A “political row” about football’s “drinking culture” is now “in full swing”, said Politico, after Andy Burnham said a ban on football fans drinking alcohol in the stands is “wrong”.

The prime-minister-in-waiting is considering lifting the ban but the current PM is standing by it.

What are the laws in the UK?

After a period of serious football hooliganism in the early 1980s, the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 was passed. It banned the consumption of alcohol while watching a football game from seats or anywhere else within sight of the pitch, meaning spectators had to stay on the concourse or in another area where they couldn’t see the playing surface.

Critics say that this curious law means that fans end up drinking more quickly during half-time because they have only around 15 minutes before returning to the stands. This encourages increasing consumption rather than moderating it, it has been argued.

Other sports are more relaxed: you can drink alcohol in your seat at rugby union, rugby league, cricket, horse racing, tennis, darts and other events. A particular oddity is that when a football stadium hosts a concert or rugby tie instead of a football match, fans can often sit in exactly the same seat with a pint in their hand.

What about other countries?

In Scotland, the rules are even stricter than in England. Generally, alcohol cannot be sold or consumed anywhere in the stadium, with limited exceptions in hospitality areas.

In many other countries in Europe, including Germany and the Netherlands, football fans can drink in their seats but rules are often tightened for derby matches and other fixtures that are deemed high risk.

What might Burnham change? 

Burnham said over the weekend that there was “something wrong” with a ban on football fans drinking in view of the pitch, while rugby fans are allowed to booze away. The prime-minister-in-waiting hinted that he might overturn the ban, but the current PM, Keir Starmer, has “pushed back”, said Politico.

“Police chiefs have warned against the relaxing rules of drinking in the stands, and we think that’s sensible to follow,” a spokesperson for Starmer said this week.

“Fans who go to matches in football league can drink before the game, in the concourse during half time and can stay late after the match or head to the pub, so there’s plenty of chances to get a drink,” they added.

Data suggests that football crowds are far less violent than in the 1980s, so there has been increasing debate about whether the law is still justified. The ban has been reviewed by parliamentary committees, football authorities and supporter groups, but the restriction remains in force in England and Wales. A fan-led review of football governance in 2021 called for the law to be re-examined.

Currently, cocaine use is a growing issue at matches, where fans with “glazed eyes” and “queues” for “cubicles at half-time” are commonplace, said Goal. Use of the class-A drug had been described by police as “excessive” and a “bigger factor in violence at matches than alcohol”.

“Hailed as a political genius by some”, Morgan McSweeney was seen as a “Machiavellian puppeteer manipulating a compliant” Keir Starmer on his journey from Labour Party leader in 2020 to prime minister in 2024, said Patrick Cockburn in The i Paper.

Yet in his first interviews since appearing before the Foreign Affairs Committee in April, two months after quitting as Starmer’s chief of staff, McSweeney claimed the party failed to prepare adequately for office, and that one of the hardest tasks in opposition was trying to “persuade people that we could win”.

Emerging from the shadows to speak to the Financial Times and the BBC, McSweeney is presumably trying to “establish a public profile in his post-political life”, said Ian Dunt in The i Paper. “His way of achieving this is to admit to rudimentary errors in political operations as if they were startling insights available only to those with the requisite experience.”

What did he say?

McSweeney was “surprisingly candid” with the BBC’s Nick Robinson on his “Political Thinking” podcast about the Labour Party’s failure to lay the groundwork for government while in opposition, said Ethan Croft in The New Statesman.

“We didn’t prepare enough for what kind of world we were going to,” said McSweeney, and the party didn’t grasp that it was in a “very different era” to when it was last in office. “We didn’t have enough conversations at the top of the party about what that meant, how to prepare for it, what that meant for the state.”

What mistakes were made?

McSweeney believes the “first self-inflicted wound” of the Starmer government was the Treasury’s decision to cut winter fuel payments for “10 million better-off pensioners”, said the FT. This was then “compounded” by the donations scandal involving McSweeney and the Labour Together think tank, and the first budget, which prioritised long-term financial reforms over immediate help for the electorate who voted them into power.

The former chief-of-staff admitted that the government should have been “laser focused on the cost of living from day one”. Voters were “really angry with the state of the country. They thought we promised change and we got distracted.”

Labour quickly lost popular support. Its approval ratings fell from 37.5% in July 2024 to 23.3% in June 2025 – the steepest drop for any government in its first year since 1983, said Shea Ferguson on UnHerd.

Ultimately, it was his role in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US that forced McSweeney to resign. McSweeney had recommended Mandelson for the role, and admitted that “I failed in my job and failed in my duty”. But he denied it was his fault that Mandelson was offered the position. “I hope that one day Mandelson recognises the damage he has done to a Labour government that carried the hopes of millions of people.”

What can Andy Burnham learn?

McSweeney believes Labour MPs were motivated to oust Starmer because they concluded he could not win the next election, “not because they want to scratch some ideological itch”, said the FT. The former adviser also welcomed the idea of Burnham as Starmer’s successor, and approves of the plan to split No. 10 between London and Manchester.

If McSweeney can “serve any function” now, said Dunt, it is to “provide a moral warning to Andy Burnham’s team”. When Labour was elected in 2024, McSweeney and Starmer had a “historic responsibility” to dispel populism and show that mainstream politics could operate effectively. They had spent years attacking Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak for “governing like drunken clowns in a restaurant kitchen”.

But in office, Labour had “no project, no set of beliefs, no plan for what they wanted to do”, and crucially failed to deliver “quick change” to earn the electorate’s trust. Barring a substantial shock, Burnham will become the next prime minister, and he “must not make the same mistake”.

Keir Starmer promised to give his successor as prime minister his “full and unequivocal support” but Andy Burnham must be wondering what Starmer’s definition of “full and unequivocal” is, following this week’s defence announcement.

Starmer announced a £15 billion increase in spending in his £298 billion Defence Investment Plan (DIP). Of the £15 billion, around two thirds will be raised from “efficiency savings” of quangos, and “cutting capital budgets across Whitehall by 1%”, said The Guardian.

However, £4.7 billion remains unfunded, with the Treasury saying it will be allocated in the next budget, creating a defence black hole for the next prime minister and chancellor.

As presumptive prime minister, Andy Burnham will “somehow need to find more money”, said the Financial Times’ editorial board, likely through a series of unpopular savings. Whether he can succeed where Starmer has failed on defence spending “will be a defining test” of Burnham’s premiership.

‘Dirty rotten trick’

Starmer has left the prime-minister-in-waiting a “series of unexploded bombs” in the DIP to resolve in the first months of his expected term, said political editor Steven Swinford in The Times. Numbers aside, there was an “even bigger bombshell”: no date was set for when a Starmer’s pledge to spend 3% of GDP on defence would be met, “or indeed 3.5% for that matter”.

It is “highly unclear” how reforming the civil service – which has “only got bigger” – and “breaking down operational barriers” will be achieved. Even if Burnham navigates Starmer’s legacy safely, it will have “significant fiscal implications for his own plans”.

This isn’t about Starmer acquiescing on defence, said John Rentoul in The Independent. It is about him “trying to blow up Andy Burnham before he’s started”. Starmer had promised in his resignation to work “dutifully” in the interests of the nation and oversee an “orderly transition”: “he didn’t mean a word of it”. This “dirty rotten trick” shows us in public what he has been feeling in private. He feels “betrayed” by Burnham, Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmood, and has “no intention of making life easy for them”.

“Sir Keir Starmer hasn’t actually sewn raw prawns into the hems of the Downing Street curtains, but he might as well have,” said former Labour MP Tom Harris in The Telegraph. His “two-faced” and “spiteful” actions look “all the more distasteful” considering his upset over inheriting his own £22 billion black hole from Rishi Sunak’s government. “We expected more of Starmer.”

Burnham’s ‘call to arms’

If Burnham is “fazed” by this situation, he “isn’t fit to be PM”, said James Lyons, former Downing Street Director of Strategic Communications, in The i Paper. The near-£5 billion deficit he needs to fill is “peanuts” compared to the £1 trillion-plus that the Government spends. The problem could just “disappear” “at a stroke” with improved forecasts, much like the recent Spring Statement, where estimates for the figure needed to achieve it were reduced from £20 billion to £8 billion. “The bad news is that they could also go the other way.” For any chance of success, Burnham needs to “pick a small number of issues” and “stick to them through thick and thin”.

Now this is a “ding-dong political row”, said James Heale in The Spectator. The DIP’s financial commitments were listed in “vague, euphemistic terms”, meaning Burnham’s selection of a chancellor to resolve the £4.7 billion gap is “the most important decision he makes in the next few months”. Burnham has previously shown “little interest” in defence, but it is likely to be a “staple theme of his in-tray”. “He will need an experienced and effective chancellor by his side.”

The MP for Makerfield should see the DIP as a “call to arms” on public finances, said The Times’ editorial board. By arguing that his hands are tied, Burnham could use Starmer’s “political sleight of hand” to “spur him to take radical action on pensions and welfare” to make up the shortfall. Public spending is “out of control”, and if Burnham is to “break free he must attack the root causes”: high borrowing costs, welfare “profligacy” and the “triple lock”. No one will “challenge the edicts of the messiah”.

In his first speech as prime minister in waiting, Andy Burnham promised he would achieve “good growth in every postcode” and spearhead the “biggest rebalancing of power” in political history.

Keir Starmer announced his own “devolution revolution” in 2024, but Burnham aims to move even more influence away from Westminster towards other regions of the UK to drive more balanced economic growth.

His speech at the People’s ­History Museum in Manchester was “­important in shedding light on a Burnham Britain”, said The Times. As he was championing a “devolution first” attitude, the support of his audience was “not in doubt”. But the “viability of his proposals was”.

How is the UK already devolved?

Manchester has benefited from some of the “most extensive” powers devolved to English cities, said the BBC. It has significant control over local transport, housing and strategic planning decisions.

Northern Ireland and the Welsh Senedd have similar autonomy over health, education and housing policies among others, with the latter also managing local government. In Scotland, Holyrood controls health, education, local government, environment, justice and policing. It can set most income tax rates and has some control over welfare policy, too.

What has Burnham proposed?

Burnham said he would create a “No 10. North”, a new prime minister’s office based in Manchester and acting as the “nerve centre of a rewired Britain”. It would support regional powers in delivering a nationwide agenda of reindustrialisation, regeneration and reform of essential services.

Local authorities would be offered greater control over key utilities such as water, energy and transport. Burnham’s advisers have also “floated ideas” about allowing local authorities to introduce local income tax, and to set and retain business rates to mirror policies in Denmark, Sweden and Canada, said Matthew Brooker on Bloomberg.

The dispersal of power has already begun. The MP for Makerfield has appointed Caroline Simpson as his deputy chief of staff to lead No. 10 North should he become prime minister, said The Guardian. Previously described as Burnham’s “right-hand woman”, the career civil servant has overseen Greater Manchester’s £3 billion-a-year budget since 2024.

What is the aim?

The UK is one of the most centralised economies among developed countries, said Brooker. In 2023, the share of UK tax revenue generated at a subnational level – essentially by regions below the central government – was less than 5%, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This is compared with 14% for France, 24% for Spain and nearly a third for Germany. “Regions tend to do better when they raise more of their own revenue.”

If Burnham’s devolution policies prove successful, the “big prize” would be a rise in nationwide GDP, said Bloomberg. If the rest of the UK came even halfway to matching London’s productivity levels, the economy would be “at least 4% larger”, according to PwC analysis from 2019.

There has been no indication how Burnham will split his time between London and Manchester, but the decision felt “more significant than the relocation of staff”, said the BBC’s chief political correspondent Henry Zeffman. With a tailored agenda, it could signify a “wider shake-up of the machinery of government is in the offing”.

“Rethinking and reshaping No. 10 is long overdue,” said the Institute for Government. But Burnham’s plans for No. 10 North will only succeed if “he knows – and spells out in public – what a split operation is for”.

Andy Burnham may be on course to take over as prime minister in less than a month, but he “could wreck his administration before it begins with a poor choice of chancellor”, said The Times. If Labour hopes to drastically improve the economy, and curb borrowing and higher spending, it “must change course”. And “that criterion should immediately disqualify” the long-presumed frontrunner for the job, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.

The prospect of Miliband in the Treasury is already angering the unions and spooking the financial markets, so attention is turning to former health secretary Wes Streeting. He surprised many in Westminster by backing Burnham this week, sparking rumours that he’s struck a deal in exchange for not contesting the leadership.

‘Divisive choices’

There are “good reasons” why Streeting “would be a shrewd choice”, said Gordon Rayner in The Telegraph. Unlike Miliband, Streeting is “part of Labour’s future rather than its past, and is someone whom the City feels it could do business with”. He is also “without doubt one of Labour’s best communicators” and has the skills to construct a Budget telling the story of “how Labour intends to improve lives”. He would prepare the country for what’s to come, rather than “pulling economic policies out of thin air” or conjuring up “supposed budgetary black holes to justify them”.

Both Streeting and Miliband “would, in their own ways, be divisive choices”, said The Independent. Streeting is “deeply distrusted by the left of the party” while Miliband’s “hard line on net zero policies have made him a controversial figure”. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood could “emerge as the compromise candidate”, with the added benefit of providing the new PM with an opportunity to “get her out of the Home Office so he could tweak the immigration policy”.

‘Bulging in-tray’

Whoever enters No. 11 “will have a bulging in-tray”, said City A.M. A new chancellor will have to battle “calls for greater spending on defence”, as well as “manage expectations” on easing employment taxes. The triple lock on pensions is also high on the agenda, while calls for new wealth taxes “risk infuriating investors”. On top of that are potential nationalisation plans for “major utility firms” like Thames Water, and, of course, the “continuing fallout” from the Iran war.

Andy Burnham is preparing his bid for No. 10 after returning to Parliament as a Labour MP.

Burnham is “widely considered a frontrunner”, said The Independent, but now that Keir Starmer has announced his resignation, there are still a couple more weeks for other leadership candidates to throw their hats in the ring.

Some voters, though, are “terrified”, said The Sun, at what a perceived “hard-left Burnham government will do to their bank balances”.

Tax

Labour’s manifesto promise not to increase the rates of income tax, VAT or employee national insurance contributions “will stay”, said The Times, but Burnham has suggested he would raise the £12,570 tax-free personal income allowance for workers.

The former Greater Manchester mayor told the BBC’s Question Time that the personal allowance had been a topic raised “on so many doorsteps” and that, as a result, he would be willing to “have a proper look at this” to develop policy.

Inheritance tax changes “could also be a possibility”, said MoneyWeek, highlighting that, as health secretary in 2009, Burnham suggested a flat 10% charge applied to all estates, “with the money being used to fund social care for all”.

And, in a move that will “terrify middle England”, said The Sun, he has floated reintroducing the “hated” 50p top rate of tax.

Property taxes

Burnham has also “shown enthusiasm for taxing wealth more heavily”, said IFA Magazine.

Writing for The Guardian in 2010, Burnham proposed a land value tax on the market rental value of land. He argued this would “allow for the abolition of stamp duty”.

