UK
US
January 11, 2025 - 2:30pm
The worst thing to happen to Keir Starmer this year has just happened. No, not the tanking economy, nor the foreign policy humiliation, nor the controversy surrounding his anti-corruption minister. It’s not even the disgrace of Labour’s vote against a public inquiry into the grooming gangs.
Rather, it’s that Andy Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, has said that there should be an inquiry.
This is a big deal. Starmer desperately needs this issue out of the headlines — and his strategy for achieving that depends on complete Labour unity. It’s notable that not one of the 402 MPs currently on the Government benches voted for the inquiry this week. The Conservative amendment was resoundingly defeated, appearing to kill the story. Not for the first time, the implicit message was: shut up and move on.
That’s why Burnham’s intervention is so spectacularly unhelpful. It’s certainly well-timed for the weekend papers. This goes well beyond mere embarrassment for Downing Street. Burnham isn’t just any mayor: he’s Labour’s lost leader, but perhaps not lost forever.
Though he’s seven years younger than the current party leader, Burnham belongs to an earlier generation of Labour politicians, shaped by the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown years. While Starmer was still pursuing his legal career, Burnham served as a minister under Blair and a cabinet minister under Brown — but without being marked by the factional rivalry between the two men. That should have put him in a prime position to succeed Ed Miliband as party leader in 2015, but his ambitions were derailed by Jeremy Corbyn. In a further contrast to Starmer, who chose the path of collaboration with the Corbynites, Burnham opted for exile, leaving Westminster in 2017 for the mayoralty of Greater Manchester.
Burnham is New Labour, not Blue Labour, and to the extent that he has a coherent ideology, there’s not much evidence of post-liberal influence or of his own Catholic upbringing. But the metropolitan bubble is much thinner in Greater Manchester than it is in London, and as the city’s popular mayor he’s clearly more in touch with ordinary voters than Labour’s national leadership. From cancelling winter fuel payments to accepting free gifts of flashy clothing, it’s hard to imagine him making so many of Starmer’s unforced errors.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAndy Burnham is my local mayor, and for some time after his election i was highly sceptical of his policies, especially the waste of public money on street signage for a “Clean Air” driving zone which hasn’t happened and would bankrupt many businesses.
However… in more recent times, he’s starting to win me over. His overall legacy as mayor is moving into the ‘positive’ balance and there’s a real buzz in the northern air around Greater Manchester these days – and not just from the “Bee Network” of local bus services.
Poverty still exists, of course it does, and the region is struggling more than most areas of the UK from the legacy of its industrial past plus other obvious issues like health, immigration and housing. That’s not down to him. His general response during Covid was also to take the fight to Westminster to ensure the best outcomes for the region.
The article highlights an obvious opportunity for him, just as Boris Johnson’s star rose on the back of his London mayoralty. It takes something for Mancunians to accept a Liverpudlian as a legitimate local leader, but he’s pulled it off and his political skills put Starmer and most of his dire cabinet to shame.
Burnham has a personality too. Unlike the lump of cold gravy in Downing Street.
Speaking as someone who has never, and will never, vote Labour l wish Burnham good luck if he hopes to replace Starmfuhrer – the country would have a chance of surviving a Burnham premiership.
He would, of course, still have the problem of forming a cabinet from all the dross that’s currently on offer.
Yes I always thought Burnham had the potential to lead Labour. He has a personality, but can sound a bit “chippy”, but at least he isn’t boring like Starmer. He seems “normal” and able to talk, and listen, to people, rather than preaching down to them. Presumably that is why he favours an inquiry (as well as ambition, of course).
Johnson certainly used his Mayoralty as the ladder to Tory leadership. However, the gossip always was that he didn’t actually do any real work whatsoever, that being done by less exalted individuals…cast aside later.
The fact that when it came to the crunch Johnson didn’t have fibre to actually lead would seem to bear that out. Hopefully Burnham has more substance to him.
I admit to only really coming across Burnham since his Manchester stint but I always had him down as more Blue Labour than Blairist, though this article suggests otherwise. How would you label him, seeing as you’re closer to the action as it were?
Good question, but that’s the thing; he doesn’t fit neatly into any (current) category.
One thing he has is passion for his work and (unlike Johnson) a work ethic. Allied to ‘people skills’ it could prove to be a winning combination. I’m far from being a Labour supporter but since he fell foul of the Corbyn regime it tells us he has principles and, perhaps, a sufficiently pragmatic approach that could work.
Of course, it very much depends on how the political landscape looks in 3/4 year’s time.
Cheers for that, I did have him down as being more pragmatist than ideologue which does appeal, I’ve always thought of myself as centre left financially and centre right culturally.
Unfortunately for him I feel that many in Labour are the opposite, so if he were leader he’d have to completely reassemble the front benches, not an easy thing to do
Not fitting neatly into any category is a huge positive in my view. Double brownie points for the work ethic.
