Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden

🇪🇺🇬🇧 Treasury Minister Livermore: Britain rejoining the EU is inevitable

I thought Momentum had largely been consigned to history when Jeremy Corbyn was replaced by Sir Keir Starmer as Leader of the Labour Party. What recent events appear to demonstrate is that Andy Burnham is not positioning himself as a centre left candidate in the mould of the current Labour leadership. Rather, he seems increasingly willing to appeal to those on the left and far left of the party who remain dissatisfied with the direction Labour has taken since 2020. His comments about bringing more figures from the left into government, his criticism of the leadership's approach to party discipline, and his broader political messaging all suggest an attempt to build support from those sections of the Labour movement that have never fully reconciled themselves to the post Corbyn era. That is, of course, a legitimate political strategy. The question for Labour members is whether it is the right one. Sir Keir Starmer's leadership has been built around restoring Labour's credibility as a party of government and demonstrating that it can deliver in office. Andy Burnham appears to be offering a different emphasis, one that places greater weight upon aspiration, party unity across the left, and longer term structural reform. The debate, therefore, is not simply about personalities. It is about the future direction of the Labour Party and whether members believe its strongest route to a second term lies in continuing the programme currently being implemented or in moving towards a different political settlement altogether.

I think it is important to be precise with language, particularly when discussing subjects as serious as fascism and Nazism. Nazism was not simply another political movement within a democratic spectrum. It was a totalitarian ideology that led directly to war, state terror, industrialised mass murder and genocide on an unprecedented scale. The term should therefore be used with great care and reserved for circumstances where it is genuinely applicable. That does not mean people cannot criticise Nigel Farage or Reform UK. Critics are perfectly entitled to argue that elements of their politics are authoritarian, nationalist or even fascistic in character. Those are political arguments that can be debated on their merits. However, there remains an important distinction between describing a contemporary political movement as authoritarian or fascistic and comparing it directly to the Nazis. The latter carries historical implications of criminality, genocide and atrocities that go far beyond ordinary political disagreement. History also shows that authoritarian systems, whatever their ideological origins, often struggle to sustain themselves indefinitely. Some collapse through public pressure, some through economic failure, some through electoral change and others through more dramatic upheaval. Democratic institutions exist precisely because they provide peaceful mechanisms through which governments can be challenged and replaced. For that reason, I believe political debate is generally strengthened by accuracy rather than exaggeration. If Reform UK is to be criticised, it should be criticised for what it actually says, does and proposes, rather than through historical comparisons that may obscure more than they illuminate.

Thanks, Pippa, for providing the detail contained within your interview. It was both informative and enlightening, and it has undoubtedly given many of us a clearer insight into Andy Burnham's thinking and political priorities. However, the overwhelming impression left by the interview is not one of deliverable policy, but of aspiration. There is nothing wrong with ambition in politics, but ambition must ultimately be measured against practicality and timescale. Many of the proposals outlined are substantial structural reforms that would take years to design, legislate for and implement. In several cases, it is difficult to see how they could realistically be delivered within the lifespan of the present Parliament. That, in turn, raises a fundamental political question. If the objectives being proposed cannot be achieved within the lifetime of this government, what relevance do they have to the choices Labour faces today? The challenge for any governing party is not simply to articulate a vision of what might be possible in the future, but to demonstrate what can actually be delivered now. For that reason, the interview ultimately reinforces the distinction between aspiration and delivery. Ambition is important, but governments are judged by what they achieve, not by what they hope to achieve. In the current political climate, that remains the more important test.

@talkSPORT Welcome back, big Al we've missed you.