Such a move would “discourage land hoarding and encourage productive development”, said Tembo Money, but it could raise “legitimate concerns about fairness” for “asset-rich, income-poor homeowners” who might find it difficult to meet higher annual bills.

Mortgages

The credibility of Burnham in the markets, said Sky News, “will matter most for our borrowing costs”.

Burnham has sought to reassure bond investors that he will stick to the government’s existing fiscal rules. But if doubts were to emerge in markets, “mortgage borrowers could be among those to feel the consequences”, said the Financial Times.

Any massive spending plans outlined by Burnham could “trigger a bond market meltdown”, said The Sun, which would push fixed mortgage rates up.

Pensions

In good news for pensioners, Burnham has “reaffirmed the government’s commitment to the triple lock”, said Morningstar, despite “intense scrutiny” of the policy.

But he could use changes to pension tax relief or reductions in the pension tax-free lump sum as a “means of targeting wealth, and raising revenue, without deploying headline wealth taxes”.

The importance of the chancellor 

The “choice of chancellor” will also influence how bond markets react, said The Independent. Currently, Rachel Reeves is seen “as stable, consistent and predictable – all things the market likes”.

A chancellor with a “reputation for fiscal discipline” might “reassure markets”, said MoneyWeek, but a “less disciplined” candidate “could have the opposite effect”.

There will soon be a changing of the guard in the United Kingdom, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced his resignation. But his likely replacement, Makerfield MP Andy Burnham, probably won’t have an easier time than Starmer did courting President Donald Trump. Burnham, a popular figure in the U.K.’s center-left Labour Party, has previously chided Trump and his administration. If he becomes prime minister, it could mark a turning point for American-British relations.

What did the commentators say?

When it comes to the White House’s view on Burnham, there has been no “immediate condemnation from the current administration,” said The Times. But “even if Burnham does benefit from a grace period with the president, his interventions on American politics are unlikely to endear him to Trump for long.” Similarly, the relationship between Starmer and Trump devolved soon after Starmer became prime minister.

Burnham has widely criticized Trump and right-wing U.S. politics. After the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol, he “was scathing about British politicians who held their tongue to appease Trump,” said The Times. “Any U.K. politician who gave Trump the time of day should be ashamed right now,” Burnham said on X at the time. To “combat the rise” of the U.K.’s far-right Reform U.K. party, a Burnham premiership “may be tempted to more openly criticize Trump” with the “knowledge that the U.S. president is reviled by much of the British electorate,” said The Times.

Burnham will also have to reckon with a U.S. president who has “undermined British confidence by deriding British military sacrifices in Afghanistan,” said the Washington Examiner. Trump’s leaking of the announcement that Starmer “would resign and his simultaneously classless (if broadly accurate) criticism of Starmer’s policies further degrades U.S.-U.K. trust.” Burnham, or whoever the next prime minister is, must “be cautious,” as the U.K. is “heavily reliant on the intelligence, military and economic benefits provided by its American alliance.”

Overall, the “mood swings of Mr. Trump may be less of an issue for Mr. Burnham” than they were for Starmer due to the “timeline in America,” said The Independent. By the time a Burnham premiership gets fully settled, the 2026 midterms may have passed, and he will be dealing with a White House “entering the traditional ‘lame duck’ stage where power quickly ebbs away, not least because he cannot run again.”

What next?

Burnham could potentially enter office as prime minister by mid-July, but if there’s a contest for the position, the “election would likely drag on into September,” said The Associated Press. Either way, the U.K.’s likely next prime minister has urged caution against his country moving to be like the United States. “Politics is getting more polarized. And the path we’re on, if we are not careful, is a path toward the politics of the United States of America,” Burnham said during an event in the final days of his parliamentary campaign.

Burnham has also expressed dissent about the similarities between Trump and former Prime Minister Liz Truss, as well as Trump’s 2024 election victory. “The instability that Liz Truss brought to Britain, I think Trump is bringing to the U.S. and the world,” he told The London Economic last year. “Open your eyes to what could be really challenging and difficult issues and things that could polarize people further.”

Another prime minister resigning from office adds to the “unprecedented instability in the modern history” of Britain, said an editorial in Le Monde.

Following his announcement on Monday, Starmer will still “seek to make his final mark on the world stage as a lame-duck prime minister”, said Politico. But a planned EU-UK summit on 22 July has been postponed amid indecision over Britain’s intentions regarding the continent.

With Starmer’s imminent departure, and many of the policies of his likely successor Andy Burnham as yet unknown, Britain’s instability is having tangible consequences on the world stage.

How was Starmer viewed?

“God save the king and this desolate land of the United Kingdom,” said Antonello Guerrera in La Repubblica. Since Starmer was elected in 2024, he has appeared a “robotic and insipid leader” on the domestic front. He has “always been a Hamlet: paralysed by indecision, doubt, and sunk by tragic ineptitude”. And on Monday, “the curtain fell”.

But, aside from being “humiliated” by Donald Trump on social media, many world leaders thanked Starmer for his service, including his “staunch ally” Volodymyr Zelenskyy, his “comrade” Emmanuel Macron, and Giorgia Meloni. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, paid tribute, saying: “It can take many leaders years to grow into the statesman you became in just two years.”

“Pragmatic, cool and rational”, Starmer embodied a strain of “anti-politics” and could get the job done without a fuss, said Enrico Franceschini in La Republicca. But these qualities were eroded by a “lack of charisma, the inability to communicate, and the limited political vision of a prime minister animated by good intentions but unable to implement them”.

Where did it go wrong?

“Beleaguered” Starmer’s tenure was “troubled” from the outset, said Euronews. From failing to declare gifts in the first few months of his premiership, to appointing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, to numerous policy U-turns on “welfare reform, introducing digital IDs and scrapping winter fuel payments”: his time in office was “littered with controversy”.

Starmer was also “undone by economic stagnation” and “underspending on defence”, said Quentin Letts in The Washington Post. But perhaps the reason he stayed in power so long was that there was “no obvious answer” as to who could replace him.

Fundamentally, Starmer “broke his promise of stability” and “orchestrated constant changes of strategy”, said Claudi Pérez in El País. In his defence, he inherited a “poisoned chalice” of “stagnant” growth, but overall, like “bad tennis players”, he made “too many unforced errors”.

Is Britain an isolated case?

Since Britain voted to leave the EU in 2016, No. 10 has become a “hot seat”, said Deutsche Welle. Whoever succeeds Starmer will be the seventh leader in that period, and will be “grappling with profound political, economic, and social problems”.

Before Starmer, according to Der Spiegel, the UK had “gambler” David Cameron, someone who tried to “pick up the pieces” in Theresa May, the “scandals”-ridden Boris Johnson, a “zigzag” six-week tenure from Liz Truss, and a leader of “negative momentum” in Rishi Sunak. Downing Street has become a “transit station”.

But the rest of Europe is equally fractured, said Pérez in El País. Since the financial crisis in 2008, there has been a “collapse” of centrist parties in Europe. France has had seven prime ministers in the past eight years, and in Germany, Friedrich Merz’s popularity is “plummeting” and the “grand coalition is falling apart”. Further afield, the US’ “politics are a mess”.

Is the future brighter with Burnham?

The “charismatic” Burnham is a “rising star”, with “decades of experience in national and regional politics”, said DW. And he is perhaps the “last hope to counter the rising right-wing populists of Reform UK”.

The new MP for Makerfield provides a “glimmer of hope” for the UK, said Pérez in El País, not least because he is in favour of “resetting the relationship with the EU”. That is the “greatest reform this country needs”. It has been “plagued by a nauseating post-imperial nostalgia, an epidemic of fear, and a mediocre political class that has been hitting rock bottom for almost 20 years”.

Burnham “may well prove a more skilled rider”, said The Washington Post. But each of the last six prime ministers “arrived promising to be the exception to the merry-go-round of predecessors and unquenchable voter rage”. And he “won’t have much time to figure it out”.

What happened

Former Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has emerged as the likely successor to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who announced his resignation Monday amid a revolt inside his Labour Party triggered by falling poll numbers and substantial losses in local elections last month. Burnham, who won a seat in Parliament in a special election last week, announced he would run for Labour leader before being sworn in.

Who said what

Starmer’s resignation “could have triggered a divisive leadership contest, but several Labour lawmakers said they now expected more of a coronation,” Reuters said. Burnham, 56, quickly “won the support of another potential leadership rival,” ​former Health Minister Wes Streeting, and no other potential candidates stepped forward. Following an “extraordinary month of deft political maneuvering,” Burnham “was treated like a celebrity” when he arrived at Parliament, with “television crews filming his arrival from helicopters,” The New York Times said.

What next?

Starmer will stay on as caretaker prime minister until Labour picks a new leader, a process starting with nominations opening July 9. If there’s a contest, the “election would likely drag on into September,” The Associated Press said. If it’s a “coronation,” Reuters said, Burnham could “enter office by mid-July.”

Andy Burnham appears to be heading to No. 10 unopposed after Keir Starmer resigned on Monday and his main leadership rival rowed in behind him.

With the new PM set to be in place by the time Parliament returns from summer recess at the start of September, attention is already turning to who the key players could be in a Burnham government, and what their appointment says for its likely direction.

Ed Miliband

The energy secretary and former Labour leader has long coveted the role of chancellor and had been widely seen as the frontrunner to replace Rachel Reeves. He has been a “key champion of Burnham with the parliamentary party and shares the same desire for Labour to enact more radical change, from tax overhaul to public control of utilities”, said The Guardian.

Yet Miliband’s opposition to further North Sea oil and gas licences and strict adherence to net zero commitments, even as energy bills have rocketed, has made him increasingly unpopular with the trade unions and wider public.

Burnham “may have cooled on the idea” of appointing Miliband to the Treasury, said The i Paper, but expect him to get another big position in government even if he misses out on his dream job.

Wes Streeting

Another name being touted as a potential chancellor is one-time PM leadership rival Wes Streeting. The former health secretary, who resigned from Cabinet last month, has withdrawn from the leadership contest and decided to back Burnham, saying on X that the new MP for Makerfield is “committed to building an inclusive party that draws on the best of our political traditions”.

One of Labour’s best communicators, with a compelling personal story, but hailing from the right of the party, his appointment as chancellor or to another top Cabinet job could “align the competing wings of the party” and “show – or at least give the impression – that Labour is more united than voters think”, said Mauricio Alencar, politics and economics reporter for City A.M.

Louise Haigh

The former transport secretary was forced to quit just months after Labour took office in 2024 over a prior fraud conviction, but has now emerged as a “crucial power broker” on the backbenches for the party’s “soft left”, said BBC chief political correspondent Henry Zeffman.

She was “at the heart of the huge rebellion which scuppered the government’s welfare cuts in 2025”, led Burnham’s Makerfield by-election campaign, and is “in line for a big cabinet job”.

Miatta Fahnbulleh

The MP for Peckham has been one of Burnham’s most vocal supporters in Parliament. A former civil servant who ran the left-wing New Economics Foundation think tank, Fahnbulleh resigned as a junior minister for communities in the aftermath of the May local elections.

Hailing from the Labour left, she has “thrown her weight behind a number of highly controversial economic policies including imposing a wealth tax, nationalising several public companies across water and transport, rolling out further green financing and taxing other streams of income more”, said Alencar. Understood to be helping Burnham work on policy, she is a “rising star” in the party and has even been touted as a dark-horse bet for chancellor, in what would be a “radical break from Starmer’s premiership”.

Anneliese Midgley

Relatively unknown outside Labour circles, Midgley was elected MP for Knowsley, near Makerfield, only in 2024 but has been an “influential force in the Labour movement for much longer than that”, said Zeffman. She worked for both Keir Starmer and Jeremy Corbyn in opposition and before that at the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Unite.

She is seen as a “plausible candidate” for chief whip or even political secretary in Downing Street, “not a job usually held by an elected politician”.

The pound fell and government borrowing costs rose after Keir Starmer’s resignation announcement this morning. As Andy Burnham moves closer to power, there is concern in the financial markets that the government will soon start tinkering with its current strict fiscal rules on borrowing and spending.

What are the fiscal rules?

First introduced by Tony Blair’s Labour government in 1997, and now in their 10th iteration, the fiscal rules are restrictions set by the government to constrain its own decisions on taxes and spending. They are intended to act as a check on politicians seeking to borrow more in the short term, leaving future generations to deal with the consequences. And they also signal to investors and taxpayers a commitment to responsible management of public finances.

Rachel Reeves set out this Labour government’s iteration of the fiscal rules in October 2024. There are three main rules: that the current government budget should be in balance or in surplus by 2029-30; that national debt should be lower as a share of the economy in 2029-30 than in 2028-9, and that some welfare spending must be subject to a (fairly loose) cap.

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility effectively marks the Treasury’s spreadsheets to see if these fiscal rules are being met. The government is currently on track to do so.

What are the issues with fiscal rules?

While clear fiscal rules can burnish a Chancellor’s credibility and reassure the financial sector, they must be possible to meet – or the markets will punish the government, as Kwasi Kwarteng and Liz Truss found out to their cost.

Chancellors setting reasonable rules can still “be prone to wishful thinking,” said Sean O’Grady in The Independent, permitting themselves huge deficits to be balanced in future years by “unspecified cuts in public spending”. Or they can “lock themselves into a fiscal straitjacket” like Reeves did with her party’s “commitment not to raise income tax, VAT and national insurance contributions”.

The whole approach to a fiscal policy based around “pass-fail” rules needs a “rethink”, said the Institute for Fiscal Studies in February. The “fixation” with “creating ‘headroom’” against rigid rules leads to “dysfunctional” policy-making, and “aggressive ‘gaming’ of rolling targets”. A more nuanced monitoring framework of “fiscal traffic lights” could “reduce the incentive for governments to contort policy in pursuit of a particular ‘headroom‘ number”, and allow for the delivery of “more sustainable public finances”.

What might Andy Burnham do?

During his by-election campaign, Burnham committed to Reeves’ current fiscal rules, after previous suggestions he’d made about changing them caused a bond market wobble. But, with No. 10 now in his sights, there are signs that he could try to give himself more leeway.

He has been “taking advice” from former Bank of England economist Andy Haldane and former Goldman Sachs chair Jim O’Neill, said Bloomberg. Both have been calling for looser fiscal rules for some time. O’Neill has called the constraints “petty and arbitrary”, and Haldane has said the case for changing them is “overwhelming”.

Louise Haigh, the former transport secretary who masterminded Burnham’s Makerfield campaign, has also been vocal in her criticism of Britain’s fiscal framework. In an essay she wrote for a political journal last week, she called for the Treasury’s debt target to “have a longer horizon of about 10 years”, which “would potentially create more room for investment without formally abandoning the rubric”, said Bloomberg.

How the market reacts to any change in fiscal rules would “depend as much on timing and presentation as substance” – and on “the person Burnham appoints as Chancellor”. Reeves is expected to depart with Keir Starmer, and financial markets are waiting to see if she is replaced by someone from the “soft left” of the party, like Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, or from the right, such as former health secretary Wes Streeting.

