The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

Big Jumby 74 · 1 Jul 2026

The Ham said:
Whilst I generally agree with your post there's a few factors which make a straight like for like comparison between the USA and European countries slightly difficult.

I absolutely concur. I was being somewhat 'general' (to keep my post short-ish) and as you say, the 'whole' in regard to US/Europe relations is a complex subject.

That said I do believe Europe has rested on its laurels for too long when it comes to defence, as said, due to the length of peace that most in (Western) Europe have experienced since 1945, probably the longest period of peace for most in W. Europe in history.

Consciously or not, I believe many in Europe, if the subject of potential war within or from wherever has arisen in more recent times, may have just assumed Uncle Sam will come to the rescue. Times have changed.

As for the UK military, the level of personnel and resources has risen and fallen over the last few hundred years generally in line with conflicts we were either committed to around the world as well as nearer to home, or the threat level (risk) of war, which was far more frequent back in the 18/19th centuries, albeit not on the same scale as WW1 (the War to end all Wars!) or WW2 of course.

RailUK Forums

najaB · 1 Jul 2026

Big Jumby 74 said:
Consciously or not, I believe many in Europe, if the subject of potential war within or from wherever has arisen in more recent times, may have just assumed Uncle Sam will come to the rescue. Times have changed.

It's worth remembering, of course, that this attitude was deliberately cultured by the USA. Only France and the UK were (grudgingly) allowed to have our own nuclear deterrent for example, the rest of Europe was expected to shelter under the American nuclear umbrella.

SargeNpton · 1 Jul 2026

najaB said:
It's worth remembering, of course, that this attitude was deliberately cultured by the USA. Only France and the UK were (grudgingly) allowed to have our own nuclear deterrent for example, the rest of Europe was expected to shelter under the American nuclear umbrella.

Would that have been because that the UK and France were two permanent members of the UN security council, and therefore trustworthy?

najaB · 1 Jul 2026

SargeNpton said:
Would that have been because that the UK and France were two permanent members of the UN security council, and therefore trustworthy?

It's probably more that the UK and France were too close to developing our own nuclear weapons to realistically stop - I'm sure that the USA would much rather that we also sat under their umbrella.

They partially achieved in the case of the UK with the Polaris Sales Agreement which means that our SSBN fleet isn't truly 100% independent in production, only in use. The French, being French, did their own thing.

jfollows · 1 Jul 2026

SargeNpton said:
Would that have been because that the UK and France were two permanent members of the UN security council, and therefore trustworthy?

The UK and France each had to develop their own nuclear warheads, to the annoyance of Australia and surrounding islands. The UK then came to an agreement to use a US “delivery vehicle” but still uses its own warheads, although there is probably by now quite a lot of similarity between them and the US equivalent ones.

HSTEd · 1 Jul 2026

najaB said:
It's probably more that the UK and France were too close to developing our own nuclear weapons to realistically stop - I'm sure that the USA would much rather that we also sat under their umbrella.

They partially achieved in the case of the UK with the Polaris Sales Agreement which means that our SSBN fleet isn't truly 100% independent in production, only in use. The French, being French, did their own thing.

As I understand it the US State Department ran its own foreign policy, without coordination with the White House, aimed at trying to pressure Britain into giving up its nuclear weapons before and during the Skybolt crisis.

Kennedy reportedly was horrified when he found out how much of a mess they had made of Anglo-American relations.

Acfb · 5 Jul 2026

I'm pleased Andy Burnham will become Prime Minister. I regard him as being in the centre of the party. He was more wishy washy in the past but has become a better politician now. It's ironic how the party heirarchy tried to stop him becoming leader in 2015 and then Josh Simons who is on the right of party stood down for him in Makerfield. I have always voted Labour since 2007 but don't like the identity politics of SNP and Reform supporters and analysing them has previously given ne mental health issues. No doubt there will still be some shady figures still doing strategy and comminications for him etc but that is how things work I suppose.

I can seeing him lasting until the next GE and also Badenoch now. I think Labour will still lose 150-200 seats at the next election from 2024 but will still be able to cobble sone sort of minority gvt/coalition together with the Lib Dems and possibly SNP.

GusB · 5 Jul 2026

Acfb said:
I'm pleased Andy Burnham will become Prime Minister. I regard him as being in the centre of the party. He was more wishy washy in the past but has become a better politician now. It's ironic how the party heirarchy tried to stop him becoming leader in 2015 and then Josh Simons who is on the right of party stood down for him in Makerfield. I have always voted Labour since 2007 but don't like the identity politics of SNP and Reform supporters and analysing them has previously given ne mental health issues. No doubt there will still be some shady figures still doing strategy and comminications for him etc but that is how things work I suppose.

I can seeing him lasting until the next GE and also Badenoch now. I think Labour will still lose 150-200 seats at the next election from 2024 but will still be able to cobble sone sort of minority gvt/coalition together with the Lib Dems and possibly SNP.