Reading Andy Burnham's interview, I am struck by how much of it is built upon aspiration rather than delivery. There is nothing inherently wrong with discussing ideas. Politics requires vision. However, there comes a point where voters are entitled to ask a very simple question: what can actually be achieved, and in what timescale? Take social care. Burnham presents himself as the politician willing to grasp the nettle that others have avoided. Yet social care reform has defeated governments, ministers, commissions and experts for more than two decades. We are offered references to reviews, future proposals, inheritance changes and potential levies, but very little detail about how any of it would be implemented in practice. The difficulty has never been identifying the problem. The difficulty has always been persuading the public to pay for the solution. The same issue applies to council tax. Burnham suggests replacing it with a land value tax. That may sound attractive as a headline, but council tax has existed for over thirty years and any replacement would require one of the most complex reforms of local government finance in modern British history. It would involve revaluations, legislation, transitional arrangements, appeals, redistribution mechanisms and years of political argument. It is not a policy that could simply be announced and implemented overnight. Likewise, we hear proposals for fiscal devolution, new powers for councils, changes to procurement rules, social housing reform and wider constitutional change. These are all substantial undertakings. Yet the interview rarely addresses the practical barriers that stand between the announcement of a policy and its delivery. This is where the comparison with Keir Starmer becomes important. The current government is not asking to be judged on what it might do. It is asking to be judged on what it has already done and what it is currently doing. Inflation has fallen dramatically from the levels that were causing severe hardship for households. Economic growth has returned after a prolonged period of stagnation. Relations with Europe have improved without reopening the divisions of the Brexit referendum. Net migration has reduced significantly from its previous peak. Planning reform is under way. Investment decisions are being made. Infrastructure projects are progressing. Defence spending is increasing in response to a more dangerous world. Whether people believe these measures are sufficient is a matter for debate. However, they are tangible actions rather than aspirations. Burnham repeatedly presents himself as the politician willing to make difficult choices. Yet many of the difficult choices he discusses remain hypothetical. The government, by contrast, is making real decisions now and facing the consequences of them. There is also a contradiction running through the interview. Burnham argues for radical change while simultaneously promising adherence to existing fiscal rules. He speaks about rejoining the European Union in his lifetime while insisting that now is not the time to revisit the issue. He criticises the way politics is conducted while carefully avoiding direct answers about his own leadership ambitions. As a result, the interview often feels less like a programme for government and more like a collection of carefully positioned political signals designed to appeal to different audiences at the same time. Ultimately, the public may decide that what Britain needs most is not another politician describing what could be done, but a government continuing the difficult work of implementing what can be done. There is a significant difference between governing and campaigning. One involves promises. The other involves delivery. However, before any of these competing visions are ever put before the British electorate, there is another audience that must first be persuaded: Labour members themselves. Andy Burnham must first win the Makerfield by election. He must then convince Labour MPs and Labour members that replacing Keir Starmer is both necessary and desirable. It is they, rather than the wider electorate, who will determine whether his ambitions ever move beyond speeches and interviews into a genuine leadership project. That raises an important question. Is this really the moment for Labour to abandon a programme that is already being implemented in favour of a set of ambitions that may take many years to achieve, if they can be achieved at all? Many of the policies Burnham discusses are not measures that can be delivered quickly. Social care reform, replacing council tax, introducing a land value tax, restructuring local government finance and further constitutional reform are projects that could consume years of political and legislative effort before any meaningful results are seen. That presents a fundamental political risk. If a government commits itself to a programme whose principal objectives cannot realistically be delivered within the lifetime of a Parliament, it may find itself facing the electorate having promised much but demonstrated little. Voters are generally prepared to be patient when they can see progress. They are far less forgiving when they are asked to place their faith in outcomes that always appear to remain somewhere beyond the horizon. Labour members should therefore consider not only whether these ambitions are desirable, but whether they are deliverable within a timeframe that allows the party to present a credible record of achievement at the next general election. Political parties rarely earn public trust by constantly changing direction. They earn it by demonstrating competence, stability and delivery. The government was elected on a manifesto and is now in the process of implementing it. Surely the first test should be whether that programme succeeds before Labour turns its attention to an entirely different one. For Labour members, therefore, the choice is not simply between two personalities. It is a choice between delivery and aspiration, between a government already doing the difficult work of governing and a prospective leadership project built largely upon promises of what might be possible in the future. That, ultimately, is the debate that now lies ahead.

Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar

2 hours ago

EXCL: ‘I wouldn’t flinch’: Burnham on social care, markets, Brexit – and the prospect of a general election Read my full interview with @AndyBurnhamGM on the campaign trail in Makerfield 👇 theguardian.com/politics/2026/…

24 20 46 40K 21

@PoliticsJOE_UK

@bbclaurak x.com/GordonFielden/…

Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden

a day ago

x.com/i/article/2062…

3 34 86 3K 13

# Why Farage Chose Manchester and Why Burnham Should Be Concerned There was a reason Nigel Farage chose Manchester, and there was a reason he made those remarks there. In my view, this was not an off the cuff comment or a moment of political carelessness. It was a deliberate message aimed at a particular audience in an area where Reform has recently enjoyed significant electoral success. Given the backdrop of previous unrest and the refusal of Reform figures to distance themselves from the comments, it is difficult to see this as anything other than a calculated political strategy. Politicians of Farage's experience understand precisely the effect words can have, particularly when delivered in locations chosen for their political symbolism. Manchester was not selected by accident, nor was the audience. The real question is not simply what was said, but why it was said and what consequences may follow. For some voters, particularly those who have actively embraced Reform's political message in recent elections, such rhetoric may serve as a reminder of the more extreme elements that critics have long associated with the party. Political consequences are rarely immediate, but they can be profound. History shows that public opinion is often shaped less by a single event than by the accumulation of impressions over time. A comment that resonates negatively can return repeatedly throughout an election campaign, reinforced by opponents, amplified by media coverage and revisited whenever a candidate seeks higher office. What appears to be a short lived controversy today can become a defining political burden tomorrow. That is where the wider implications begin. If the fallout damages Andy Burnham's prospects and he fails to secure a future electoral victory that is seen as essential to his national ambitions, then his hopes of leading the Labour Party are effectively over. Politics can be unforgiving, and a major defeat at the wrong moment can end a leadership project before it truly begins. What makes this situation particularly significant is that the controversy is unlikely to disappear before voters go to the polls. With polling day on 18 June, there is little time for the issue to fade from public attention. Political opponents will continue to raise it, journalists will continue to scrutinise it, and voters will soon have their opportunity to deliver a verdict at the ballot box. The first and most important question is whether the controversy will have any effect upon the result. If it does, the political consequences for Burnham could extend far beyond a single election campaign. For Burnham, the challenge is not merely surviving the immediate political storm. It is preventing that storm from becoming part of a wider narrative concerning judgement, leadership and political effectiveness. Once such narratives take hold, they become increasingly difficult to reverse. The pressure upon Burnham is therefore real and immediate. The electoral test is now only a short distance away, and the political consequences of the result may prove far more significant than many currently assume. There is a further irony. Andy Burnham has, on a number of occasions over the years, spoken of Greater Manchester as his political home and described the mayoralty as the role he most valued. At the time, those remarks were widely interpreted as a reflection of his commitment to the region and the office he holds. Politics, however, has a habit of changing circumstances rapidly. If the current controversy continues to gather momentum and inflicts lasting political damage, those remarks may come to be viewed rather differently. What was once seen as a statement of loyalty to Greater Manchester could ultimately prove prophetic. For all the discussion of future leadership ambitions and potential national roles, there is now a genuine question over whether the Mayor of Greater Manchester may prove to be Burnham's final major political office. For a politician whose career has included two unsuccessful Labour leadership campaigns and a return from Westminster to regional politics, that would be a significant political reversal. The irony is that an intervention intended to strengthen Reform's position in the North may ultimately have consequences far beyond Reform itself. If Burnham emerges politically weakened, the effects may be felt across the wider political landscape. What began as a speech designed to energise one political movement may yet reshape the prospects of figures far beyond its ranks. That is why this story matters. The significance lies not simply in the remarks that were made, but in the political calculations behind them and the consequences that may follow. In politics, timing is everything. Farage understood that. Burnham must now ensure that the consequences of that intervention do not come to define the remainder of his political career.

@SeemaMalhotra1 @Keir_Starmer

@business It more likely to be a Starmer Burnham fight, Wes will be gone in the first round.

x.com/i/article/2062…

@TurquoiseReform @DailyTPodcast @CamillaTominey @timothy_stanley If one of the usual Reform bots turns up with this nonsense, simply copy and paste the text above as your reply. They probably will not understand it, but everyone else will. Then mute them and block them.

The Labour Government was elected with a majority of around 120 seats in the House of Commons. Describing that as a "thin majority" is so detached from political reality that it raises questions about whether you understand how Parliament actually works. A majority of that size gives a Government the ability to pass legislation, set its agenda and govern with considerable authority. It is not remotely comparable to the wafer thin majorities that have brought down governments in the past. In fact, most Prime Ministers would regard such a majority as an enviable position from which to govern. Perhaps before posting grand political analysis, it would be worth learning the basics of parliamentary arithmetic. A Government with a majority of around 120 seats is not hanging on by its fingertips. It has a commanding position in the Commons and, barring a political catastrophe, can comfortably deliver its programme. So by all means criticise Labour if you wish, but claiming it was elected with a "thin majority" merely advertises a lack of understanding of the very system you are attempting to comment upon. Stick to the facts. They are not difficult to find.