“In reality, any set of fiscal rules is only really an expression of what investors are prepared to put up with in return for lending Britain money at an affordable rate of interest,” said The Independent’s O’Grady. Financial markets remain both “the unseen authors” and “the ultimate watchdogs” of fiscal rules. And “they have sharp teeth”.

Keir Starmer announced his resignation this morning, saying he had heard the answer to the question as to whether he was the right person to lead Labour into the next election and would “accept that answer with good grace”.

The pathway from landslide electoral victory in 2024 to candidate for most unpopular prime minister of all time must be “one of the shortest honeymoon periods in British political history”, said Becky Morton and Brian Wheeler on the BBC.

What did the commentators say?

Shortly after becoming prime minister, Starmer boasted “that there would never be such a thing as Starmerism”, said Morton and Wheeler. But what he saw as a lack of ideological baggage ultimately translated – in the eyes of the public and many within his own party – to a perception that the prime minister “was, simply, not very good at politics”.

“There is something lame about him that Starmer has struggled from the start to shrug off,” said Ameer Kotecha in The Spectator. His lack of charisma was sold as a sign of the dutiful competence that was supposed to distinguish him from the perceived frivolity of the Liz Truss and Boris Johnson eras. But over the course of his premiership, the Starmer who has emerged “appears constantly at the mercy of events”, his occasional moments of “startling ruthlessness” somehow “even more unattractive than his mere ineptitude”.

Starmer “arrived for a career in politics unprepared for what a career in politics actually means”, said Andrew Marr in The New Statesman. The former director of public prosecutions went from courtroom to “cage fight”, and never managed to sell himself or his messaging “in a raucous, jeering environment where many assumed he was a compulsive liar”. In taking on the premiership of a fractured, stagnating Britain, he “chose a painful, treacherous path at an unusually difficult time”. If it “hasn’t worked”, it is “by no means all his fault”.

What next?

“The beneficiary of Starmer’s demise is all but certain to be Andy Burnham,” said Sonia Sodha in The Times. Burnham is “a warm and effective communicator” – but he must use that charisma to “strike a realistically ambitious tone” and sell the public on “hard truths” about the road ahead, rather than quick-fix solutions whose inevitable failure will only benefit populist parties.

A Burnham administration “will test the power of personality over policy”, said The New York Times. His allies pin their hopes on his talents as “an effective storyteller who can counter the inflammatory rhetoric of populist rivals” in a way that always eluded Starmer. But so far his vision for the nation has been confined to “sweeping generalities” that offer little insight into how he will address huge challenges like “economic stagnation”, public sector funding and “ascendant, anti-immigrant populism”.

Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, said the picture for Labour has become so “bleak” that most party insiders will be happy if Burnham can simply “persuade people to give the party a second look”. But “if the sausage isn’t going to change, when it comes down to it, all he’s really offering is some sizzle”.

If Andy Burnham wins today’s Makerfield by-election, Wes Streeting won’t be letting him have a clear run at No.10. “For the avoidance of doubt, for the umpteenth time, I will be standing” for the Labour leadership, he told Politico.

Rumours are swirling that Andy Burnham “is preparing to launch an immediate leadership challenge against Keir Starmer” if he secures his return to Westminster, said The Times. His team are “confident that the challenge could be uncontested”, and are already “drawing up plans for what his first 100 days in government would look like”.

But the former health secretary is determined to spoil any Burnham coronation. He claims to have the backing he needs to enter any leadership contest, and made a major speech earlier this week setting out his own economic plan for government.

What did the commentators say?

Streeting’s speech was impressive, said City A.M. editor-in-chief Christian May. “In under an hour,” he displayed “more intellectual flair and more interest in economic growth than Rachel Reeves has offered in two years” and “certainly offered more than Burnham appears capable of”. He represents “a chance to revive this country’s economic fortunes and repair our frayed social bonds. Labour MPs and party members should seize it.”

Streeting has “had a good week” but he faces a “formidable set of obstacles” even to becoming a candidate in any leadership race, said Stephen Bush in the Financial Times. He may “in theory” have the support of the 81 Labour MPs he needs to make it onto a leadership ballot but “it is not clear they will be willing to back” his “long-shot” bid if it would “blot their copybook with Andy Burnham, the likely winner in a contest”.

Streeting’s poll ratings “have worsened since he resigned a month ago” and many in Westminster “have already written off” his leadership hopes, said The i Paper’s policy editor Jane Merrick. His allies argue that he will “make up ground” once a contest is underway: with “TV debates and hustings giving equal airtime to all candidates”, his “pitch to succeed Starmer” will be more widely heard. He talks about wanting the contest to be a “battle of ideas” about policy; “he is still regarded by many in the Labour Party as generational talent” but this will be “an uphill struggle” for him.

What next?

Right now, Streeting is “performing poorly with the Labour membership”, pollster and political strategist Scarlett Maguire told The i Paper. It is difficult to see him overcoming “the deficit he’s built up relative to” his potential leadership rivals. He would be trounced in a head-to-head battle with either Burnham or Starmer, according to a Survation/LabourList poll of Labour Party members.

But it may be that Streeting already has his Plan B up and running. It was telling that his speech this week was all about economics. “It was very much a pitch for the job of chancellor in a Burnham government,” said John Rentoul in The Independent. If Streeting can’t have “the top job”, then that’s the ministerial responsibility he would like most.

“I am going to give Britain the circuit-breaker it needs,” promised Andy Burnham on Monday as he outlined policy priorities in his first major speech since returning to Westminster.

At the heart of his pitch is a plan to deliver what he called “the biggest rebalancing of power our country has ever seen”, by devolving decisions on issues such as tax, infrastructure and job creation from Whitehall to local communities. The process will be spearheaded by “No. 10 North”, a new outpost of Downing Street based in Manchester that will serve as the “nerve centre of a rewired Britain”. Whitehall, he said, had to accept the reality that growth can only “be nurtured from the bottom up”.

What does Andy Burnham stand for?

This week, the presumptive PM promised the biggest council house building programme since the post-war period; and a “complete rethink” of the education system, to put academic and technical training on an equal footing. He also reiterated his pledge to bring essential services such as water and transport under greater public control, as part of a long-term plan to curb the cost of living and ensure “good growth in every British postcode”.

Burnham’s speech “hit the right notes”, said the Financial Times. Power has indeed become too concentrated in Whitehall, and Burnham’s focus on boosting young people’s technical skills and using public procurement to support the growth of UK companies makes sense. Less welcome was the “statist and industrial nostalgia” that coloured parts of the speech.

Burnham’s pledges to build more social housing and revive high streets will have resonated with voters, said The Guardian. Overall, it was an “appealing social-democratic pitch” that respected the importance of “good public infrastructure and local dignity”. It’s a “vision that could bring a country together”.

The audience lapped it up, said The Independent, but the speech left questions about how Burnham will square his plans with his commitment to maintaining Labour’s fiscal rules. It’s also worth noting that there’s “nothing economically magical about devolution, as the experience of Scotland and Wales demonstrates”. Regional autonomy is no panacea, agreed the Daily Mail. Look at the maladministration that recently sent Birmingham into bankruptcy. We need more detail about Burnham’s “woolly ideas”, but Makerfield’s new MP did not accept media questions after his speech.

How did he get into politics?

Burnham was born on 7 January 1970, in Aintree, Liverpool, and, one of three brothers, he grew up in Culcheth, near Warrington, between Manchester and Liverpool (he is a lifelong Everton supporter). His father, Kenneth, was a telephone engineer; his mother, Eileen, was a receptionist. A sporty child, he went to St Aelred’s, a Catholic secondary school in Newton-le-Willows, before studying English at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, where he met his Dutch-born wife, Marie-France van Heel, with whom he has three children.

After a spell working for trade magazines including Tank World, in 1994 he took a job as a researcher for the MP Tessa Jowell, later the culture secretary. In 2001, he was elected as the MP for Leigh, Greater Manchester. He served as a junior minister in the Blair government, and as culture secretary and health secretary under Gordon Brown.

After being heckled at the 20th anniversary of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, he became a campaigner for the victims’ families. In 2010, he stood for the Labour leadership but was beaten into fourth place by Ed Miliband; and in 2015, he came second to Jeremy Corbyn.

Could Manchesterism go nationwide?

Some argue that the term, Manchesterism, is so loosely defined as almost to be meaningless: that it is mostly about “vibes”, and falls far short of a policy agenda that could be translated to the national stage. Burnham is politically something of a shape-shifter; there is, allies admit, “a lot of thinking still to be done”.

We don’t know exactly what it would mean to bring transport, energy and water into “public control”, but nationalisation would certainly be vastly expensive. Burnham’s team have studied revenue-raising options, including the equalisation of capital gains tax with income tax, and higher taxes on landlords. He has also previously called for sweeping constitutional reforms, including the abolition of the House of Lords and the introduction of a more proportional voting system.

Would Burnham spook investors?

Burnham’s thumping victory in Makerfield “came and went without the bond market rout that Rachel Reeves’s backers had warned about”, said Heather Stewart in The Guardian. Gilt yields moved up, “but only modestly”. The relative calm was partly because a Burnham win “was already priced in”, and partly because “he took out the insurance policy” of loudly promising to stick by Reeves’s fiscal rules. His timing was also lucky: recent better-than expected inflation figures had eased market concerns about the impact of the Iran war. And since markets “are no fans of uncertainty”, the prospect of a coronation, rather than a drawn-out contest, appeals.

Still, from now on, “Burnham’s every pronouncement – and that of whoever he picks as chancellor – will be watched intently”. Reeves’s rules give scope for extra borrowing to invest, which might allow key utilities to be nationalised. But if a Burnham government cannot show “it can make ends meet” on day-to-day spending, expect trouble.

What do Burnham’s political views mean for everyone’s money?

Burnham says he’ll aim to deliver “the biggest change in our lifetimes to the way the country is run”. But change often comes at a price, said The Daily Telegraph – “and the bill could once again land with Britain’s already squeezed middle class”. Restructuring capital gains tax (CGT) looks a priority: Burnham is supportive of “equalising” capital gains and income tax rates. And he might also press ahead with levying CGT on inherited family homes. It’s unclear whether inheritance tax (IHT) would also be reformed – one bold idea is to scrap it in favour of a social care levy on inherited assets. But if IHT remains unchanged, grieving families could be hit with a “double levy”, notes the Begbies chartered accountancy firm, meaning “an effective 62% tax rate in certain cases”.

Burnham is a long-time advocate of property tax reform, said Karl Matchett in The Independent – suggesting as far back as 2010 that council tax should be reformed and that a “land value tax” (LVT) should replace stamp duty on property sales. “A move to tax the asset rather than the transaction” appears to be on his “radar”, said Tom Bill of Knight Frank. “He supports a proposal by campaign group Fairer Share… to replace stamp duty and council tax with a levy equivalent to 0.48% of a property’s value.” It won’t be popular with all. “Under the plan, landlords, developers, overseas buyers and second-home owners would pay more.”

Burnham is unlikely to be “good news for pensions”, said Tom McPhail in The Times. Although he’ll honour Labour’s 2024 manifesto pledge to keep the state pension triple lock (guaranteeing that payments rise annually in line with the highest of inflation, wages or 2.5%) in this Parliament, he’ll probably scrap it after a general election. Burnham’s economic adviser, Andy Haldane, meanwhile, has argued that “tens of billions of tax relief granted on pension contributions” should be conditional on schemes “investing more of their money in UK growth assets”. This is “idiocy on stilts” – “staggeringly difficult” to define and monitor. It’d be better “to abolish stamp duty on the purchase of UK shares”, thus eliminating the penalty the Exchequer now imposes on pension schemes backing UK companies.

Tony Blair has made “his most dramatic intervention yet”, said The Independent. In a 5,700-word analysis of Labour’s woes, the former prime minister decried the lack of a “coherent plan for the country in a fast-changing world”. Instead of changing leader, he argued, the party should “start with a policy debate” – from tax to net zero – to reoccupy the centre ground and revive the economy.

Many ‘will likely agree’

Blair may have left Downing Street nearly 20 years ago, but “as ever, he is worth listening to”, said the paper. His argument effectively boils down to “putting policy success – ‘delivery’ – above all else”. He is right that any discussion about the future “should first be about the ‘what’ rather than the ‘who’”.

Many members of the public “will likely agree with Blair’s overarching analysis that now is not the time to turn inward”, said Megan Kenyon in The New Statesman. But that doesn’t mean the party he led to three successive election landslides is likely to “welcome this intervention with whoops and cheers of gratitude”.

‘Maximum annoyance’

Maybe that’s because it “almost feels designed to inflict maximum annoyance on his party”, in terms of the content and the timing, said The Guardian’s Peter Walker. The Makerfield by-election is in just three weeks, and it “could shape Labour’s destiny for years to come”. Both Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham have accused Blair of failing to focus on inequality.

Many in the party agree with Blair’s assessment that this is a Labour administration “that has governed largely from its comfort zone and without a coherent plan”, said Stephen Bush in the Financial Times. Yet it is still likely to “decide swiftly that its problems are best solved by replacing Starmer with a more charismatic and natural politician” rather than having a “serious intellectual debate about what has gone wrong and why”.

This article first appeared in The Week’s Politics Unspun newsletter. Sign up here to receive an email recap of the biggest UK politics news of the week every Thursday lunchtime.

Bruising brushes with financial markets have been the fate of Labour “down the ages”, said William Keegan in The Observer. Back in the 1960s, Harold Wilson complained about “the gnomes of Zürich” – a derogatory reference to international bankers then going “short on the pound”. This time, the threat is closer to home – in London’s febrile government bond markets.

‘The risk of some kind of accident is real’

Before this week’s escalation of the leadership fight, economists were playing down the political angle. “For all the noise, politics isn’t what’s driving yields higher right now,” James Smith of ING told The Times. “The overwhelming driver is still the energy crisis, oil prices and the impact on BoE interest rates.” But as a dramatic sell-off got under way, it became harder to discount the sense that debt markets are indeed badly rattled by Labour’s leadership woes. The 30-year gilt yield, which hit 5.81% on Tuesday, is at the highest this century. Yields on 10-year gilts (the benchmark for mortgage rates), at 5.13%, are at their highest since 2008.

It’s “a rubbish time” to be having a political crisis, said Daire MacFadden in the Financial Times. “Sadly, that’s precisely what we have.” Any leadership challenge is “all but certain to herald a move to the left and potentially an increase in government borrowing”. To some extent, the gilt market had already priced this in, but “the risk of some kind of accident here is real”.

It doesn’t help that Andy Burnham – who last year observed that government shouldn’t be “in hock” to the bond market – “keeps talking about bond markets as if they are some sort of entity he can bamboozle with jargon”, said John Stepek on Bloomberg. The view from his camp seems to be that renationalising various sectors of the economy will inherently make them more productive – so gilt markets “will be happy to fund the borrowing”. That’s a somewhat “courageous” assumption.

