Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Except that Andy Burnham isn’t due to become UK prime minister for three weeks.
That is assuming it is him, as it seems highly unlikely that any challenger can muster the requisite 81 votes from Labour backbenchers. Also, while there is noise of someone standing, do they really wish to oppose the next leader?
They might, of course, and it’s always possible that if there were a live debate they would beat Burnham, who remains untested and an unknown where policy is concerned. Given the euphoria that greeted his arrival at Westminster, which had the trappings of a coronation, it is all pointing to his takeover next month. Some 200 Labour MPs crowded in behind him for a selfie, including members of the current cabinet, among them Rachel Reeves.
Keir Starmer is thought to have displayed a final flourish and upset Burnham’s plans by not agreeing to the heir apparent’s wish for a longer interregnum. Burnham was said not to be ready and wanted more space, seeking three months rather than a few weeks.
That would have seen him arrive at No 10 in September, having had a summer to select his cabinet and team of advisers and nail down his priorities. As it is, he has a much shorter period to prepare.
But why any wait? The country is being held in abeyance by the convoluted Labour constitution and the wish of some MPs to discuss the party’s doctrine on all manner of issues. Hearing them cite the needs of Labour first and foremost, ahead of the UK, provokes a feeling of nausea. They just do not get it – there is a nation to run and someone must get on and do it.
-
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announces his resignation outside 10 Downing Street in London. AFP -
Mr Starmer delivers his statement in front of the media and Labour Party colleagues. Getty Images -
Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy waits for Mr Starmer's statement with members of Downing Street staff. AFP -
The media gathered outside 10 Downing Street. AFP -
The story is dominating the airwaves in the UK. Reuters
They could establish within 24 hours whether there is a serious rival. If not, Burnham should take charge. As for his request for an extended interim, the country and the rest of the world are not on pause while he puts his ducks in a row.
Sitting in rooms, arguing and opining, is not what Britain requires right now. Not when there are two wars on; the effects of climate change are becoming ever more obvious and are causing a ferocious heatwave across Europe; there are a million young people not in employment, education or training; adequate housing is in desperately short supply; the infrastructure is creaking and the public finances are under severe pressure.
The problems stacked up for Starmer’s successor are many, varied and urgent. The time is now, not next month or beyond.
Starmer, meanwhile, is crafting his legacy. This is no small matter. What this means is that he is putting down foundations that are his, sealing deals that a future premier will find difficult to dislodge. Already we’ve seen a move to ban social media for under-16s. Next week, he is due to deliver the Defence Investment Plan, designed to realign the UK economy by boosting national security and meeting an increased Nato commitment.
This is a political hot potato, having provoked the resignation of defence secretary John Healey, a departure that arguably was the final nail in Starmer’s coffin. Yet Starmer will be the one signing it off and presenting it to parliament and the public. This amounts to a transition as in the US but with a key difference.
The gap between the election result and inauguration does not by convention see the outgoing president rushing through legislation. It doesn’t happen.
In the UK, it is regarded as OK for a leader to keep taking big decisions.
As it is for Starmer to attend the Nato summit the following week. This is a crucial meeting, one of huge significance in the alliance’s interaction with the US in particular, and its approach to Iran and Ukraine. The American criticism of Starmer for not allowing bases in the UK to be used for missile strikes against Tehran has been unrelenting. But it will be Starmer who will represent Britain.
The new broom may have a different attitude, another way of embracing Nato and countering Donald Trump and JD Vance. We won’t know until they attend the next gathering, which given the speed of diplomacy and Trump’s mood swings, may be too late. Further damage will have been done.
At least the EU saw sense and canned the conference planned for next month to ‘reset’ UK-EU relations. This was intended to be a session to approve a new mobility scheme for under-30’s, enabling young people from the UK and EU to study, travel and work freely in each other’s territory. That was a significant step and had been postponed previously, now it is being pushed back again. It was also aimed at moving on to the next item on the joint agenda, of freeing up trade in goods and services. That too must wait.
Starmer won’t be laying down the foundations for someone else to follow. There is another aspect of this, however, which is that the UK-EU reset, if that is what it is, is extended. Businesses, which are crying out for an easing of the rules and crave the return of frictionless passage of products and people, are left hanging or rather, have to negotiate stultifying bureaucracy and charges or not bother completely.
The UK-EU discussions should have gone ahead, with Burnham, if it is him, at the helm.
Inevitably, there are demands for a general election. It is only two years since we had the last one. It’s true that the next prime minister will not possess a popular mandate and will not have opened themselves up to scrutiny by the electorate. Buoyed by his resounding triumph in the Makerfield by-election, which has propelled him to Westminster and caused Starmer to quit, in a matter of days, Burnham may be tempted to call a snap ballot.
He might recall the fate of Gordon Brown, who took over from Tony Blair and had a window in which he could have called the election and he would most likely have won. Brown dithered and when he did decide to go to the vote, the opportunity was lost – the tide had turned against him.
There is no such thing as a ‘quick’ election. A formal procedure must be pursued; candidates have to be chosen and various factors considered. We’re heading into the holidays and the earliest date that could be ringed for the nation to determine would be in late September, early October.
Burnham may feel he should do it and armed with what he hopes would be a solid victory, having settled on a manifesto that would be his and not Starmer’s, he would be well-placed to govern. Certainly, he is open to the charge of being nationally unelected and not played a part in national politics for almost a decade and not been in government for 16 years.
His critics have seized upon a tweet from Burnham in July 2022, after Boris Johnson resigned: "We need to start demanding a General Election at the end of this Tory leadership election. They were all elected on a manifesto promise to level up the North and are all abandoning it."
Burnham is in a weaker position than Liz Truss, who won that Tory contest, in that she at least was elected on a manifesto promise – Burnham won’t be.
Nevertheless, the effect of a general election is complete shutdown, total stasis across Westminster and Whitehall. Policy-making and decision-making are in abeyance until a new administration is chosen and then some, as the new prime minister must choose their ministers. Burnham might have said that back then but there is a pressing immediate need for leadership and government. It is a luxury, nice to have, that Britain at this moment can ill afford.
It would cause more chaos and upheaval. The Tories may be clamouring for a poll, but their calls are surely half-hearted – they could well face decimation at the hands of Reform UK. Their party machine is not in great shape; their resources are low. Far better, they play a waiting game, in the hope Labour carry on failing and be ready to come back strongly.
Nigel Farage may also be asking for one, but the Makerfield result says he must prepare more thoroughly and select his candidates more carefully – not pick people whose social media will return to embarrass them. He should be regrouping and reassessing.
No, seven prime ministers in 10 years is enough. The new prime minister, presumably Burnham, must be allowed to get on with the job in hand. Now and not later.
