And so, another Prime Minister is gone. Admittedly, it isn’t entirely clear yet in terms of what will change apart from the personnel, even if we can be pretty confident who will be in 10 Downing Street at the end of the transition.
The first question is, how long will this take? An effective coronation would allow the new Leader to take their place before the Summer Recess, whilst a contest might take us into, or close to, Conference season. But Government will falter whilst new ministers get a handle on their briefs and priorities adjust.
From a personal perspective, I see Keir Starmer as being Labour’s equivalent to Menzies Campbell – a man who, in office, was exactly what people thought he would be and yet this seemed to come as a surprise to those who put him there. The difference was that Menzies Campbell did have a clearly definable set of principles which guided his steps.
And, in fairness to Keir Starmer, he led an administration which, in office, had a tendency to act in ways contrary to the expectations of those who put their faith in them just two years ago.
It’s almost certainly too soon to predict what difference this will make beyond the short term. Yes, there will probably be an improvement in Labour’s polling position, possibly at the expense of the Greens, but unless there is going to be an evident change of direction, why should that last?
Those who have observed Andy Burnham at close quarters suggest someone who lacks a firm political philosophy, and as Greater Manchester’s Mayor, he has often blamed central government for limitations on positive change on his watch. Now, he will have control of those levers of power – what will he change, how and why?
From a more insular perspective, what does a change of Labour leadership mean for the Liberal Democrats? There aren’t many places where we compete with Labour for local leadership, and in many of those, Labour councillors took a sound thrashing this year. An improvement in their polling numbers will lift most Labour boats, but that feels as though it’s going to be more of an issue for Reform and the Greens than for us.
Will a Burnham administration be more cordial towards Europe, more inclined to seek a closer relationship with the European Union? That might challenge our Party’s emerging stance, and might lead to a suggestion that we were too cautious for too long.
But I’m just another interested observer. What do readers think, and what, if anything, should the Liberal Democrats do about it?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The nearest beach to Leicestershire and Birmingham
Bonus podcast content: politics, football and the movies
Convicted fraudster was introduced as Farage's chief of staff
Simon Costain
David Wright
Matt Wardman
theakes
Peter Martin
28 Comments
It is possible Burnham – if he succeeds Starmer – will make noises about electoral reform as part of paving the way to an insurance-policy approach to either tactical voting or seats deals and even coalition to gain a second term for Labour.
He displays the typical Labour inability to clearly differentiate proportionality, transferability, multi-member and single-member systems, so its not at all clear what would result and if we’d be any further forward than the Jenkins Commission or the AV referendum, even after an election. And the Welsh D’Hondt system (about the worst possible PR system in my view, because of how much it restricts voter choice and degrades locality of representation) remains Labour’s last experiment in electoral reform.
I wouldn’t expect anything from him quick, though, particularly not in a multi-member form, and not after tactical voting served him in Makerfield: whilst electoral reform remains dangled as a carrot for Polanski and Davey, a Labour PM doesn’t have to haggle away other parts of their platform, and can keep the other parties of the centre-left onside. Concede it too early and control over the left bloc is lost for Labour.
For all Burnhams hot air on objectives and fuzzy new policies, any changes are restricted by the fact that we.will find it difficult to borrow more. Indeed Reeves targets will be tested in the next 6 months. Burnham has been absent from national politics for the last 10 years so there’s a bit of learning for him to do.
We now have a great opportunity to fill the middle ground and back an EU Membership reapplication. The Conservatives are way right and there’s no point in trying to compete with Reforms gutter policies.
Criticism of Andy Burnham not doing enough for Manchester is surely out of place in our heavily centralised governing system. He joined with Andy Street (then West Midlands mayor) to call for more devolution or resources and powers to local government. So would that be part of what he will now work for? Sam Freedman (who worked in the Dept of Education) says in his book ‘Failed State’ that one key reason for bad government in the UK is that people in Whitehall are given so much detail to implement and decide that they cannot properly cope and ministers with their civil servants do not focus enough on the development of proper long-term policies to turn the country round.
Alex B – I do think, if Burnham retreats from the unsuccessful attempt to address Blue-Labour concerns with non-racist but immigrant-wary ‘civic nationalist’ rhetoric, space opens up for Badenoch to revive her vote further (although I don’t expect Labour’s immigration policy to majorly change, this is about words, not acts).