‘Bond vigilantes’ on the rise

“It seems like the only supporters that Keir Starmer has left are the so-called bond vigilantes,” said Robin Wigglesworth in the FT. As they point out, higher borrowing costs are already chipping away at the chancellor’s £24 billion of fiscal headroom, which forecasts suggest could halve. But for how long “can the gilt market act as the UK’s political police”?

Among Starmer’s rivals, Burnham is perceived by traders as the biggest threat and Wes Streeting as the least risky. We must hope he prevails and persuades investors to lend at “a lower premium” to Britain, said Adam Smith in The Telegraph.

The “intriguing paradox” of Labour politics is that the leader most distrusted by the Left may ultimately be the “most capable of financing the expansive social-democratic state that they all crave”.

Wes Streeting, who quit as health secretary yesterday, has endorsed Andy Burnham as having the “best chance of winning” the Makerfield by-election. That fact should “override factional advantage or propping up one person”, Streeting said on X.

Pending approval from Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee, Burnham is set to stand in the northwest constituency, providing him with the chance to return to Parliament and challenge for the party leadership.

But with rising support for Reform UK in the region, and Labour plummeting in the polls, this will not be easy. How this by-election plays out “could decide the future direction of the country”, said the Manchester Evening News.

What did the commentators say?

Burnham contesting a seat vacated by Josh Simons, former chair of the Labour Together think tank, was “not high on my bingo card for this year”, said Ben Walker in The New Statesman. “Yet the logic behind the move is clear.” It is clearly “a pitch for prime minister”.

But Burnham’s return to Westminster is a “difficult proposition”, if the recent by-election in Gorton and Denton is anything to go by. “Yet, to state the obvious, this would be no ordinary by-election.” Makerfield is a “very different” constituency, and though it is only a “railway line away from Gorton, politically and culturally it is another world entirely”.

Taking into account Burnham’s popularity having been mayor of Greater Manchester since 2017, and exit-poll data from the Gorton and Denton contest, Britain Predicts forecasts a Labour hold, but “only narrowly”, by three points ahead of Reform. Whatever the result, the Makerfield by-election could be “one of the most totemic and decisive” in modern British history.

This is a “high-stakes gamble for everyone involved”, said Tim Shipman in The Spectator. “But then, in Labour politics right now, everything is.” The Makerfield seat is far from safe, despite being held by Labour since it was created in 1983. Simons won with a “majority of only around 6,000 over Reform” in 2024.

Nigel Farage’s party will contest the seat “with all guns blazing” and would be wise to select a “hyper local” ex-Labour supporter to stand, depicting Burnham as a “carpetbagger” who “takes your vote for granted”. With Keir Starmer unlikely to block Burnham standing, as he did in Gorton and Denton, the PM’s position is now “somewhat in the hands of Farage”.

A lot rests on Burnham’s “personal popularity” to get him over the line, said Ollie Corfe in The Telegraph. A YouGov poll this month shows his +4% net favourability score as the only positive rating of any senior Westminster politician (Starmer -46%, Angela Rayner -33% and Streeting -28%).

He will have to combat the disintegrating “Red Wall” in the northwest, where Labour has just lost 372 councillors, while Reform gained more than 400. Neighbouring St Helens saw one of the “most dramatic results” in the entire local elections, with Reform winning 71% of all seats.

The path to Westminster is a “route paved with thorns” that might yet end with the mayor of Greater Manchester’s “hopes in tatters”, said Stephen Bush in the Financial Times. And for Labour, the “stakes could not be higher”.

If Burnham does win, his reputation as a slayer of Reform would “only be enhanced”, and “his march to the leadership he has coveted for so long would then surely be unstoppable”. But if he loses to a Reform candidate, the public will question whether any Labour candidate can win. “Burnham’s defeat would secure Starmer as prime minister: but it could well confirm that he is on course to be Labour’s last prime minister.”

What next?

For the by-election to go ahead, several processes need to happen, said Jamie Grierson in The Guardian. By convention, the Labour chief whip – currently Jonathan Reynolds – will start the process by “moving the writ”, formally asking Parliament to start the election process. Once the writ has been moved, a by-election must take place between 21 and 27 working days later, and usually held on a Thursday.

This should take “about five to six weeks”, said The Guardian, which means the earliest Burnham could return to Westminster, if he wins, would be “early July”. Once achieved, “he could trigger a leadership contest, which he would be expected to win, potentially unchallenged”.

The wait is over. Wes Streeting has resigned as health secretary, calling on Keir Starmer to “facilitate” a contest for a new prime minister. For Labour MPs to the left of Streeting, the question is now: who’s best placed to ‘stop Wes’?

“It’s on,” said Peter Franklin on UnHerd. In a leadership contest, Streeting would be “by far the best qualified” but he could be undone by “being outside the party’s powerful” soft-left faction – and less likely than other candidates to be preferred by the Labour party members who would ultimately decide the contest.

If the soft left’s Angela Rayner or Ed Miliband – or Andy Burnham, if he can find a way to return to Westminster in time – were to “run on a ‘Stop Streeting’ ticket”, they would “almost certainly succeed”.

What did the commentators say?

Former deputy PM Angela Rayner is “likely to be a decisive figure”, said Tom McTague, editor of The New Statesman. She believes a Streeting leadership would be a “continuation of what she sees as the Labour right’s disastrous control of the party”. Her “source of strength” is “her personality, her character” – things she‘s implied are “missing in the current occupant of No. 10”.

She also has a “cut-through with working-class voters”, said Simon Walters in The Independent. Nigel Farage may have gone down well on “I’m a Celebrity…” but the “plain-talking and mischievous ‘ladette’ Rayner could win it, were she ever to take part”.

Andy Burnham is “electoral gold dust”, said Neal Lawson in The Guardian. Unlike Streeting, Rayner and Miliband, he is “untainted by the past two years of government”. He has enjoyed success as Manchester’s mayor, and his popularity is “streets ahead of anyone else”. The problem? “Ten people stand in his way”: the officers of Labour’s NEC who blocked him from running for Westminster earlier this year. If they block him again, it would be a “political calamity”.

But first a Labour MP, such as Rayner or Miliband, would have to challenge Starmer with the “explicit intention” of bringing Burnham into the fold, said Jeremy Gilbert in The New Statesman. This is “unlikely” but “very unlikely things happen in modern politics”. And “if anyone has a better plan to save Labour from oblivion, and the country from Nigel Farage, then we’ve yet to hear it”.

“Logic, sadly, points to one all-too-likely victor”: Ed Miliband, said Ross Clark in The Spectator. With Burnham “marooned in Manchester”, and Rayner weakened by coverage of “her tax affairs”, he is the only credible “anti-Streeting challenger”. And he is the “most popular cabinet minister” among Labour members, too.

All politicians who claim the PM throne through a leadership contest rather than a general election tend to suffer from a “lack of personal mandate”. But Miliband would “enter office with something far worse: an anti mandate”. Voters have “already rejected him overwhelmingly” in a general election. “To have him lumbered on us anyway would be like telling the waiter we will have anything but the onion soup but then having it served to us anyway.”

What next?

If Burnham were able to stand for the leadership, and Rayner or Miliband also stood, it could “split the left-wing vote” and make it easier for Streeting to “snatch victory”, said Millie Cooke in The Independent. But a “Rayner-Burnham pact” could exert “formidable force” from the left that Streeting would find “extremely difficult” to overcome. “Such a possibility will only put pressure on” the former health secretary “to act quickly and trigger a contest” before Burnham “has a chance to return to Westminster”.

Andy Burnham might be the bookmakers’ favourite to replace Keir Starmer as Labour leader, despite his lack of a Westminster seat, but he certainly isn’t the bond market’s favourite.

In fact, gilt traders see the Greater Manchester mayor as the “biggest threat” of all the potential candidates, said the Financial Times. He troubled investors last year when he suggested the country should not be “in hock” to the bond market. Six out of 10 fund managers picked Burnham as the candidate that would “trigger the most negative market reaction”.

Burnham has said his comments on the bond market were misinterpreted, but the political project he espouses and the vision he offers for the country’s future – Manchesterism – remains highly divisive. Critics see it as “mostly vibes and boosterism” that “relies on a bottom-up localism” difficult to scale at a national level, said PoliticsHome. Others see it as our potential economic and political saviour.

What did the commentators say?

Manchesterism is a “horrifically overused phrase” about how my city “does things differently”, said Stephen Topping in the Manchester Evening News. But it’s true. Manchesterism is “‘place-based’ rather than party political”. It involves “public services working closer together, and in partnership with both the private sector and community groups, to ensure the benefits of a stronger economy can be felt by more people”.

The Greater Manchester region has become the UK’s fastest growing economy over the past decade, “at more than double the rate of the national average”. Devolution has been critical: the “trailblazer” deal struck in 2023 has allowed Greater Manchester to “take public control of key services” such as the bus network, which has improved living standards and boosted the local economy. Those who have worked closely with Burnham believe Manchesterism “could work in other parts of the UK”, though it would pose “a radical departure from the UK’s largely centralised economy”.

Burnham’s programme has begun “delivering affordability and economic dynamism” by “regaining public control” of essential services, said Mathew Lawrence, director of progressive think tank Common Wealth, in The New Statesman.

Energy, water, housing, transport and care are “domains of inelastic demand” and “existential need”. So market governance of the supply side “produces rent extraction” and underinvestment. The public “pays twice: through higher bills” and taxes to fund support. But public control of essentials eliminates the privatisation premium. “Rebuilding public provision is not the alternative to fiscal prudence. It is fiscal prudence.”

Manchesterism might be the “buzzword of the day”, but it’s simply people projecting their “pipe dreams” on to Burnham’s “blank canvas of soft-left localism”, said Daniel Johnson in The Telegraph.

“The irony is that 19th-century Manchesterism was more or less the opposite of what the Labour Party now thinks it means.” Manchester was “both the laboratory and the showcase of the Industrial Revolution”, the “citadel of free trade”. It had nothing to do with Burnham’s “municipal socialism”. His proposed solution to Britain’s economic woes is “a muddled melange of municipal meddling, including tax hikes and more borrowing”. What Britain needs is the 19th-century version, which Burnham doesn’t understand.

The vision of Manchesterism Burnham outlined in January is, in practice, an industrial strategy – and there is “nothing new about those”, said Christopher Snowdon in The Critic. Economists have long criticised them for “misallocating resources, crowding out private investment, picking losers, and forcing taxpayers to bail out industries that are only kept on life support for political reasons”. How, exactly, can Manchesterism “stop us being in hock to the bond markets” when Manchester City Council is “one of the most indebted in the country”.

What next?

Burnham is planning to reassure the bond market that his possible election to Labour leader would “not trigger a financial meltdown”, said The Telegraph. Sources say he is planning to endorse a pamphlet outlining a framework for Manchesterism, setting out how it could be rolled out across the UK and “the wider economic theory behind his ideas”.

But the uncertain national landscape, in which voters are moving both further left and further right, could make the success of Manchesterism “a challenge for anybody”, Sarah Longlands, chief executive of the Manchester-based Centre for Local Economic Strategies, told Manchester Evening News.

Manchesterism is still in its early stages, yet for all the benefits devolution has brought, Greater Manchester is still “a tale of two cities”, with a great income and opportunities divide exacerbated by the cost of living crisis. “Growth in Greater Manchester has to be for everybody – otherwise, what’s the point?” Longlands said.

King Charles has laid out the government’s legislative agenda for the next year, even as speculation mounts that Keir Starmer will not be around to lead it.

Buckingham Palace had taken the extraordinary step of privately asking Downing Street if the ceremonial state opening of Parliament should proceed at all, given the political crisis engulfing the prime minister.

“Traditionally a moment for governmental clarity”, the King’s Speech was today delivered “amidst profound political uncertainty – a stark contrast to its original intent as a boost for Keir Starmer following recent electoral setbacks”, said Jonathan Bunn in The Independent.

What was announced?

The King today announced a package of 37 bills for the 2026-27 parliamentary session, building on the previous session that had delivered key Labour manifesto pledges such as the Renters’ Rights Act and the Employment Rights Act.

The new measures include a bill to lay the ground to adopt European regulations, bringing the UK into closer alignment with the EU, and another to allow the government to fully nationalise British Steel. Both of these formed the centrepiece of Starmer’s “reset” speech on Monday.

There will also be a Clean Water Bill to merge the functions of the existing regulators, including Ofwat, in an attempt to end the current “fragmented oversight” of pollution in our rivers. There will be measures to streamline the process for approving new nuclear energy projects. And the long-awaited Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will end the leasehold flat system in England and Wales, and cap annual ground rents.

The King set out plans for a voluntary digital ID scheme, an overhaul of special educational needs provision in England, a tightening of the asylum system, a scaling-back of jury trials and restrictions on foreign political donations. There will be legislation to enable peerages to be removed, and to lower the voting age to 16.

What was missing?

There was no second attempt to reform the welfare system. The first attempt, which included eligibility restrictions for some health-related benefits, resulted in a backbench revolt, and an embarrassing U-turn for the government last year. The decision not to try again “may be welcomed” by those MPs who forced the backdown but “is likely to be held up” by others “as a sign of the prime minister’s growing inability to drive an agenda through government”, said the BBC's chief political correspondent Henry Zeffman.

Also absent was any legislation about the Chagos Islands or any move to resurrect the assisted dying bill that failed to become law in the last parliamentary session.

What if Starmer goes?

The legislation crafted by Starmer and set out today “is already in danger of being overtaken by events, as many Labour MPs attempt to force the prime minister from office”, said the Financial Times. This put the monarch in the “unusual and awkward position of putting forward an agenda” that could be “left potentially obsolete by political turmoil”.

No one expects the King’s Speech to be voted down – that would effectively be a vote of no confidence in the government. But, were the PM to resign or be forced out, the legislative programme of a new leader could diverge significantly from the one announced today.

“Key groups” of Labour MPs are already “setting out alternative policy agendas that are mostly more radical than Starmer’s”, said the FT. The broad Labour Growth Group, allied to Wes Streeting, has a manifesto for supply-side reform that aims “to use tax and regulation to incentivise work over returns from owning assets”. Mainstream, a group broadly supportive of Andy Burnham, stresses greater public control over key industries, and the soft-left Tribune group, also allied to Andy Burnham, is calling for “an overhaul of the government’s fiscal rules to allow more public investment in infrastructure”.

“Labour has gone from its loveless landslide to having no political heartland in the UK to call its own,” said Adam Boulton in The i Paper.

Reform UK has made sweeping gains across England in the local elections, while the SNP is likely to be the largest party in Scotland. Labour has already admitted it is not going to form the next government in Wales.

Keir Starmer has declared he is “not going to walk away and plunge the country into chaos”. However, amid rumours of challenges from former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham, Labour’s poor performance in the local elections could prove the tipping point for the PM.

What did the commentators say?

“Kingmaker” Ed Miliband has reportedly privately suggested to Starmer he should set out a “timeline for his departure” after the results, said Steven Swinford in The Times. Though the former party leader is “supportive” of Starmer, he is worried that Labour may “descend into a bitter and damaging leadership contest”.