The Labour Government was elected with a majority of around 120 seats in the House of Commons. Describing that as a "thin majority" is so detached from political reality that it raises questions about whether you understand how Parliament actually works. A majority of that size gives a Government the ability to pass legislation, set its agenda and govern with considerable authority. It is not remotely comparable to the wafer thin majorities that have brought down governments in the past. In fact, most Prime Ministers would regard such a majority as an enviable position from which to govern. Perhaps before posting grand political analysis, it would be worth learning the basics of parliamentary arithmetic. A Government with a majority of around 120 seats is not hanging on by its fingertips. It has a commanding position in the Commons and, barring a political catastrophe, can comfortably deliver its programme. So by all means criticise Labour if you wish, but claiming it was elected with a "thin majority" merely advertises a lack of understanding of the very system you are attempting to comment upon. Stick to the facts. They are not difficult to find.

The Labour Government was elected with a majority of around 120 seats in the House of Commons. Describing that as a "thin majority" is so detached from political reality that it raises questions about whether you understand how Parliament actually works. A majority of that size gives a Government the ability to pass legislation, set its agenda and govern with considerable authority. It is not remotely comparable to the wafer thin majorities that have brought down governments in the past. In fact, most Prime Ministers would regard such a majority as an enviable position from which to govern. Perhaps before posting grand political analysis, it would be worth learning the basics of parliamentary arithmetic. A Government with a majority of around 120 seats is not hanging on by its fingertips. It has a commanding position in the Commons and, barring a political catastrophe, can comfortably deliver its programme. So by all means criticise Labour if you wish, but claiming it was elected with a "thin majority" merely advertises a lack of understanding of the very system you are attempting to comment upon. Stick to the facts. They are not difficult to find.

What I don't understand is why @AndyBurnhamGM is saying Makerfield has been abandoned by the Labour Party and govt? That implies that @joshsimonsmp has done a lousy job. Which clearly isn't true. The whole Burnham campaign stinks.

Josh Simons @joshsimonsmp

3 days ago

I loved being an MP. In this age, even if you care and graft, showing it can be hard. Wiganers are tough judges of character and I’ve been moved by what they’ve said. For those thinking of politics: it’s a privilege that’s worth every ounce of energy you have.

167 19 175 53K 13

Sir, firstly, I do not regard profanity from anyone as acceptable, and you will see my response to that shortly. However, since you have chosen to make this point, perhaps you should look at the context. My comment received 47,000 views. Now compare that with the post above to which I was responding and place both into perspective. Oh dear. Having done so, I suspect you may feel rather foolish for making that remark. Goodbye.