The Tories should be a Lib Dem worry still, particularly if there is, for eg, a need to fight a byelection in a ‘Blue Wall’ seat won at the last election. They are not dead and they cannot now entirely be beaten by being portrayed as Faragian dupes or Reform-clones, as in the mind of the voter a distinct identity is being built up (although the differences in policy terms between them and Reform are still tight at times, and some of this perceived distinctive rests in who Badenoch is as a person; irrational and conspiracist and rage-bating as she is, I think its coming clear she was the right choice for them, vs Jenrick and possibly even Cleverly. All that is very very short of an endorsement).
I think the public have become growingly impatient and want something more radical – what that is depends on who who ask. I do believe that was a level of both the media and poor PR causing the perception of ineptitude. I met Andy last year at the Compass conference; he thanked me for the questions I asked. As someone who believes in social democracy, his achievements in Greater Manchester based on localism stand out to me. It is important for the Liberal Democrats to support efforts that align with our aims – be that devolution, or electoral reform. It also means that Labour could be less statist and cautious, but the impulse for top-down approaches to running things should be held to scrutiny as it always has been.
I didn’t expect to feel sorry for Sir Keir Starmer this morning but I’m afraid I do. I put his downfall down more to the impact and ripples of the Mandelson appointment than to anything else. Having said that he wielded the sword himself on occasion. In historical terms it has a few parallels with the defenestration of Asquith many years ago.
The jury is out on whether Burnham will be any better, but the lesson for Lib Dems is to look beyond the prosperous southern bits of ‘Middle’ England and more to the needs of the whole of the UK, particularly those areas left defenestrated by Thatcher. It may be that a change of Leadership as well as geographical emphasis is needed …….. one can fall into the water too many times when more substance is needed.
What those in ‘Middle England’ now running the Lib Dems have allowed to happen by default in many areas north of the Trent (in Lib Dem activity as well as economically) needs to be remedied pdq. A bit of Rooseveltian New Deal Keynesian economics is long overdue. Whatever else happens, Farage & Co need to be beaten.
Completely agreed! This party needs to tap into empowering left-behind communities.
@David Raw – “ I didn’t expect to feel sorry for Sir Keir Starmer this morning but I’m afraid I do.”
I agree, the winners in all this have been the media with their create a news story agenda. It is obvious, Streeting never had the backing of sufficient MPs to actually mount a leadership challenge, and the media only had a handful of MPs that actually spoke out against Starmer; the vast majority of Labour MP’s support Starmer/status quo.
>” It may be that a change of Leadership as well as geographical emphasis is needed ”
My partner (a “northerner”) is openly speculating whether Andy will relocate Westminster to Manchester to permit the refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster… 🙂
Mostly what David Raw said, but I don’t feel sorry for Starmer. He promised change. He traded on people’s hopes. And then in almost everything he’s either continued or gone further than tory policy. What the hell else did he expect but to be reviled?
To an extent, I’m reminded of the line “Nothing became him in this life so much as his manner of leaving it”.
But like Jennie, I don’t feel sorry for Starmer.
He has been dishonest – he never had any intention of honouring the “Ten Policy Pledges”.
Apart from “Israel Right or Wrong”, it would seem, he has been unprincipled – compare his stance on transgender rights when in opposition to his eager embrace of the most extreme reading of the Supreme Court decision in For a Few Women Scotland.
He has been disloyal – when things go wrong, his instinct has repeatedly been to find a colleague or subordinate to throw under a bus.
And, like May, Truss and Sunak, he communicates with all the personality of a speak-your-weight machine.
The main attraction of Burnham seems to be that he isn’t Starmer. In many ways, his best guide to making a success of the job may be to ask himself “What would SKS do?” and consider doing the opposite.
I don’t know whether I should tempt David Raw further into liberal history, but the clamour for Burnham as PM after a constituency election, to oust the leading party’s duly elected leader, has Gladstone / Midlothian vibes (also the reliance on putting his case to a regional audience before challenging a Westmister establishment that may distrust him). The crowds-waving-him-off-by-train stuff is very Victorian. I am not saying Burnham is Gladstone.