Both Rayner and Streeting are thought to have the support of the 81 Labour MPs needed to “trigger a contest”. Rayner reportedly does not see the ongoing HMRC investigation into her tax affairs as a “barrier to putting herself forward”. Burnham has also “emerged as the preferred candidate of powerbrokers on Labour’s soft left”. They believe an “orderly transition to his leadership over a period of months is the only way to avert a bloody civil war”, with reports of a backbench MP standing down to accommodate his return to Westminster.

Indeed, it may appear an “obvious conclusion” – that changing the leader would make its problems “go away”, said Boulton. “Obvious but wrong.” Inexperienced Labour MPs – “more than half” of whom were first elected in 2024 – had “supped full on the bloodshed” of five axed Conservative leaders before the general election. But they “failed to notice that such a butcher’s bill did not ultimately improve the Tories’ fortunes”. The reality is they have a “poor leader who has led them into an electoral catastrophe, but without him, things could always get worse”.

Starmer may be on the end of one of the party’s “worst set of election results in history”, but he may “take solace” in his potential challengers also “facing heavy losses in their own patch”, said Kiran Stacey in The Guardian. Labour lost control of Tameside in Greater Manchester, Rayner’s local council, and “struggled” across the northwest, impacting Burnham. Experts also expect Labour to “do badly” in Streeting’s home council of Redbridge in northeast London.

Labour MPs will have a “terrible sinking feeling”, said political strategist James Frayne in The Telegraph. They won’t know which way to turn, but the “great risk” for them is “looking like they’re part of the problem”. Staying silent implies a weakened party is becoming more divided, but appearing to “trot” out excuses for Starmer “risks downplaying the prospect of a straightforward Farage majority at the next election. That’s not a risk that anyone with any hope of a future in the Labour Party can take.”

It is “hard to deny” that Starmer’s days are “numbered”, said Simon Walters in The Independent. But the question remains: “how is any replacement going to make things better for Labour?” Starmer “may not set the pulse racing” but he is “decent and honest”, as well as making the right calls over Iran, and “standing up to Donald Trump with courage and quiet dignity”. Until someone raises “convincing solutions” to current issues, those who are “indulging in a petty blame game” in Westminster “should be careful what they wish for”.

What next?

Votes were still being counted, but the Labour “post-mortem” had already begun, said Ethan Croft in The New Statesman. Amid the “necessary evasions and sugar-coating of damage control”, there are “hard-headed calculations” about which direction the party should turn. Over the next few days expect everyone on the Labour left and right to use the results to “validate what they already believed”, and to “argue for policies and strategies they were already advocating for the party’s future”.

Those on Labour’s right are “confident” the results “vindicate” Shabana Mahmood’s “hardline” stance on immigration, believing the party must do more to “neutralise” Reform on Labour’s own terms. Those on the left of the party, however, think this is “precisely the consequence of pursuing that brand of politics”, and is also why they are being “walloped” by the Greens.

A by-election is due at the end of this month, which “could have profound consequences for the future of both the Labour Party and British politics”, said John Harris in The Guardian.

It’s being held in the Manchester constituency of Gorton and Denton, an area once regarded by one and all as a Labour stronghold. And had Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, been allowed to stand, the party would have enjoyed pretty decent odds of retaining the seat. But now that Keir Starmer and his allies have blocked Burnham from taking part, there’s no certainty what might happen. Labour might still succeed in keeping the seat – it has “a formidable get-out-the-vote machine, and droves of activists” – but it’s facing a dissatisfied electorate and strong competition.

Mixed messages

The threat this time is not just coming from Reform UK, said John Rentoul in The Independent. Labour also needs to worry about the Greens, who have selected a promising candidate in Hannah Spencer, a no-nonsense 34-year-old plumber who lives in the constituency.

By-elections are unpredictable at the best of times, said Louise Thompson on The Conversation; what makes this one even more so is that Gorton and Denton is “a bit of Frankenstein’s monster”. The Gorton half has a high proportion of students and Muslim voters, while the Denton end is predominantly white working class; messages that work for Reform and the Greens in one area won’t go down so well in the other.

That’s especially true for Reform, which has selected academic-turned-GB News presenter Matt Goodwin as its candidate, said Alan Rusbridger in The Independent. His controversial views – he has argued that British citizens born abroad and their children aren’t really British – will be a liability on some doorsteps. Indeed, the one thing the Greens and Labour agree on privately, said Ailbhe Rea in The New Statesman, is that Reform messed up by choosing Goodwin.

‘Machiavellian considerations’

There are a lot of Machiavellian considerations at play in this contest, said Dan Hodges in The Mail on Sunday. Many Labour MPs are secretly hoping their party loses the by-election, as that defeat might enable them to replace Starmer with a better leader. Reform, for the same reason, wouldn’t be unduly upset if Labour won and Starmer were able to stagger on.

We’re in for “a fascinating contest” in any case, said Rod Liddle in The Sunday Times. It could turn out to be a re-run of the Caerphilly election for the Welsh Senedd in October. Everyone assumed Reform would win that contest, but Plaid Cymru ended up pipping it to the post after siphoning votes from Labour. In Gorton, the Greens may likewise end up as the beneficiaries of an anti-Reform vote. The result will provide some clues about how the general election might go, “with an electorate polarised between those who wish to show their love for Nigel and those who would swallow any sort of political idiocy to stop him”.

The mood in the Labour Party was “febrile” ahead of this week’s elections, as the party braced for a “historic drubbing”, said Geraldine Scott in The Times. Before a single ballot had been counted, Keir Starmer’s rivals were brazenly jockeying for position to replace the embattled PM.

Allies of Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, claimed that he had secured the support of more than 81 MPs – the minimum required to trigger a leadership contest – and was ready to “go over the top”. Former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner was said to be watching closely and weighing up whether to run for the leadership herself or play kingmaker for somebody else.

And the Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, made it known that he had a credible plan to return to Westminster “within weeks”, said Jessica Elgot in The Guardian. The oft-dubbed “King of the North” has reportedly identified several seats in which MPs are prepared to step down so that he can run on a “sweeping” agenda of reform. As the plotting intensified, Starmer’s team insisted the PM wouldn’t be going down without a fight. “If they want him out, they’ll have to drag him out,” said one ally.

‘Roster of amateurs’

Then drag him out they must, said Sonia Sodha in The Times. “Going into the next election with Starmer at the helm would be a disaster for Labour.” The PM’s personal ratings are “historically dire”. He was meant to be competent, but he has made “unforced error after unforced error”, and U-turn after U-turn. He promised to clean up politics, but then “accepted juicy freebies” and sent Peter Mandelson to Washington. The party needs a leader with vision and charisma; he comes across as “arrogant, inauthentic and angry”.

Starmer is “electoral kryptonite”, agreed Hugo Gye in The i Paper. But the “roster of amateurs” vying to replace him are little better. Rayner is still under active investigation by HMRC over her tax affairs. Streeting is “loathed” by the party’s soft-left majority. Burnham, who polls highest among the public, has to win a by-election first – and with the party as unpopular as it is, that’s not guaranteed, even in a once-safe Labour seat. To indulge in a leadership contest right now without a viable candidate would look petty, chaotic and self-obsessed. “To put it in terms that send shivers down Labour MPs’ spines: it would make them look like the Tories.”

No obvious replacement

The timing makes no sense, agreed Ian Dunt in the same paper. A new leader would “sit down at their desk” just as the Iran crisis is hammering the country with higher prices and interest rates. “Who in God’s name would want to take over right now?”

However badly Labour does, Starmer is likely to stay on for now, said John Rentoul in The Independent. There’s no obvious replacement, and the “kingmakers” in the cabinet are not yet convinced that push has come to shove. So I think Labour MPs “will huff and they will puff, but they will hold back from blowing the house down”.

Andy Burnham has made no secret of his desire to one day lead the Labour Party. The mayor of Greater Manchester has twice run for the leadership – in 2010 and 2015 – and just two years ago reaffirmed his aspirations for the top job, telling The Telegraph: “If the party thinks well maybe it is your time, I wouldn’t turn away from that.”

That naked ambition “has always made him an anxiety-inducing blot on the landscape for the incumbent leader”, said The Guardian, “but the road to No. 10 is a very difficult one”. Burnham may have a vision for his path to the leadership – “but he doesn’t have complete control of how to make it a reality”.

What did the commentators say?

After a disastrous two weeks, “Starmer’s premiership is on its knees”, said Kitty Donaldson in The i Paper, “with his own internal critics now publicly putting a timeline on how long it can last”. Some are warning he could be ousted after May’s elections.

The “despondent mood among his MPs isn’t limited to his left-wing critics”. Mainstream figures and grassroots Labourites are “questioning whether the chaotic departures of Angela Rayner and Peter Mandelson are fundamental markers of Starmer’s political judgement, his vision for the country, and even his basic competence”.

By contrast, Burnham has been consistently chosen as the next PM in polls of Labour members and his appeal extends to voters who backed Labour in the last general election. Last week, the man dubbed “the King in the North” by supporters launched a new soft-left campaign group, Mainstream, which “many expect to become a Trojan horse for a leadership bid”, said The Telegraph.

Backing calls for wealth taxes, nationalising utility companies and ending the two-child benefit cap, Burnham “would want to lead a government with a strikingly different tone – more sympathetic to dissent, more open to the Liberal Democrats and to the Green Party – a soft-left administration with strong appeal to many Labour members”, that would also be “better at combating Reform”, said The New Statesman’s Andrew Marr.

He has already called for a “reset” at the Labour conference later this month, and No. 10 is “braced for Burnham to pop up in Liverpool as a rallying point for a change of direction”, said Donaldson.

What next?

Under current rules, 20% of the parliamentary party (80 MPs) would be required to challenge Starmer by nominating an alternative candidate, “and it’s far from agreed who that could be”, said Politico.

Burnham faces an even greater obstacle than most candidates as he would first need to fight and win a parliamentary seat in order to stand in any future leadership race. One obvious option would be Gorton and Denton in south Manchester, where suspended Labour MP Andrew Gwynne has applied to retire on medical grounds. But that seat, along with many in and around Manchester, is vulnerable to Reform, according to the latest forecast from Election Maps UK.

“The harsh reality is that there is no realistic route for him to become leader” in the near future and attempting to do so could “hand Farage a huge opportunity in a genuine showdown”, said The Independent. “Even if the Labour Party needs saving, trying to bring back Andy Burnham would be a gamble too far.”

Could there really be a push for new Labour leadership so soon after a crushing general election win? "Inside Labour there might not be a vacancy but there is always a contest," said The New Statesman's political editor George Eaton. And the government's declining approval ratings "means this is even truer than usual".

Starmer's troubles have opened the door for others to begin "positioning for a post-Starmer world", said Eaton. That includes Labour's two most prominent devolved leaders, the mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, and London's mayor, Sadiq Khan, who have made recent interventions that pile more pressure on Starmer.

'Unifying the popular left'

Khan has been a long-time ally of Starmer, but his recent contradictions of the government could lead "some to conclude that his patience with the limits imposed on him by his current role is running out" and that he may be "eyeing up a return to the Commons", said Tom Harris in The Telegraph.

Burnham, meanwhile, "regularly advertised himself as an alternative" in Starmer's "difficult early years" as Labour leader and is "most clearly" readying himself for the era after Starmer, said Eaton. In a speech to the soft-left group Compass at the weekend, he wasn't explicit as to "whether he hopes to lead this movement" of, as he put it, "unifying the popular left", but "he didn't need to" be.

His address "ultimately resembled a leadership manifesto", and though he didn't name either Starmer or Chancellor Rachel Reeves, he "repeatedly outflanked the government from the left" and called for a reversal of spending cuts and more radical taxes on wealth.

'A Labour government that is abandoning Labour values'

The government's current "defensive posture" against the right-wing "makes total sense" from an electoral standpoint, however, said Peter Franklin on UnHerd. Starmer "doesn't fear the left" because of the "sheer weakness of the left-wing opposition", but he is "adopting a defensive position out of fear of the populist right".

But there is a "danger for Starmer" in being "so explicit about seeing Nigel Farage as his main opponent", said John Rentoul in The Independent. It is fuelling "discontent among Labour MPs and members" and empowering the devolved leaders to publicly rebuke the government. Both Burnham and Khan – who has "struck poses" against Labour leadership in declaring Brexit a "mistake" and "proposing the decriminalisation of cannabis" – are "ready" if mounting pressures result in "destabilising the prime minister".

Burnham is "one of the more popular figures within Labour" currently, and "when he criticises the leadership, then that is publicly raising questions about Starmer", said Andrew Fisher in The i Paper. More concerningly for the prime minister, Burnham's appearance at the Compass event alongside "hard left" Labour figures shows an "emerging dialogue between two wings of the party" that are overcoming a "historic divide" to confront a "Labour government that is abandoning Labour values".

Girls were "left at the mercy" of Rochdale paedophile gangs for years because of failings by senior police and council bosses, according to a report.

The "damning" review documents multiple failed investigations by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) from 2004 to 2013 into the sex abuse scandal, said The Independent. The report highlights "apparent local authority indifference to the plight of hundreds of youngsters, mainly white girls from poor backgrounds, all identified as potential victims of abuse in Rochdale by Asian men". 

It also identifies "96 men still deemed a potential risk to children", said the news site, and these are "only a proportion" of the numbers involved in the abuse. 

Successive police operations were "insufficiently resourced to match the scale of the widespread organised exploitation", concluded report co-author Malcolm Newsam, a child protection specialist. And Rochdale Council "failed to prioritise" the protection of children who were being sexually exploited, he added. 

A child victim named as Amber gave "significant evidence", but GMP did not record the crimes and perpetrators were potentially left to continue their abuse, the report found.

"In one shocking case", reported the Daily Mail, GMP secretly took the aborted foetus of a 13-year-old rape victim and performed a DNA test on it without telling the girl or her parents

Victims were "badly failed", said Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, who commissioned a series of independent reviews after he became mayor in 2017, following the BBC documentary "The Betrayed Girls".  

He praised whistleblowers, including health worker Sara Rowbotham and former GMP detective Maggie Oliver, who raised concerns despite "vocal criticism from authorities", said the BBC. 

GMP has apologised, with chief constable Stephen Watson saying that "one of the primary responsibilities of the police is to protect the vulnerable from the cruel and predatory, and in this regard, we failed you".

Rochdale Council leader Neil Emmott also apologised, and said that "far more rigorous practices are in place today to protect our children".

Only one British politician tops Boris Johnson when it comes to public popularity: his chancellor, Rishi Sunak.

According to YouGov’s accumulated rankings for the past three months, the prime minister is the second-most popular political figure in the UK, based on the percentage of people surveyed who have a positive opinion of each contender.

Sunak stood up in the House of Commons to announce the Budget this afternoon “as one of the most popular chancellors of the exchequer in recent memory”, said The Guardian. But this is the day that “could define Rishi Sunak”. The much-trailed Budget and spending review is the “first real test” for his “apparently indestructible popularity” as he seeks to navigate the next stage of recovery from the coronavirus crisis.