Unless you live in Scotland, I fail to see how the SNP is giving you mental health issues. Even then, the SNP has implemented more Labour policies than the Labour party ever did.

najaB · 5 Jul 2026

GusB said:
Unless you live in Scotland, I fail to see how the SNP is giving you mental health issues. Even then, the SNP has implemented more Labour policies than the Labour party ever did.

Agree. While I don't agree with everything that the SNP does I personally think Scotland is a fairer, more compassionate and progressive society than England these days.

Richard Scott · 5 Jul 2026

najaB said:
Agree. While I don't agree with everything that the SNP does I personally think Scotland is a fairer, more compassionate and progressive society than England these days.

You may think differently if you live there. My sister couldn't wait to get out, she loved every minute initially but felt SNP had made it toxic (her views not mine).

JamieL · 6 Jul 2026

Well, I live there and have to say the SNP have been okay. I am English but have lived in Argyll for about 15 years. The quality of life is so much better than down south in so many respects and part of that is due to the Scottish Government. They seem able to get things done so much faster than in Westminster. Of course we pay for it with the highest tax rates in all of rUK. I would never go back to living in England though.

ainsworth74 · 6 Jul 2026

I think we might be approaching the point where this discussion needs to head over to the SNP thread. It's interesting to be sure but I'm not 100% that it's relevant to the Labour party.

najaB · 8 Jul 2026

najaB said:
Vertically mounted, bi-facial solar panels are something like 70% as efficient at summer power generation as single-sided panels at the optimum tilt angle, and have negligible impact on the growth of grazing fodder.

This just showed up in my YouTube feed, watching it now:

Farmers Report Better Grass, Healthier Sheep Under 1 Million Solar Panels

Farmers are reporting healthier sheep and improved pasture quality after grazing livestock beneath more than one million solar panels. The results highlight how agrivoltaics can boost agricultural productivity while generating clean energy, demonstrating that farming and solar power can successfully coexist.

The Ham · 8 Jul 2026

najaB said:
This just showed up in my YouTube feed, watching it now:

The other thing which has been reported as happening is deserts are seeing more plant growth:

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-enlists-solar-panels-war-halt-desert-sands-2025-09-23/

YINCHUAN, China, Sept 23 (Reuters) - In arid northern China, dozens of workers prune goji berry bushes that stretch out under the protective shade of thousands of solar panels.

The 1 gigawatt (GW) facility in the northwestern region of Ningxia is part of a network across northern and western China that use the bulk and shade of solar panels to stop and reverse the spread of deserts.

Owner Ningxia Baofeng (600989.SS), opens new tab, a major participant in the coal chemical industry, plans to build 30 GW of solar generation, some of which will be used to stop desertification, according to Liu Yuanguan, the company's vice chairperson. A similar 1 GW project in nearby Majiatan is already active, he added.
"All of the panels above are like mini umbrellas," Liu said during a tour of the facility organised by the Chinese government. "They are casting shadows on the plants and soil so there will be less evaporation of moisture."
Roughly a quarter of China is classified as "desertified" and campaigns to contain and reclaim the sands stretch back to the 1970s. Solar panels installed over the empty, sun-baked deserts are a recent and growing part of the arsenal.

Sorcerer · 10 Jul 2026

Might be somewhat pre-emptive of me to say, but it looks like we'll be seeing this thread title change very soon...

Burnham on track to be next PM as 322 Labour MPs back him

The former mayor of Greater Manchester is unopposed in the race to replace Sir Keir Starmer.

www.bbc.co.uk

Andy Burnham has taken another step towards becoming the next Labour leader and prime minister, after the vast majority of Labour MPs nominated him to replace Sir Keir Starmer.

Burnham's Labour leadership bid has been backed by 322 out of 403 Labour MPs as he remains the only declared candidate

It makes him just one short of the 323 needed before it is mathematically impossible for a rival to run against him. Some MPs say they were not able to vote on Thursday but will back Burnham once they are back in Parliament.

If no one else enters the contest, as expected, Burnham will be declared Labour leader next week before taking office as prime minister on 20 July.

martin butler · 10 Jul 2026

I hope that one of the first actions Labour take, under Burnhams leadership will be to ban MP's from having other jobs, such as paid work lobbying, either that, or make it mandatory that when they stand for re -election, they have to publish their attendance records, and a list of who else they worked for, same for union, or charity work,

That should be followed by media reform making it an offence to knowingly publish facts that are known to be incorrect to aid any political parties, or movements.

najaB · 10 Jul 2026

martin butler said:
That should be followed by media reform making it an offence to knowingly publish facts that are known to be incorrect to aid any political parties, or movements.

The problem isn't usually with reporting the facts, but the interpretation, insinuation, and opinion that goes along with them.

