

Is this the same cabinet who've been resigning because they've decided they don't agree with Starmer when it became clear the media was after a new leader?

The only cabinet minister to resign over an attempt to remove him before it was inevitable was Streeting.
The defence secretary resigned because the settlement he was offered by the Treasury was untenable.

All the other ministers who resigned or threatened to do so only did so when it was already over - the PLP has decided to eliminate him. By then all Starmer could do is make the PLP drag him out kicking and screaming which will hardly help anyone.

 

[JamesT]

But as you say, Starmer didn't really have any policies that he would have to distance himself from.

Is this the same cabinet who've been resigning because they've decided they don't agree with Starmer when it became clear the media was after a new leader?

It used to be cabinets had collective responsibility. They were all too be held responsible if the government did something that proved to be unpopular. Instead we've got the same brand of accept the praise for the good stuff and pass on the blame for the bad that has infected much of this country.

Isn't quitting because you disagree with the PM part of collective responsibility? If you're a minister you support the government's policies publicly, if you're unable to do so then you quit. Famously there was the case of Robin Cook who resigned over war in Iraq.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/ministers-resigning-government has a list of the 20 ministerial resignations during Starmer's tenure. There have been a variety of reasons, not all were disagreements with the PM.

 

[Tetchytyke]

but that has been the case for a decade.

It has. Which is why, with whoever replaces Starmer, we'll have had seven PMs in ten years.

In my view Burnham lacks the political nous and acumen to manage conflicting priorities and keeping subordinate MPs happy.

I don't think he's the Messiah (and nor do I think he's a naughty boy) but I think Burnham has more political nous than you give him credit for.

To be quite honest, if he doesn't just stand there and (figuratively) repeatedly punch himself in the testicles he'll be doing a better job than Starmer.

Starmer did well in opposition, but there was clearly no plan for government. No plan for how he saw the country is 5 and 10 years. Some say he is a bad communicator and couldn't bring people with him, but he had no vision to communicate.

I think that is unfair. I think there was a plan for government, it is just that the plan was underwhelming: do what the Tories did, but more competently.

People were so desperate to get rid of the Tories that they transposed their own ideas on to Starmer. I remember reading Twitter and Threads and, on both, Labour supporters were saying to get behind Starmer, that he was being cautious to not spook people and that he'll be more radical when he got into power. Of course he wasn't, he was never going to be. He's a technocrat offering more austerity and more nanny-state micromanagement and what he offered when he got into power was more technocratic nonsense, more austerity, and more nanny-state micromanagement.

Look at some of the nonsense his government has focused on. The recently-passed Tobacco and Vapes Act bans anyone born after 2009 from ever being allowed to buy cigarettes; as we all know, outlawing drugs means that you cannot buy them and definitely can't buy them from organised crime gangs. Not content with that stupidity, he moved on to forcing consenting adults to hand their credit card and passport details to Pornhub, because apparently nobody in government has ever heard of a VPN. Not to mention the whole Palestine Action thing: odious as that group is, calling them terrorists just makes a mockery of the meaning of that word. Or the jury trials thing: our justice system is creaking and therefore we need to abolish jury trials, but we also have the time to arrest 3,000 grannies on terrorism charges because they held up a placard. Helpfully, those grannies wouldn't be allowed a jury trial. I'm sure it's a coincidence.

I genuinely don't know how different Burnham will be, possibly not much, but I certainly don't think he can be any worse than any of that.

 

[3141]

I

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 ==

The "lauded saviour" of the Labour Party, which appears to think that a new leader will magically change their fortunes in the opinion polls. But as you've noted, the economic situation Burnham is about to face is the same as faced Starmer. Yes, he is a better communicator, but if he gives a more positive image that "things can get better" and they don't, it's the right-wing populists who are likely to benefit.

 

[Horizon22]

The "lauded saviour" of the Labour Party, which appears to think that a new leader will magically change their fortunes in the opinion polls. But as you've noted, the economic situation Burnham is about to face is the same as faced Starmer. Yes, he is a better communicator, but if he gives a more positive image that "things can get better" and they don't, it's the right-wing populists who are likely to benefit.

True. It's certainly high stakes and if Burnham fails to achieve what are some incredibly hard targets, I fear that's just giving Reform the next GE on a plate.

 

[Thirteen]

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

BBC One was basically the News Channel for almost 8 hours, that's just overkill!

 

[sor]

BBC One was basically the News Channel for almost 8 hours, that's just overkill!

It seems pretty ridiculous that this got about the same level of coverage as the Queen's sudden "illness" where we could at least read between the lines and realise that a seismic announcement is coming.

I suppose that in rail terms it does show the rest of the country how much of a dump Euston is compared to the other London terminal stations, lol

 

[Falcon1200]

how a narrative that Starmer is the worst PM ever has been allowed to run is beyond me.

Has any other PM in history managed to turn 411 MPs, and a 174 seat majority, into an ignominious resignation in less than two years?!!

Streeting wont win a contest with labour members so will have done a deal with Burnham for a decent position in the new administration.