For now, he outshines the PM in the court of public opinion.

1. Rishi Sunak (36%)

The pandemic has been the “platform that made Rishi Sunak a household name”, said Catherine Neilan, The Telegraph's politics live editor. He has been “front and centre” of the government response to Covid and “what he was doing was having a direct impact on everyone’s lives”. Despite being relatively unknown before becoming chancellor, he has built up “something of a fandom” with the nickname “Dishy Rishi”, she said. But having topped a series of popularity ratings, the chancellor now finds himself in the “exposed position of ‘prime minister in waiting’”, said George Parker in the Financial Times. And while Sunak has “risen so swiftly in politics that he has not had time to make enemies”, all that “will change as jockeying begins for the eventual Johnson succession”, Parker predicted.

2. Boris Johnson (34%)

The PM may be outranked by his chancellor in the YouGov list, but Johnson still has a healthy popularity rating – and importantly for the Tories, has double the support of opposition leader Keir Starmer, who has fallen from 15th to 45th place in recent months. The Independent’s Andrew Grice argued that “the volatile politics of the Brexit era” has served Johnson well, while the coronavirus “vaccine roll-out, the furlough scheme and the British instinct to rally round the government in a national emergency all insulate him from the criticism he would face in normal times”. All the same, Grice wrote, while “Johnson is lucky that many voters still give him the benefit of the doubt”, this generous attitude “is largely because of Covid”. And as such, “it won’t last”.

3. Andy Burnham (31%)

“Two hundred miles from Westminster, Labour politician Andy Burnham has been recast as Manchester’s firebrand mayor: a ‘king of the north’, who refuses to kneel before the nation’s southern overlords,” wrote Matthew Whitehouse for The Face. Labour’s former health secretary has seen his popularity rise this year and is frequently asked if he has plans to run for the party leadership. By “channelling his city’s rage” during the pandemic, including taking a defiant stand against local Covid relief funding, Burnham has “reset his reputation”, said Tom Clark, editor of Prospect. Like the SNP, he has shown that rallying resentment against Westminster can be a brilliant electoral strategy. “Whether or not a ticket back to London is the Burnham plan, the way he has handled this crisis might make it more difficult for anyone to rule from the capital,” said Clark.

4. Ed Balls (30%)

Despite losing his seat six years ago, Labour’s Ed Balls is still the fourth-most popular UK politician after becoming something of a television star. “It has been a bizarre trajectory from Whitehall to reality show stalwart,” said Julia Llewellyn Smith, who interviewed the former shadow chancellor for The Times in January. Balls made his debut on Strictly Come Dancing in 2016 and this year won the BBC’s Celebrity Best Home Cook. Llewellyn Smith wrote that “he’s resigned to the fact that posterity will recall not his economic brilliance but his Strictly Gangnam Style salsa, recently voted the fourth-greatest dance in the show’s history”. Confirming that assertion, Balls told her: “If that’s what I’m remembered for then that’s OK. I’ve made people smile.”

5. Theresa May (27%)

In July, UK academics rated Theresa May one of the worst prime ministers since the Second World War. Yet her return to the backbenches seems to have boosted her popularity among the public. “Maybot 2.0” is “turning into a latterday Edward Heath” in her “life after political death”, wrote Labour MP Rupa Huq earlier this year. The former PM has regularly spoken out against government policy, including the cut to foreign aid. The “goody two shoes who professed that the naughtiest thing she’d ever done was running through a field of wheat”, has become “a viral mutant strain of Tory”, sticking the knife into the PM and schooling him on what’s what, wrote Huq in The Guardian.

6. And the others?

Former prime minister Gordon Brown, who has been outspoken on sharing vaccines with poorer countries, sits in sixth place, with an approval rating of 26%. He comes just above former Labour leader Ed Miliband and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon, both on 25%. Matt Hancock, who was in fifth place just a few months ago, has fallen to the 78th spot after quitting as health secretary in June for breaching social distancing guidance by kissing a colleague.

1. Hear me out – Andy Burnham is Labour’s Boris Johnson

Marie le Conte in The Independent

on a leadership contender

“What or who comes to mind when you think of Andy Burnham? Do you think of the north of England? ‘Twenty-four hours to save the NHS’? Biscuits and gravy, perhaps? How about Boris Johnson?” writes Marie Le Conte in The Independent. It seems possible that Burnham, a former Labour frontbencher turned “King in the North” as Manchester’s metro mayor, could “do a Boris and triumphantly return to Westminster to save his party from ruin”, suggests Le Conte. Indeed, “the mere fact that it is a possibility points to quite a fundamental shift in British politics”, she writes. Seeing as “politicians old and new have the possibility now to run as metro mayors in England, parliament no longer has to be the place in which future leaders are made”. She concludes: “Andy Burnham is not Boris Johnson, but he clearly hopes to have a similar journey. If he manages it, others may well decide to try and follow suit. Can Westminster handle it?”

Read more

2. Must I take personal responsibility for you?

Hugo Rifkind in The Times

on mask wearing

“When we speak of personal responsibility in the age of Covid, we are actually talking about two very different things,” writes Hugo Rifkind in The Times. “The first is responsibility for ourselves, and the second is for everybody else. Remarkably, quite a lot of people seem yet to comprehend the distinction,” he continues. “Your hardcore mask refusers may choose to style themselves as akin to 1930s German Jews refusing to wear yellow stars, but for many of us they have actually more closely resembled those American libertarian gun nuts who make a point of wearing an assault rifle strapped across their chests at the Walmart cheese counter,” he writes. “As in, it is not, and has never been, only about you.”

Read more

3. You really need to quit Twitter

Caitlin Flanagan in The Atlantic

on a modern addiction

“I know I’m an addict because Twitter hacked itself so deep into my circuitry that it interrupted the very formation of my thoughts,” writes Caitlin Flanagan in The Atlantic. “Every thought, every experience, seems to be reducible to this haiku,” she writes, “destroying my ability for private thought, sucking up all my talent and wit. Put it out there, post it, see how it does,” she continues. Indeed, “the simplest definition of an addiction is a habit that you can’t quit, even though it poses obvious danger. How many people have lost their jobs over ill-considered tweets? How can a wry observation, unexamined and fired off during an adrenaline high, possibly be worth the risk? It’s madness.” A month into a self-imposed Twitter ban it’s clear how “pathetically simple” human psychology is to manipulate. “Once you’re hooked, the parasite becomes your master, and it changes the way you think. Even now, I’m dopesick, dying to go back.”

Read more

4. Priti Patel rattles the handcuffs – but the Tories have lost control of law and order

Polly Toynbee in The Guardian

on British justice

“Justice is grinding to a halt. The handcuff-rattling home secretary, Priti Patel, likes announcing draconian new sentences – but without adequate police, prisons and, above all, law courts to hear cases, her bombast is empty,” writes Polly Toynbee in The Guardian. “Court delays deny justice to victims, to witnesses fast forgetting what they saw, to the guilty who should face consequences quickly, to the innocent wrongly locked up on remand or with a cloud hanging over them,” and the pandemic has simply “worsened an existing crisis: there was a 37,000 crown court backlog in 2019”, writes Toynbee. “All this makes law-and-order Tories vulnerable, with concerns about crime raised in recent byelections. All civilisation rests on trust in the law,” she continues. “It’s time for Labour to abandon squeamishness about anything that smacks of tough-talk crowd-pleasing: this government’s dereliction of duty undermines the bedrock assumptions of any decent society.”

Read more

5. The terrifying truth is that millions do not want lockdown ever to end

Sherelle Jacobs in The Telegraph

on a new culture war

“[A] depressing truth looms over Britain: many people do not seem to want restrictions to end,” writes Sherelle Jacobs in The Telegraph. “Millions have become attached to the gilded trappings of lockdown, from furlough to flexi-home working. With our every movement micromanaged by one metre signage and one-way arrows, our instincts for independent self-direction have shrivelled. And after nearly 18 months of relentless – and irresponsible – anti-Covid messaging, terror of the virus is still everywhere.” So, says Jacobs, “a nasty culture war is brewing, a modern twist on the old feud between positive and negative liberty”. And face masks look like they will provide the ammunition. “What should have been a matter for personal choice, based on mutual respect, is gearing up to become a sort of tribal signal,” she writes. “We are starting to see now that commitment to the value of individual freedom, far from being robust as a coil spring, is fragile as glass.”

Read more

Keir Starmer has promised to step down if issued with a fixed penalty notice by police for having a curry and beer at a gathering in Durham last year.

The Labour leader took the “extraordinary step” yesterday, in a “major gamble on his political career”, said the London Evening Standard.

“I’m absolutely clear that no laws were broken,” he said in a statement about a Durham Police probe into whether he broke Covid lockdown rules. But “if the police decide to issue me with a fixed penalty notice, I would of course do the right thing and step down”, Starmer added.

If he does fall on the sword, here are some of the key contenders to take his place.

Andy Burnham 4/1*

After two previous unsuccessful runs for the leadership, in 2010 and 2015, Burnham has been tipped to return to Westminster to try for third time lucky. The Greater Manchester mayor, who served as MP for Leigh for 16 years, told Sky News last year that he would consider running again despite his previous leadership losses, to Ed Miliband and then Jeremy Corbyn.

“In the distant future, if the party were ever to feel it needed me, well, I’m here and they should get in touch,” he said. However, in an interview weeks later with The New Statesman, Burnham insisted that “I ain't going back any time soon”.

All the same, “if he tried for the leadership, we would see a new Andy Burnham, one forged from his time as Labour’s King of the North”, wrote the news site’s Stephen Bush. The mayor won a loyal local following for defending his city in what the Manchester Evening News has described as “tense spats” with Boris Johnson.

But Burnham currently faces a major stumbling block: if a leadership contest were called in the coming months, Burnham would be unable to stand since he is no longer an MP.

Lisa Nandy 6/1

Shadow levelling-up secretary Lisa Nandy has called her party leader “Mr Rules” and insisted that he is “not somebody who goes around tearing up rules when it suits him”. But Nandy, “who ran against Sir Keir for leadership of the party in 2020, did not rule herself out for standing for leader if he were forced to resign”, noted The Telegraph.

She has previously served as a shadow minister for children, civil society, climate change and foreign affairs, and has been MP for Wigan since 2010. “Although, by no means a Corbynite, Nandy is nonetheless considered to be on the soft left of the Labour Party,” said Politics.co.uk.

She is a “formidable media performer, who has shown herself quite capable of holding her own with the likes of Piers Morgan”, the site continued, and is “well-placed to become Labour‘s first woman leader in the future”.

Wes Streeting 6/1

The Ilford North MP is one of two shadow cabinet ministers accused of “quietly tapping up donors and drumming up support for a potential tilt at the top” amid Starmer’s so-called Beergate crisis, reported the Daily Mail. According to the paper, the “Labour heavyweight” is “drawing up plans for a future leadership contest”.

Streeting has previously said that “people shouldn’t underestimate my loyalty” to Starmer, who promoted him to shadow health secretary last November.

“Gay, Cambridge-educated and born of a single-parent family on an east London council estate, the party’s right has high hopes he can reconnect with the electorate, but he remains a bête noire among many members,” said Patrick Maguire, Red Box editor at The Times.

Rachel Reeves 7/1

According to the Mail, the shadow chancellor is also “sizing up” a leadership bid. Maguire at The Times called her the “best-known face of Starmer’s front bench”, after coming out of “a self-imposed stint in the wilderness under Corbyn”.

As a former Bank of England economist, Reeves has pitched a “pro-business” plan for the UK economy, promised to be “the first green chancellor” and has criticised the response from the government to the rapidly rising cost of living.

Adam Payne at PoliticsHome described her as one of Starmer’s “closest allies in politics. The Labour leader was “particularly buoyed” by polling that showed their partnership was trusted as much as that of Johnson and Rishi Sunak to manage public finances, “if not more so”, added Payne.

Angela Rayner 7/1

Rumours that Starmer’s deputy could be vying for the top job have been circulating for more than a year. An unnamed former minister told HuffPost last May that “everything she does seems to have one eye on life after Keir”.

Long-running tensions between the two Labour chiefs came to a head after Starmer sacked Rayner as party chair and national campaign coordinator following the poor local election results last year. But following a backlash from within the party, she was almost immediately handed a host of new briefs. The Guardian claimed at the time that she “is widely seen as a future challenger”.

Nevertheless, Rayner was also at the Durham event and has said that she too would resign if fined. Like her boss, Rayner has insisted that “no rules were broken”, but said that if the police thought differently, she “would do the decent thing and step down”.

*The latest odds from Betfair

Millions of people across the UK were placed under tougher coronavirus restrictions this week, as a string of communities were moved into Tiers 2 and 3 of the government’s new ‘traffic light’ lockdown system.

As local lockdowns loomed, a row erupted on Monday between the government and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who accused Boris Johnson of “playing poker with people’s lives” after talks over a support package for the city collapsed.

Johnson later confirmed that a £60m offer - £5m shy of Burnham’s request - was still on the table and would be distributed to local authorities in the region.

To find out how closely you’ve been paying attention to the latest developments in the pandemic, and other global events, put your knowledge to the test with our Quiz of The Week:

Need a reminder of some of the other headlines over the past seven days?

On the other side of the Irish Sea, the Republic of Ireland reinstated a national lockdown for a period of six weeks, following a recommendation from the country’s Public Health Emergency Team.

By contrast, Swedish officials said their government would resist draconian lockdown measures to combat the second wave of Covid-19 infections sweeping across Europe. Stockholm is instead providing “strong recommendations” for local “voluntary” lockdowns.

As the US also struggles to get to grips with the virus while preparing for the upcoming presidential election, reports have emerged that a laptop purported to belong to presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son was subpoenaed last year as part of an FBI money-laundering investigation.

Damning allegations about the laptop’s contents that were first published in the New York Post last week have been dismissed by the Democratic candidate as a “last-ditch” smear effort.

The Week’s daily round-up highlights the five best opinion pieces from across the British and international media, with excerpts from each.

1. Owen Jones in The Guardian

on the Boris vs. Burnham battle

The Tories have treated Manchester as callously as they did the miners

“Johnson has promised the pandemic will not lead to austerity: he is not a man renowned for sticking to his words, but the Tories undoubtedly fear having to hike taxes on big businesses (who form their donor base), or affluent older citizens (their core vote) to pick up the tab. In the 1980s, it was Britain’s miners who were faced down so that other workers could be taught a lesson. As Manchester’s bartenders, bookies and taxi drivers are about to discover, the Conservatives will respond to this pandemic as they do to every crisis: with cold-blooded class warfare.”

2. Stephen Collinson on CNN

on a return to the political frontline

Obama delivers scathing takedown of Trump before final debate

“It was a reminder of Obama's talent as an orator and skill at framing overarching political arguments that won him two White House terms. But the former President was also a singular figure who often struggled to transfer his aura to other Democratic candidates. As he spoke it was impossible not to be reminded that it was also in Philadelphia four years ago where he gave a speech urging Americans to choose Hillary Clinton on election eve in which he also took aim at Trump's policies and temperament. The next day, Trump defied the polls and pulled off a shock win in Pennsylvania en route to a national victory that was in essence a backlash against Obama's eight years in office.”