Over recent months, there has been a widespread and unmistakable backlash against what many people now regard as the political correspondents' circus. Across social media, public discussion, newspaper comment sections and countless online platforms, people have become increasingly frustrated with what they perceive to be the transformation of political journalism from reporting events into attempting to shape them. This criticism has not emerged from a small or isolated group. It has been repeated by vast numbers of people from across the political spectrum who have become weary of what they see as narrative construction taking precedence over factual reporting. The complaint is remarkably consistent. The public are not asking journalists to tell them what to think. They are asking journalists to tell them what has happened, present the evidence, provide the necessary context and allow people to reach their own conclusions. The criticism is not directed towards a single broadcaster or newspaper. The BBC, Sky News, ITV, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, the Financial Times, the Daily Mail and others have all found themselves the subject of growing public scrutiny. Particular attention has been directed towards the increasingly prominent role of chief political correspondents and political editors, many of whom now appear to occupy a position somewhere between journalist, commentator and political participant. Critics point to specific examples which, in their view, demonstrate how far parts of political journalism have drifted from straightforward reporting. One such example occurred only last week when Lewis Goodall, during his regular radio programme, openly questioned why the Prime Minister had not already gone. To many listeners, this appeared less like political reporting and more like political advocacy. The objection is not that journalists should be prevented from asking difficult questions. Rather, it is that some correspondents increasingly appear to be advancing their own preferred political outcomes instead of reporting events as they are. For many members of the public, such interventions merely reinforce the perception that certain figures within the political media class have become active participants in the very stories they are supposed to be covering. For months, audiences have watched as the same narratives have been advanced, repeated and reinforced across multiple outlets. Stories have frequently been presented through the lens of political drama, leadership speculation and alleged crisis, even when the underlying facts have often been considerably less dramatic than the accompanying commentary suggested. The result has been a growing perception that some journalists have become more invested in the narrative surrounding events than in the events themselves. The controversy surrounding the so called secret vetting process became a notable example. Critics argued that important context was either omitted or given insufficient prominence, creating an impression that was not fully representative of the facts. When further details emerged, many expected the same journalists who had promoted the original narrative to revisit their reporting with equal prominence. In the eyes of many observers, that never truly happened. This frustration has extended well beyond individual stories. Increasingly, people have questioned why certain correspondents appear determined to present every disagreement as a rebellion, every policy challenge as a crisis and every difficult week as evidence of impending political collapse. Rather than reporting developments as they occur, some appear to have adopted a role in which they actively construct a storyline and then search for evidence to support it. What has clearly unsettled parts of the media establishment is the scale of the public response. For perhaps the first time in a generation, journalists themselves have become the subject of sustained scrutiny by the public. Viewers, listeners and readers are now challenging reporting in real time, dissecting claims, comparing sources and exposing inconsistencies. The monopoly once enjoyed by a relatively small group of political commentators over the national conversation has been fundamentally weakened. When members of the public have challenged this approach, some correspondents have reacted with surprise, even indignation, that their work should be subjected to criticism. Yet this is merely the accountability that journalists themselves have long demanded from politicians, public institutions and those in positions of influence. Scrutiny cannot be a one way process. The decline in trust towards traditional news organisations has therefore not occurred by accident. It is the product of years of perceived bias, selective emphasis, exaggerated narratives and the gradual erosion of the distinction between factual reporting and personal interpretation. People have become increasingly sceptical of those who appear more interested in influencing events than describing them. The irony in all of this is that the relentless effort by some commentators to portray Prime Minister Keir Starmer as politically weakened may, in some respects, have achieved precisely the opposite effect. The constant predictions of crisis, collapse and leadership turmoil have increasingly been met with public scepticism. Many people have concluded that they are witnessing not objective reporting, but a determined effort to manufacture a narrative that the facts themselves do not support. Far from weakening support, this sustained campaign of speculation and commentary appears to have galvanised many of those who had grown tired of political theatre. The more some correspondents have sought to present themselves as kingmakers, the more people have questioned whether that was ever their role in the first place. The message from large sections of the public is becoming increasingly clear. Report the facts. Present the evidence. Provide the context. Then allow the public to make up their own minds.

Having now seen the footage in its raw form of Police action of the murder of Henry Nowak, I can only express my personal disgust at the conduct of the police officers involved in that incident. The first alarm bell should have sounded the moment they were informed that the young man had blood in his mouth. That is a clear and obvious indication that something is seriously wrong. The second warning sign was his repeated difficulty in breathing. Taken together, those factors should have triggered an immediate emergency response. I do not know what words can truly comfort the family in circumstances such as these, but there appears to have been a serious failure in the duty of care owed to that young man. The fact that the murderer, and the murderer's brother, were present at the scene and clearly knew he had been stabbed should also have raised immediate concerns as to the nature of his injuries. The individual responsible for the killing is rightly imprisoned. I sincerely hope that any person who deliberately misled the police during those critical moments is also held properly accountable for their actions. Police officers, like firefighters and other emergency service personnel, receive first aid training for precisely these situations. When somebody is reported to have been stabbed, that is not a routine matter. It is a medical emergency that requires an immediate and urgent response. The priority must always be to preserve life, stabilise the casualty where possible, and summon whatever emergency assistance is required without delay. What happened was shocking and it must never happen again. It does not matter who the victim is, what they look like, or where they come from. If a person is lying seriously injured on the ground, the first duty is to do everything possible to save their life. The real victims today are the family left behind. Parents have lost a son, a sister has lost a brother, and loved ones have been forced to endure not only a senseless act of violence but also the distressing circumstances that followed. It is to them that our thoughts and deepest sympathies must go. bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4g8…