All you need to know Labour Burnham will be electoral Reform, he says he’s in favour, much like Starmer, and then will put every obstacle in the way – so for example it will have to be in the Labour Manifesto for 2029, then assuming big if, Labour remain in Government, a commission will be set up to consider the options, it will have to go to a referendum, which much like the AV one, will see the anti’s outspend and out campaign the pros. Why you might ask is this the case, before the last general election “We’ve got to address the fact that millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their vote doesn’t count” if he had followed his own advice, he might still be PM not swallowed the idea that he had a massive majority. Anyway the point being that in 2024 80% plus of the votes cast were for parties pledging electoral reform. The new Pr system in Wales didn’t require a referendum. neither did bring back supplementary vote for Mayors. In fact there are no rules as to when a referendum should be held (except the unofficial when a PM wants to get off the hook) or when a manifesto commitment is needed. Never the less, I predict Burnham we go cold on PR quicker than you can say poll bounce and squeeze the Lib Dems/Greens.
The Labour Party are cheering as if they had won the world cup.
Reality is, that Andy Burnham’s honeymoon period will be shorter than the time to boil an egg.
@Tom – I still have the football shirt with the Harold Wilson quote “Have you ever noticed that we only win the World Cup under a Labour Government”
Neil Hickman 22nd Jun ’26 – 2:26pm…..Apart from “Israel Right or Wrong”, it would seem, he has been unprincipled ..
.
Really? Would that be why he has been personally vilified by Netanyahu and Trump for his co-ordination with Portugal, Australia, Canada, etc. in formally recognising Palestinian statehood over provisional borders based on 1967 lines with equal land swaps, to be finalised in future negotiations?
His decision drew fierce criticism from the Israeli government and the UK Conservatives.**
**Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called the move “absolutely disastrous”, adding: “Rewarding terrorism with no conditions whatsoever put in place for Hamas.”
Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel accused the prime minister of “capitulating to the hard-left factions of his party”
Sir Ed Davey welcomed the decision, which he said was “long overdue”..
Changing the captain on a ship is completely pointless unless the new captain is willing to change direction. Changing the party of government in 2024 did not really change very much so I have little expectation that a new Labour leader will result in anything more.
Sorry, Matt, I’ve succumbed to your invitation. Very different, I’m afraid, though both born on Merseyside. William Ewart’s Dad a hugely wealthy merchant, slave owner and Tory MP – Andrew B.’s Dad a BT telecom engineer and life long Labour supporter.
Andrew went to a local state Catholic School and Cambridge – W.E.G. to Eton and Oxford.
Gladstone senior was a slave owner. His ownership of slaves was such that after slavery was abolished in 1833 he received the largest of all the compensated emancipation payments made via the Slave Compensation Act 1837. Gladstone Snr then expelled the majority of the newly emancipated African freedmen from his plantations and imported large numbers of indentured servants from British India. This was done by false promises, relayed through his agents, of providing jobs, schools and medical attention. However, on arrival they were paid no wages, the repayment of their debts being deemed sufficient, and worked under conditions that continued to resemble slavery in everything except name.
Andrew’s Dad was an Everton supporter so often suffered disappointment.
You can fill in the rest, Matt, though I remember good old Harold Wilson (my fellow HTAFC supporter) travelling down from Liverpool to Euston to become PM back in 1964. I was working at LPO (Lib HQ) at the time. My job was to pose as a Huddersfield Examiner reporter to report back to Frank Byers (Lisa Nandy’s Granddad) on the Labour press conferences at Transport House every morning. Great Fun .
David, rather than questions of character, I was rather more thinking of the theatricality of the 1880 Midlothian campaign itself, an ‘insurgent’ campaign from a party grandee to grab leadership of a party from a rival, although yes it rested on the concept of William Gladstone having ‘Scottish roots’ and those roots went, well, through Jamaican sugar and slavery and were morally compromised.
John Gladstone the Liverpool slave-owner was well dead by 1880, and I don’t think William went to visit the paternal home at Fasque, preferring to hang out with his campaign manager, Lord Roseberry, at Dalmeny (he’d fallen out with his more Tory brother).