In other words, perhaps a bribe, as may have been offered to the now-forgotten backbencher who valiantly sacrificed himself to allow Burnham to return to the Commons?

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!

Just VSTP the headcode to 1X01 as per the Royal Train!

Was the delay due to arranging the red carpet at Euston for HRH Andy?

 

[DoubleLemon]

There's definitely a part to play. If you are often seeing social media stating that the country is declining, society if failing, crime is on the rise then you are more likely to take examples of such things that you see as evidence of that. If you aren't constantly being fed information about it online, you may not think so closely and try and correlate it even if you see an isolated incident happen. It's easy to fall into the doom loop.

this is a targeted effort and narrative pushed by far right Russian content farms. Ai has accelerated the lies and ease of misinformation.

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

Has any other PM in history managed to turn 411 MPs, and a 174 seat majority, into an ignominious resignation in less than two years?!!

cough, liz truss for one. she destroyed mortgages and pensions and we are still paying the price

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

nanny-state micromanagement.

tell me, how would you fix these stats

a survey of primary and secondary school children by the ons in 2023.
• 35.0% accepted a friend request from someone they did not know.
• 8.5% shared their location publicly.
• 19.2% spoke to or exchanged messages with someone they didn’t know.
• 4.4% met with a person they didn’t know.
• 9.5% aged 13 to 15 received an unsolicited sexual message.
• 19.1% experienced bullying online. Known as cyberbullying.

 

[Falcon1200]

cough, liz truss for one. she destroyed mortgages and pensions and we are still paying the price

Liz Truss was indeed a disastrous PM but she never won a General Election, at all, never mind one with a huge majority!

 

[DoubleLemon]

Liz Truss was indeed a disastrous PM but she never won a General Election, at all, never mind one with a huge majority!

fair point. how long was Teresa may and borris pm for? Just 3 years each.

 

[Tetchytyke]

tell me, how would you fix these stats

We must do something, this is something, we must do this.

Banning kids from social networking sites which at least have some sort of moderation will push them to social networking sites which don’t. That doesn’t sound like the best idea to me.

I remember the very early TikTok when it was still called musical.ly and it was a genuine free for all, and not in a good way. TikTok had to change and improve because of commercial pressures. This ban will simply be a fast track to going right back to the bad old days.

It’s exactly what has happened with the gentleman’s literature websites. Sites which at least had some sort of content moderation and some sort of ethical standards have either put in age verification walls or left the UK market entirely. The consequence of this is that people will instead be pushed towards the websites which don’t care about OFCOM and also don’t care about content moderation. Again, doesn’t sound like the best idea to me.

What I genuinely can’t decide is whether the government are idiots in passing this nonsense through, or whether it is a cynical thin-end-of-the-wedge thing with the real purpose of actually preventing people from accessing to information the government disagrees with.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The "lauded saviour" of the Labour Party, which appears to think that a new leader will magically change their fortunes in the opinion polls. But as you've noted, the economic situation Burnham is about to face is the same as faced Starmer. Yes, he is a better communicator, but if he gives a more positive image that "things can get better" and they don't, it's the right-wing populists who are likely to benefit.

Burnham is stealing the election result from Starmer to feather his own political needs just the rank sort of behaviour that Boris promoted. We now have 3mths of a vacuum while the leadership game plays out although if no one else puts themselves forward they just need to get on with it.

 

[TravelDream]

Burnham is stealing the election result from Starmer to feather his own political needs just the rank sort of behaviour that Boris promoted. We now have 3mths of a vacuum while the leadership game plays out although if no one else puts themselves forward they just need to get on with it.

Not to pick on you, but so many people have no idea about Britain's electoral system and system government.

We have a parliamentary democracy without a written constitution.

The prime minister is the person invited by the monarch to lead the government and that person governs with the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons.

You or I (if you live and vote in Surrey) never voted for Keir Starmer. Like we never voted for Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Theresa May, David Cameron, Gordon Brown or Tony Blair...
Why? Because neither of live in any of those previous PM's constituencies. We don't vote for a prime minister or a government, we vote for a local member of parliament who often just so happens to represent a political party.

As long as Burnham can command a majority in the Commons, he absolutely is legitimately governing. And that goes for anyone. There is no 'stealing' or other nonsense the right-wing press will undoubtedly come up with.



I understand that some people feel we vote for a PM/ Head of Government. However, they are wrong. I welcome them to push for a presidential style of government though whether like France's or the US one.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not to pick on you, but so many people have no idea about Britain's electoral system and system government.

Oh, people do - but the reality is very different. There has been increasing presidentialism in the office of prime minister which started with Blair; the direct contact with the electorate, personalised election campaigns, the increasing "brand image" of the PM has a rallying point, leaders' national messages on TV, and the offshoring of Cabinet's role to SPADs so they may personally advise the PM (that is, constitutionally, Cabinet's role!).

Prime Ministers dominate the setting of policy to an extent that this explanation:

The prime minister is the person invited by the monarch to lead the government and that person governs with the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons.

...is factually proper but not sufficient in context.