Brightonboy · 10 Jul 2026

martin butler said:
I hope that one of the first actions Labour take, under Burnhams leadership will be to ban MP's from having other jobs, such as paid work lobbying, either that, or make it mandatory that when they stand for re -election, they have to publish their attendance records, and a list of who else they worked for, same for union, or charity work,

That should be followed by media reform making it an offence to knowingly publish facts that are known to be incorrect to aid any political parties, or movements.

I don't think that MPs having other jobs is the issue that some people think it is - we expect plenty of MPs to have other jobs, as whips, as ministers, as cabinet members etc. Those roles all take the respective MPs away from their constituency roles; if that is acceptable in terms of 'working hours' then why can an MP not have another role outside of parliament? The issue is not, imho, the existence of other jobs but what they are and the impact that they may have on an MPs input to parliament.

I would, for example, have no issue with an MP continuing (on a part time basis) with a previous job, especially one where they could maintain their professional skills and competence (doctors, for example) and/or foster contacts with their grass roots constituents. Part of the problems I see with MPS and parties these days are that too many MPs have no idea of life outside politics and the Westminster bubble, and have no connection (via daily domestic or work life) to the areas they supposedly represent. I have been lucky in that my previous 2 MPs in this area (1 Labour, 1 Tory) both lived and previously worked in the constituency and were often seen 'on the ground' in the streets (and even ASDA) and were both very approachable. They were not big names in their respective governments but both had good reputations for fighting constituents' battles.

I am, however, against MPs taking on new jobs (e.g. as paid directors) in new industries after they have become MPs where a major part of their 'attraction' to the employer is the very fact that they are MPs.
The rest of your points (declaring such jobs, attendance records etc) I do agree with.

brad465 · 10 Jul 2026

While there are voices saying "what are we waiting for?", now Burnham is all but cleared to be PM, in a way I think today's news may have delayed the handover, even if a coincidence.

D6130 · 10 Jul 2026

brad465 said:
While there are voices saying "what are we waiting for?", now Burnham is all but cleared to be PM, in a way I think today's news may have delayed the handover, even if a coincidence.

Indeed. In fact I am rather surprised that nobody seems to have started a thread on here about today's sad news.

gabrielhj07 · 16 Jul 2026

“End the Sleaze”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cglj25k94r9o

London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan is one of 26 new peers to be given seats in the House of Lords in one of Sir Keir Starmer's last acts as prime minister.

simonw · 16 Jul 2026

gabrielhj07 said:
“End the Sleaze”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cglj25k94r9o

I'm no Labour supporter, but how is that slease?

Ashley Hill · 16 Jul 2026

Is Burnham seen as a saviour of the Labour Party or just better than the former incumbent?

gabrielhj07 · 16 Jul 2026

simonw said:
I'm no Labour supporter, but how is that slease?

Giving peerages to party chums, which is precisely what he said he wouldn't be doing.

AlterEgo · 17 Jul 2026

gabrielhj07 said:
Giving peerages to party chums, which is precisely what he said he wouldn't be doing.

When did he say that?

johntea · 17 Jul 2026

Ashley Hill said:
Is Burnham seen as a saviour of the Labour Party or just better than the former incumbent?

Only time will tell and he has to hit the ground running (although he sort of gets the summer recess to prepare for the pitch forks at least) - I think it will be slightly more of a culture shock than even Andy himself expects though from Mayor of Greater Manchester to Prime Minister

This articlw may be of interest

Laura Kuenssberg: Is Andy Burnham Labour’s saviour, or just its best bet?

Labour insiders give Laura Kuenssberg their take on the man tipped to replace Keir Starmer as PM.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Do you want a chat about the saviour?" a long-time Labour contact joked when I asked to pick their brains about their old colleague Andy Burnham, who is poised to enter No 10 in less than a month.

It certainly is time to talk about the Greater Manchester mayor. Only 10 days ago, he pulled off an impressive victory, in what one former minister described as a "Russian roulette" by-election in Makerfield, beating Reform and defying Labour's lack of popularity.

But can he pull off the far bigger task ahead, and really be the "saviour" that Labour craves?

gabrielhj07 · 17 Jul 2026

AlterEgo said:
When did he say that?

June 2023:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...o-resignation-honours-boris-johnson-partygate

Keir Starmer has ruled out ever producing a resignation honours list, as he urged Rishi Sunak to “show leadership” by attending and voting in Monday’s debate about the report that found Boris Johnson had misled parliament.

simonw · 17 Jul 2026

gabrielhj07 said:
Giving peerages to party chums, which is precisely what he said he wouldn't be doing.

So you just ignore the ones he gave to members of other parties. Strange definition of sleaze

BAFRA77 · 17 Jul 2026

Time to rename the thread now Andy has been confirmed as Party Leader

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2026 ==

Also - good to see that Brian Leveson has been nominated to a Peerage on the Crossbench

martin butler · 17 Jul 2026

I have already made it clear what I would like to see, Leverson implemented in full, a crackdown on MP's that never appear in their constituencies, except when their job depends on it, limits on donations , and full public view of how they voted and how often they sat in the house.

The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member