3. James Nicholls in The i

on taking drugs out of the hands of criminals

We could save lives if we change UK laws and sell cocaine and MDMA in regulated pharmacies

“Rather than a nudge and a wink, the sale will come with harm reduction and health advice as part of a holistic system geared towards encouraging less, not more, consumption. And rather than spending billions policing supply, while every penny of profit goes to a shadow economy, the income from the market can be channelled into the help and support people with drug problems desperately need. Such a proposal may seem far-fetched to some people (although state-run sales of alcohol are normal in Scandinavia, Canada and many other parts of the world). However, making this system work is far less improbable than the unachievable goal of a ‘drug-free world’ that remains the explicit objective of the global war on drugs.”

4. Sherelle Jacobs in The Daily Telegraph

on a method to beat coronavirus

The triumph of China’s Covid spin offers a terrifying glimpse of the West’s future

“The zeal with which we have swallowed Beijing’s guff about the superiority of its draconian approach to pandemics is not a good start to the 21st-century clash of civilisations. It is chilling that China has exported a deadly virus to the West. But it is even more scary that China has exported a Chinese model for dealing with it. Beijing’s useful idiots overlook the glaring flaws in the official CCP version of events. How can China be proof of the effectiveness of lockdowns when it took weeks to close off Wuhan after reports of the virus first surfaced? And given that Beijing likely under-reported deaths in its first wave on an industrial scale, how can we take at face value China’s transformation from the source of ‘Wuhan flu’, to a Covid-zero country zapping isolated cases imported from abroad?”

5. Scott Martelle in the Los Angeles Times

on the suffering of migrants

Three years later, hundreds of migrant families remain separated

“The most disturbing aspect of this on-going tragedy is that it was brought about intentionally by the Trump administration, whose representatives cared so little about the human implications of their actions that they didn’t bother to keep track of which families it was destroying. All in service to a hardline, anti-immigrant set of policies that, at the most generous, ignores US and international laws and treaties governing how asylum seekers must be treated. History will not judge this administration lightly for a host of reasons. But the emotional torture intentionally inflicted on migrant children and their families stands alone as an indictment of Trump’s fundamental inhumanity.”

Boris Johnson has been accused of “playing poker” with people’s lives after a gruelling clash with northern leaders over coronavirus lockdown funding.

The prime minister yesterday faced a war on three fronts, with business leaders and the European Union also lining up to attack him as a rebellion in northwest England threatened to spiral.

Bosses from leading UK companies and trade bodies accused Johnson of “box-ticking” following a conference call with the PM and Michael Gove that sources told The Telegraph was “shocking, embarrassing and not constructive”.

And the spectre of Brexit loomed large too, with post-Brexit trade talks hitting another deadlock over the UK’s demands for agreeing a future trade deal.

Tussles with Brussels

Following failed talks in Brussels last week, Cabinet Office Minister Gove said on Monday that the door to further EU trade negotiations was “still ajar”. And the bloc’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier appeared to push that door open, agreeing to “intensify talks in London on all subjects” in a “significant volte-face”, Euractiv reports.

Barnier said that a deal was “within reach”, stressing the EU27’s willingness to move to “legal texts” to appease one of No. 10’s key demands. But getting back to the negotiating table is just one hurdle in the race to secure an agreement, with European Council President Charles Michel warning that “time is very short” to get a deal over the line.

Talks yesterday between Barnier and UK negotiator David Frost “failed to make a breakthrough”, the BBC reports. Frost said the phone call had been “constructive”, but No. 10 is not backing down from Johnson’s warning last week that a “fundamental change” in the EU’s approach is required to kickstart face-to-face talks.

According to Politico, an EU official “said the two sides would remain in touch but was unable to give details about the next steps”, while British officials “said that without a signal from the EU that it is also ready to make concessions, formal talks can't resume”.

Both sides are still haggling over fishing rights for EU boats in British waters, with Johnson’s spokesperson saying yesterday that the bloc needed to show that the talks could be a “genuine negotiation rather than one side being expected to make all of the moves”.

Barnier appears willing to be flexible, telling the European Parliament in Brussels that “a deal that will be mutually beneficial to both parties in respect of the autonomy and sovereignty of both sides”.

His speech to MEPs was clearly “intended to satisfy” the UK’s demand that “Brussels makes clear it will compromise, as well as the UK, to get a deal before negotiations resume”, says The Telegraph.

Burnham’s poker face

While Downing Street’s relations with Europe appear to have improved slightly, battles on the home front are intensifying amid a stand-off between No. 10 and northern leaders.

A “furious blame game has erupted” between Johnson and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, with both sides accusing the other of walking away from last-ditch talks about financial support for the region as it heads into Tier 3 lockdown restrictions, the Daily Mail says.

Condemning the government’s “game of poker” approach to the negotiations, Burnham told reporters yesterday that a “winter of hardship” was ahead if ministers do not agree to provide more financial backing.

The Labour mayor said that Greater Manchester’s ten council leaders had asked for £65m “to prevent poverty, to prevent hardship, to prevent homelessness” during the shutdown, but accused Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick of walking away from the talks early and refusing to increase the offer of £60m.

However, Whitehall sources dispute that version of events, telling the Daily Mail that “an agreement of £55m was reached, but during a final telephone to rubber-stamp the arrangement Burnham blindsided the prime minister and upped his demand to £65m”.

An insider told the paper that “Burnham’s pride got in the way of a deal”, while a No. 10 source told The Guardian that the mayor “was the one who walked away” from the talks.

“The government’s preferred narrative is clear: a grandstanding politician puts his own popularity ahead of public health,” writes The Times’ Whitehall editor Chris Smyth.

But while “there will no doubt be takers for this argument”, Burnham’s defiant stance “has gone down well” in Greater Manchester, where “he is largely seen as standing up for the North against a dismissive Westminster elite”, Smyth continues.

“If the government now refuses to hand over the money they were offering, Burnham can accuse them of punishing the region out of spite; if they do, he can claim victory.”

And with Keir Starmer tabling a motion on a “fair one nation deal” for areas put into Tier 3 - a motion that may win the support of ‘red wall’ Tory MPs - Burnham’s possible victory could be the first of two successes for the opposition.

Business blow

Along with his bruising clashes with Burnham and the EU, Johnson also faced conflict from a traditional ally of the Tory party - big business.

Industry chiefs have blasted the PM after dialling in to discuss Brexit plans with him and Gove in a “disastrous” conference call that lasted little more than 20 minutes, the BBC reports. Attendees claim the call was simply a “box-ticking exercise” and have criticised Johnson for leaving the discussions after 15 minutes.

The Tory leader is reported to have provoked further ire by saying that Covid had created “too much apathy” in the business community and that bosses “needed to get ready” for Brexit.

Read more about the call here.

And Johnson’s bid to spearhead an economic revival suffered another blow today, following confirmation that his “hopes of regaining the political initiative by setting out a three-year spending master plan for the rest of the parliament have been abandoned”, the Financial Times says.

The Treasury has scrapped the plans due to the economic disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic - a decision that marks a significant setback for the PM, “who saw the event as a chance to map out his priorities for a post-Covid world”, the paper adds.

The decision has also created further tensions between Johnson and Chancellor Rishi Sunak.

Having already proved obstructive about plans for further lockdown restrictions, Sunak is understood to have issued the order to No. 10 to axe the spending plan, instead favouring a one-year package aimed at supporting employment and boosting public services during the ongoing health crisis.

Five years ago, Andy Burnham was licking his wounds after losing his Labour leadership bid to the insurgent Jeremy Corbyn.

But as mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham (pictured above) is now causing the type of trouble for the Conservative government that he could only have dreamed of triggering from the opposition dispatch box.

Amid growing protests from the North over tougher coronavirus restrictions, Boris Johnson is “ready to offer tens of millions of pounds” to end a revolt that is seeing key Tory backbenchers siding with the Labour mayor, The Times says.

So is Manchester set to head into lockdown with a hefty payout - or is Johnson’s battle with Burnham heading into another round?

Boris’s bung

Johnson has been told by Rishi Sunak that the Treasury “will not stand in the way if more cash is required to get a deal over the line” with Burnham, says the Financial Times (FT).

The chancellor is reportedly “preparing to release” tens of millions in an effort to end to the deadlock and convince northern leaders backing Burnham to U-turn on their refusal to put their regions into the highest level of Covid lockdown.

The Manchester mayor yesterday held talks with Johnson’s chief strategic adviser, Edward Lister, that were described as “constructive”.

All the same, the war of words between Downing Street and the mayor’s office kicked up a notch, with Burnham accusing Westminster of “exaggerating” the emergency, while Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove called on the Labour politician to stop “posturing”.

Meanwhile, “Johnson also faces increasing anger from some of his own MPs at the prospect of Manchester facing tougher measures”, The Telegraph says.

Blue-on-blue conflict broke out on social media after 20 Tory MPs from areas with low infection rates wrote to Burnham urging him to accept Tier 3 status. The MPs were “subjected to four-letter abuse on an WhatsApp group from their own colleagues”, who said they were “shafting” them to curry favour with No. 10, the paper reports.

Graham Brady, chair of the influential backbench 1922 Committee, is among the Tories backing Burnham. “We simply haven’t been given the evidence that it would be effective,” Brady told BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House show on Sunday.

Liverpool was given just under £50m when the city’s leaders agreed to Tier 3 status and commentators have suggested that Manchester, which has double the population of Merseyside, could receive up to twice as much in support. But with divisions opening up on the Tory side of the Commons, Johnson cannot pay off all of his critics.

Crisis point

The PM could avoid having to find a solution to the ongoing impasse in Manchester if the rate of coronavirus infections there increases to a level at which Burham is unable to downplay the scale of the emergency.

Newly leaked figures from the Greater Manchester Critical Care Network (GMCCN) suggest that “some of the region’s 12 hospitals were running out of space on Friday”, Sky News reports.

The data shows that the Stepping Hill Hospital and the Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust are already “operating at full capacity”, while “Royal Bolton Hospital was running at 94% capacity”, the broadcaster says.

Across the Greater Manchester region, hospitals were at an average of 82% capacity, with a GMCCN source telling Sky News that the NHS usually defines “at capacity” as being when 85% of beds are filled, not 100%.

The NHS said in a statement that healthcare bosses were “monitoring the situation with our hospital admissions, overall beds and ITU beds very very closely”.

As the health crisis continues to unfold, the spiralling number of occupied beds will weaken Burnham’s hand in negotiations with No. 10.

Impasse breaker

Burnham has called for a Commons vote to settle the fight over the level of financial aid for areas under the strictest Tier 3 restrictions.

In a letter to Johnson, Keir Starmer and other party leaders yesterday, Burnham argued that “establishing clear national entitlements of the kind we had during the first lockdown will create a sense of fairness”.

A transparent system “would help build public support for, and compliance with, any new restrictions”, the Manchester mayor continued. But the sticking point remains his demand for “similar terms to the financial package afforded to the whole country back in March”.

Sunak is opposed to increasing the support for furloughed workers in Tier 3 areas from 66% of their wages to 80%, and is instead “looking to offer the region a discretionary pot of money” that local leaders can distribute, the FT reports.

The chancellor is “anxious not to set a precedent for huge extra expenditure as more areas” are put into the high-risk category, adds the paper. A government source said: “Rishi made it clear to No. 10 that we can’t hand out loads of cash to everyone.”

Further complicating the dispute, five of Greater Manchester’s nine Conservative MPs wrote to Burnham on Sunday saying that they are “deeply concerned” about his support for a “circuit breaker” lockdown. Burnham is backing Labour leader Starmer over the strategy, but the local Tories described it as “extreme and poorly thought out”.

The show of resistance may give Team Johnson added confidence in the staring contest over Tier 3 measures.

But the letter to Burnham also included a commitment from Conservative MP Chris Clarkson to “work cross-party” with the mayor to ensure the “best possible package is reached” for Greater Manchester - a pledge that highlights the need for the PM to contain the rising Tory rebellion.

Councils across the north of England are setting up local track-and-trace systems in an effort to sidestep the government’s £10bn scheme.

Officials in Greater Manchester are believed to be preparing to roll out a “door to door” scheme, while Blackburn with Darwen Council launched a “bespoke service yesterday with the agreement of Public Health England” (PHE), The Times reports.

Following the recent sharp rise in coronavirus cases in the North, Bradford is also understood to be considering a “local track-and-trace team”, who would be forwarded details of confirmed or possible infections if NHS Test and Trace staff had been unable to contact the potentially infected people within 48 hours.

The growing push to “go it alone” comes as Labour leader Keir Starmer warns that the country faces a devastating second wave and a “long and bleak winter” if the government does not quickly improve the central track-and-trace system.

The case for keeping it local

The government’s highly expensive track-and-trace system has got off to an inauspicious start. Plans for a tracking app have been scrapped, and scientists are warning that the system “is still not good enough to prevent a second wave of coronavirus”, The Times says.

Contact tracers working for the scheme claim they are making just “a handful of calls every month” and are instead “occupying their time with barbecues and quizzes”, The Guardian reports.

One agent said that “they had made just a few calls in two months of work, two of which had been fake numbers”, according to the paper.

“I’ve heard of tracers claiming to be sitting in the garden having a barbecue so that they can stay logged in and clock up the hours,” the insider said.

An analysis of data obtained by The Guardian from a contact tracer hired through outsourcing company Serco found that 471 agents had made “just 135 calls in two days – around 0.14 calls per agent per day”.

“This figure includes calls to incorrect numbers, voicemails, or multiple calls made to the same individual”, with one person reported to have been called 20 times.

Responding to the claims, a Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that in the eight weeks since the scheme launched, 27,000 contact tracers have “contacted more than 218,000 people who have tested positive for the virus, or recently been in contact with someone who has tested positive”.

However, based on those figures, each of the 27,000 tracers would only have to make just over one successful call per week to have reached a total of 218,000 over that period.

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham told the newspaper that “the only way you can deal with these problems is a more local approach – door knocking and support for all employees to self-isolate”.

The region’s director of public health, Kate Ardern, says their local team has managed to reach 98%-100% of the cases referred through the national scheme. And in Leicester, the first area in the UK to be placed under local lockdown, the council’s system contacted 122 of a total 136 people referred - a success rate of 89%.

Meanwhile, the government claims the national scheme is reaching 81% of infected people per week, and 75% of their contacts. But according to an analysis of government data by researchers from University College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the true number of contacts being traced could be as low as 50%.

The case for staying national

While local schemes appear to be succeeding in tracking down the small number of cases referred by the national team, Burnham admits that Greater Manchester does not have “world-beating” system - a reference to Boris Johnson’s claims about the central tracing programme.

Greater Manchester’s system “is able to do really straightforward cases, but the minute they get more complicated it struggles”, Burnham said.