I take your point about Burnham’s roots compared to Gladstone’s family culpability in the slave trade. But I was looking to Burnham’s campaign and arrival in London, which is about as melodramatic and Victorian (although of course sped up for 24hr media) as anything I’ve seen in the modern age.
Midlothian is the effective invention of the MP’s campaign as a media-attention-gathering exercise, with speeches etc managed for press deadlines. A ‘local’ election with national impact, consciously designed by Roseberry on lines drawn from US politics. Its probably the local constituency campaign that has most impacted the direction of the premiership, up to now. Makerfield is the only modern counterpart I can think of that could be ranked in those terms. That was my point.
But the Transport House shenannigans do sound fun
I’m getting vibes of the film “Being There” when I see Andy Burnham. The premise of the film is that a simple minded gardener, has convinced the elite that his “simpleness” is a guide to enlightenment for the “money-ed”, so they can profit. We are going to find out the brutal truth about Labours new “Chance”.
“Changing the captain on a ship is completely pointless unless the new captain is willing to change direction.”
Blair (1997 version), Starmer and Burnham share many attributes – Fuzzy centre-leftism, willingness to work, decent impulses mixed with ruthless self-promotion – and no dogmatic beliefs (other than Blair’s religious beliefs!) that can’t be readily ditched if necessary.
So why was Blair an early success, whereas Starmer floundered?
Blair understood politics as public performance. His first big fight to scrap Clause Four earned him a reputation as a brave doer. Then he found a big issue – Scottish devolution – which, crucially, could be done cheaply. He also played at “Cool Britannia” – another cheap way to look good. All this acted to conceal a lacklustre first term, when “no new taxes” often meant no real progress. (Eventually the Lib Dems, and Brown, got Blair past that period of inertia.)
Starmer’s real achievements in a first two years were no more meagre than Blair’s. Starmer was simply undone by his inability to play the public performance game, and to find cheap wins.
Burnham will learn the lessons. Cheap wins will be even more important now Britain is skint. Everything will be judged by whether the public will like it.
@ Matt (Bristol)
“But the Transport House shenannigans do sound fun”
Are you meaning Labour Party shenanigans? If so your comment is 46 years out of date.
The Labour moved from there in 1980!
@expats – I’m not that impressed about “recognising a Palestinian state” if it’s accompanied by a shrug as Israeli land thieves (or “settlers” as we’re supposed to call them cos it sounds all Little House on the Prairie) steal all its territory.
Saying that Israel has the right to withhold water and power from the civilian population of Gaza is what I had in mind. Along with the insistence on cluttering the courts with people who dare to say that the proscription of Palestine Action (as opposed to prosecuting criminal offences committed by some of its members) was foolish even if lawful.
Kier Starmer is a decent man, who was wholly out of his depth as PM. Everyone should read Ian Dunt’s assessment on his substack
https://iandunt.substack.com/
I think that historians will be more kind than the current press/media and the Labour Party.
My fear is that Labour are just changing their captain and not their policy programme. What Burnham has said so far is very confusing and disappointing.
“My fear is that Labour are just changing their captain and not their policy programme. What Burnham has said so far is very confusing and disappointing.”
Seconded.
It feels like Andy Burnham is just ‘flavour of the month’
I’ve little sympathy for Starmer.
But what he did deserve was to deliver that deeply personal resignation speech uninterrupted by that usual borish oaf S.Bray.
Mick,
Burnham’s real problems will start after he moves into No.10 and finally faces his true opponents – the Labour establishment and their Treasury backers. I believe his commitment to devolution and to electoral reform is genuine (although the difficulty over electoral reform is the devil lying in the detail – witness the Labour use of the terrible D’Hondt system). But frankly the Labour establishment and the Treasury will use every means at their disposal to prevent any threat they see to their centralisation. And they will be implacable! What they need to realise is that retaining FPTP is likely to deliver them next time fewer seats than if they adopt a true (i.e. STV) proportional system. And even if they return to 2024 levels of voting support, the vagarities of FPTP is as likely to deliver a majority of seats for 30 percent of the votes just as easily for Farage as for Burnham – and that will be unpredictable.
Peter Martin, when you reply to me about Transport house I don’t think you’ve read the foregoing comments from me and David Raw. Anyway, back to the future.