If 2TK keeps shooting himself in the foot a change of leader could be much closer than many people imagine. Burnham would be practically the only viable successor, let’s face it he doesn’t have much competition.
He went to my local school and is indeed down to earth. I saw him Christmas shopping and he is approachable. He also goes running in our local park. So yes he has the common touch but who wouldn’t be better than the autocratic automaton we have now. So a future threat to KS yes, Labour’s saviour maybe, but he’s still the establishment. Post industrial Britain is inhabited by ideological trough guzzling NGOs, weak navel gazing narcissists, grievance seeking grifters, ambulance chasing lawyers, woke students, crazed socialists union leaders and maybe 3-4 million people who hate our way of life. We have little to no significant industrial base, a shrinking financial sector and multiple zombie service sector firms. The Nation is too far gone to be saved although nobody can beat us for vape shops, tattoo, parlours, nail bars and ‘Turkish’ barbers. Have a nice Sunday everyone.
I’m not putting Burnham on any “saviour” pedestal, just suggesting he’d be a better option for Labour (who i dont’ support).
Your descriptions of how thing are will resonate with a lot of people. However, it’s just plain wrong to believe – and therefore act – as if there’s nothing to salvage in the UK. There’s a great deal that’s still good and right and we’ve faced huge threats before and come through. That can only happen if people firstly accept that things need to change and then act upon it. There are signs that’s beginning to happen. Never give up on the UK.
Have an even better Sunday everyone.
Okay LL, we’re on the same side here. I still believe fundamental change is difficult but on cultural issues, I think there is a slight change in the air. I’ll adopt a glass half full approach and in the words of DJT “Keep fighting!”
An uptick is not enough for this pertinent analysis of our plight. Bravo, sir.
And now (23:45 GMT) a Labour MO has spoken out in favour of a full inquiry in order to hold to account those who covered up the abuse.
Would be more impressed if the Left wasn’t notorious for using “inquiries” to sweep under the rug topics it wants to disappear from public discussion.
The only reason I could see Starmer lasting the year, let alone the full Parliamentary term, was the there is simply no-one else in the Party to replace him. Burnham could not only replace him, but would be far better for the UK. And the sooner the better.
Did Mr. Burnham ask for the inquiry for political or moral reasons? I hope it was both. Finally, someone with courage in the Labour Party can be found in England.
Free Tommy Robinson!
More waffle from Unherd.
Tell the full story of how Robinson has been treated.
Then you will know why there is no option but a nationwide inquiry.
Richard – pssh – Off you trot now. There’s a Herd waiting for you.
I wish UnHerd would just give him his money back and cancel his subscription. I enjoy debating with people who have different opinions to myself but his nonsense is just trolling now, and the same rubbish clogs up the comments on every article
Tommy Robinson – pretend journalist and loudmouth who has built a career acting as the circle jerk pin-up boy for aggressive, low intellect thugs and yobs.
There you go Richard – TR’s full history now on UnHerd just for you
A crash test dummy is a threat to dreamless Starmer.
“That nice Andy Burnham. He’s our future.”
… all grazing on pap.
Unherd is just like all the Royal Societies. Infiltrated by liberal progressives and then gutted and eaten from within.
But the comments aren’t, which is why Unherd is worthwhile no matter the quality of the writing, which as with any publication can vary greatly.
I’ve got three trolls just in this thread.
So I’m not so sure.
Maybe you should take a long hard look at the kind if drivel you post.
The Times is the worst for trolls. Unherd comes a close second.
It just all adds to the smell of decay and corruption in Unherd.
I suggest you try the comments section of the Guardian. There middle class progressives hint without fear of consequence that eugenics might be the answer to the problematic working class…
It’s not Unherd at all. It’s a huge herd of Leftists.
Free Unherd!
Is Unherd some kind of codeword for ‘Leftists, Lefties here’s a home for you?’
Just the normal Leftist trick of camouflaging as the Right to then go on to undermine them?
In which case Unherd used to be balanced and interesting? A few years ago?
I get it.
I’ve walked into the wrong pen!
If Unherd (stupid name) allowed articles with different points of view eg on Tommy Robinson, there wouldn’t be trolls. There would be debate and exchange of views.
That would be Robinson who printed lies about some Syrian kid, was charged with defamation when they were proven to be lies in a court of law and was warned that if he printed them again he would face a custodial sentence?
He then subsequently repeated them, was hauled back before court and pleaded guilty to doing so. Sounds as if he was locked up due to his own stupidity to me
What a disgraceful political tool you are Unherd.
Change your Mission Statement. And your name.
You can use my suggestion: Just More Leftist Bilge.
Hush now wee willy. Bed time.
….and don’t forget to take your meds. UDS (Unherd Derangement Syndrome).