As it stands, local track-and-trace systems are still reliant on the centralised scheme to refer individuals, and are only mopping up cases that the government tracers cannot contact.

And although such schemes might be improved with greater funding at local level, the government has already pledged £300m in additional investment for councils to support the national tracking service.

Simon Clarke, the local government minister, this week said that the central system was “a massive national undertaking and it is working”.

Speaking to Sky News, he added: “It’s obviously vital that we always continue to keep up the progress that we’re making with test and trace.”

Little more than a month ago you could get odds of 100-1 on Jeremy Corbyn winning the Labour leadership election. Now he's the odds-on favourite, and Andy Burnham, his nearest rival, is at 7-2 – a comparative long shot.

Senior Labour figures are warning party members that a vote for Corbyn could hand the Conservatives the next general election and send Labour back into the wilderness, yet polls and bookies now agree that he is most likely to emerge as leader of the opposition.

Can Corbyn win? The latest Labour leadership odds:

Why should we listen to the bookmakers?

"The power of the betting markets," says the Daily Telegraph, is to assimilate the collective knowledge and wisdom of those willing to back their judgment with money." In an article written before the general election, it cited a 1985 Welsh by-election in which the polls showed an 18-point lead for Labour, while bookies installed the Liberal as the odds-on favourite. The Liberal candidate did indeed prevail. And in May, the bookies were much closer to the eventual result than the pollsters – most had Cameron as the clear favourite to stay on as PM for the majority of the campaign, even as the polls favoured Miliband.

What do the polls say?

The last two public polls, published by YouGov, suggest that Jeremy Corbyn has a clear and increasing lead. The most recent, published on Tuesday in The Times, gave him a first round tally of 53 per cent of the vote, a ten-point gain on his previous position and 32 points ahead of Andy Burnham, on 21 per cent. Yvette Cooper was on 18 per cent and Liz Kendall on 8 per cent. Significantly, that would give Corbyn victory in the first round. If it goes to a second round, the outcome becomes more unpredictable as eliminated candidates' second preferences come into play.

Can the polls be trusted?

In the run-up to the general election, polls were consistently wrong. And, says The Guardian, "trying to predict the outcome of an internal party election through polling is a much more tricky" than surveying the electorate as a whole. Nevertheless, political analysts are increasingly confident in the Labour leadership election polling, not least because the gap is so large, and is growing – unlike at the closely fought general election. Other commentators suggest that this time around the polls match the mood at rallies, debates and on social media, in a way that they didn't in May. "Twitter and rally turnout are only really indicative of activist opinion, notes The Guardian. "But party leadership contests, unlike general elections, are decided by activist opinion, which is yet another reason why the YouGov findings seem highly credible."

But what if they're wrong?

It's certainly a possibility, and Atul Hatwal of Labour Uncut is convinced that YouGov is in line for another humiliation – and that Labour members are using pollsters to send a message, rather than expressing their true voting intentions. "After a crushing, demoralising general election defeat for the party," he writes, "what better way for frustrated members and supporters to flick the bird at the leadership than to tell pollsters and canvassers they are backing Corbyn?"

A radical overhaul of Britain's strike laws – described by The Guardian as "the biggest crackdown on trade union rights for 30 years" – will be unveiled by the government today.

In the face of mounting union anger, Tory employment minister Nick Boles defended the proposals this morning, telling the Today programme that the right to strike was something the government stood by, but that the public and business owners had rights too.

He said the majority of strikes held during the past two years – including last week's Tube strike – would actually have passed "the new threshold" outlined in the Trades Union Bill.

But union leaders say the proposals are clearly designed to limit their members' ability to hold effective strikes. TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: "The government is determined to strip workers of power at the negotiating table and give bosses the upper hand during disputes. It reads like something straight out of a George Orwell novel."

Aslef leader Mick Whelan said the government proposals "smack of Germany in the 1930s" when trade union leaders and activists were "rounded up, imprisoned and executed." His comments were denounced as outrageous by Tory MPs, one of whom, Peter Bone, called on Whelan to resign immediately.

At least one union leader has threatened illegal 'wildcat' strikes in protest at the government's proposals.

Andy Burnham, frontrunner for the Labour leadership, described the new Bill as a "campaign of demonisation" against the unions, but made it clear he was against illegal strikes.

So, what are the changes being proposed?

Strike votes must be up-to-date:

The use of historic votes to justify a strike will be banned. Any mandate to strike must be less than four-months-old. The new rule would have prevented the NUT holding one-day teachers' strikes last year on the basis of a ballot conducted in 2012.

50 per cent turnout:

For a strike to be valid, at least 50 per cent of those eligible to vote must have turned out for the vote. As the BBC reports, under the current law a strike can go ahead if it is backed by a simple majority of the union members voting, regardless of turnout.

'Double threshold':

For a strike to be valid in key public sectors – education, health, transport, the Fire Brigade, the Border Force and nuclear plants - at least 40 per cent of those eligible to vote must support the strike. This 'double threshold' would mean, for example, that if 100 schoolteachers were asked to strike, the action would only be lawful if at least 50 of them turned out to vote and 40 of those backed the strike.

No ban on agency 'fill-ins':

The government plans to lift the ban on agency workers being brought in to fill the gaps. On Radio 4's Today programme, Justin Webb suggested to Nick Boles that this measure was unfair because it could make the strike ineffective and therefore meaningless.

Picket line limits:

It would be a criminal offence for a picket line to include more than six people. The government is also looking at how to make it a criminal offence to intimidate workers who choose not to strike.

Political levy opt-in:

The government wants workers to have to 'opt in' to any political levy, rather than 'opting out'. The Guardian says this would probably "blow a hole in Labour party funding because the number of union members who will proactively support paying the political levy will be much lower than those who pay the political levy through inertia".

Public sector time limit:

The government wants a limit set on the proportion of working time any public sector worker can spend on trade union duties.

What happens next?

The Trades Union Bill will get its first reading later today but will not be debated in the Commons immediately. Although the plans are as radical as those introduced by Norman Tebbit in the Thatcher era, The Times reports that the government feels confident it has the public on its side.

If the Bill passes into law, trade unionists might feel the only way to respond is with 'wildcat' protest strikes. The Unite leader, Len McCluskey, has revealed that his union's Rules Conference voted last week to delete the words "so far as may be lawful" before the list of Unite's objectives, potentially allowing workers to carry out illegal strikes.

"We are ready for the fight," he said, "and we will, I believe, find allies throughout society, amongst everyone who cares for freedom and democracy."

But will he? In The Spectator, Leo McKinstry argues that trade unions are no longer "the authentic voice of the British working class". Instead, they are "noisy pressure groups" representing public sector workers. Just one in seven private sector workers is unionised, compared with just over half of state employees.

Without the Lib Dems holding them back, the Conservative government now has a mandate to "put the unions in their place", says McKinstry, and should not be afraid to use it.

Andy Burnham's Bank Holiday weekend was spoiled by a trio of awkward stories: first, it was reported that he has been claiming expenses for the rent of a London flat when he already owns one nearby; then there was speculation that David Miliband might launch a bid for the Labour leadership before the next election; finally, it's reported today that the powerful Unite union might withhold support for his leadership bid.

One, the London flat. Since July 2012, Burnham has been claiming £1449.98 a month for the rent of a flat in Kennington – a favoured spot for MPs' digs because it's just over the bridge from Westminster – when he already owns a flat in the same area, The Sunday Times reported.

The amount he's claiming is just short of the maximum £1,550 allowed. The arrangement is entirely within the rules, the paper said, but Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, said it showed "a lack of judgment".

Burnham has issued a "full explanation" on his website telling how a change in Commons rules gave him "no choice" but to quit his flat and rent it out.

Two, the David Miliband story. Senior Labour figures are "plotting" for Ed Miliband's brother to return to England from New York to play a major role in the Stay In Europe referendum campaign and use it as a springboard for a leadership bid in 2018, The Sun reports.

In short, Burnham, still the bookies' favourite among the current candidates, might be elected Labour leader this autumn but would face pressure to have David Miliband replace him in time for the 2020 general election.

The Sun reports that the veteran Labour MP for Huddersfield, Barry Sheerman, might be happy to stand down in 2018, creating a by-election that would give David an easy ride back to Westminster politics. The fact that Sheerman's daughter works for David has added fuel to the speculation.

Three, the Unite threat. Senior figures in Unite are angered by Burnham's secretary's failure to adopt an "anti-austerity" economic policy, the Daily Telegraph reports.

The union has been signing up around 1,000 affiliate Labour members a day through cold-calling and "getting shop stewards to encourage individual union members to join on the spot".

It had been assumed that Unite's general secretary Len McCluskey would then urge them to back Burnham. Not any more, says the Telegraph, which quotes a "senior Unite source" saying: "Instead of having a right-wing economic policy we want a progressive left-wing policy. It doesn't look like Andy Burnham has shone there…

"No matter what is being said in the parliamentary village, out in the trade unions and the Parliamentary Labour Party … there is no demand for a switch back to the Right or back to New Labour."

Andy Burnham's campaign to become Labour leader gained considerable momentum over the weekend when he announced that Rachel Reeves, the MP for Leeds West, will lead his review of Labour's economic policy.

Reeves, a former Bank of England economist, is described by the Financial Times as "one of the most influential figures from the younger generation of MPs". She had been expected to back Chuka Umunna until he pulled out of the race on Friday, citing "uncomfortable" media scrutiny.

Burnham already has approximately 100 MPs on side, including Luciana Berger, "another fast-rising figure from the 2010 intake" as the FT calls her.

Some within Labour believe Burnham is hoping to make such headway that none of his rivals can come anywhere near his level of support. To go forward to the final ballot, each candidate must have 34 MPs backing them – equivalent to 15 per cent of the 232 Labour MPs remaining after the general election.

However, Burnham comes with baggage – namely his relationship with the unions and specifically Len McCluskey, head of the Unite union.

McCluskey horrified Blairites yesterday by warning that Unite could withdraw its multi-million-pound support for the party if it fails to select the "correct leader" – in short, one who will champion "organised labour".

He told BBC Radio 5 Live: "It's essential that the correct leader emerges and that there's a genuine debate about the direction we're going in. It is the challenge of the Labour party to demonstrate that they are the voice of ordinary working people, that they are the voice of organised labour."

As the Daily Telegraph reports, McCluskey did not nominate a candidate, saying there would be a union-organised hustings. But most observers expect Unite to endorse Burnham (Yvette Cooper would be the likeliest alternative), while Burnham himself admitted to the BBC's Andrew Marr yesterday that he had spoken to McCluskey.

The Times reports that McCluskey's intervention has "worsened tensions within Labour, with Blairites warning that the party must not repeat the mistake of having a leader perceived as being too close to the trade unions. Ed Miliband won the job in 2010 as a result of union support."

Adding fuel to the fire, Tom Watson is emerging as the frontrunner in the race to become deputy leader. As the FT reports, Watson is a former flatmate of McCluskey's and is an ally of Michael Dugher, shadow transport secretary, who is co-ordinating Burnham's campaign.

Both Dugher and Watson were deeply involved in helping Ed Miliband beat his brother David to the leadership in 2010.

Harriet Harman, the acting Labour leader, will try today to put a lid on the union issue by saying that new "one-member, one-vote" leadership rules have taken away some of the unions' power.

"The winner of this election is not going to be the choice of the unions or any single section or faction of the Labour party," she is due to say. "He or she is going to be the choice of the Labour party."

Whether she can allay the fears of the Blairites, who had been banking on Umunna winning the leadership, is debatable. Referring to Watson and Dugher, one Blairite told the FT: "It feels like the same old machine that got rid of Blair, propped Brown up and stopped David getting in."

Labour’s headline policy of removing private sector involvement in the NHS was torn apart last night in a devastating Newsnight package presented by the show’s political editor, Allegra Stratton.

It is the second time this week that the BBC’s flagship programme has given shadow health secretary Andy Burnham a hard time: on Tuesday he was the victim of an interview with presenter Kirsty Wark described by commentator Guido Fawkes as a “car crash”.

Last night’s segment included interviews with Lord Darzi, a respected surgeon and former Labour health minister in Gordon Brown’s government, and Julian Le Grand, a former adviser to Tony Blair, both of whom attacked Labour for its plan to return "preferred provider" status to the NHS and reduce the chances of private companies conducting routine ops for NHS patients.

Le Grand warned that Burnham would be "wasting" taxpayers' money on the NHS unless he allowed private competition for NHS contracts.

Darzi said it was irrelevant whether NHS care is delivered by the private or the public sector: the NHS should prefer providers who deliver the highest quality care - whether they are "public, private or not-for-profit".

He added: "If the debate doesn't focus on the quality of care, then every patient and every clinician will know that the real argument about what matters has already been lost.”

Le Grand argued that the competition that private sector involvement brings to the NHS “seems to work… It’s a good thing to have and if Andy Burnham ends up pouring more money into the health service without that, that money is going to be wasted."

• Countdown to 7 May: check The Week's daily election round-up

Allegra Stratton is a former Guardian journalist, and no enemy of Labour. But her package left Burnham's plans bloodied and bruised on a trolley in the BBC A&E ward.

Michael Savage, chief political correspondent of The Times, tweeted: “Blimey. Quite an evisceration of Labour health divisions on Newsnight. As tough as anything you'll find in the ‘right wing press’.”

As Stratton reported, Darzi and Le Grand's comments intensify a row that goes much deeper than just NHS policy. The intervention earlier this week of former Cabinet minister Alan Milburn exposed a serious split between the Blairite wing of the party and the more left-leaning Team Miliband.

Milburn criticsised the new Labour leadership for failing to stand up for Blair and Brown's prudent handling of the economy and warned them not to cast aside the NHS reforms that he – Milburn – and others had introduced in recent years.

Indeed, among those “other” reformers is Burnham himself, who allowed private sector contracts for NHS patients when he was Health Health Secretary between 2009 and 2010 and has now changed his tune.

Name: Edward Samuel Miliband

School: Haverstock Comprehensive School

University: Corpus Christi College, Oxford (2:1 in politics, philosophy and economics); London School of Economics (MSc in economics)

Fondness for: A-ha, chicken tikka curry, Boston Red Sox, Billy Bragg, Desperate Housewives, Dallas, 12 Angry Men – and he is pretty dexterous with a Rubik's Cube

What is Miliband's background?

Following a brief career in television journalism, Miliband became a speechwriter and researcher for Labour MP Harriet Harman in 1993 and then for Gordon Brown. He spent a year's sabbatical in 2003 to 2004 as a visiting lecturer at Harvard University and was elected Labour MP for Doncaster North in 2005. He became Parliamentary Secretary in Tony Blair's Cabinet Office the following year. In June 2007, he was appointed Cabinet Office minister in Gordon Brown's Cabinet and given the task of drafting Labour's manifesto for the 2010 general election.

What about his family life?

Born on 24 December 1969, Miliband was introduced to left-wing politics by his father Ralph, a Polish Jew who fled the Nazis in 1940 and became a leading Marxist theorist. His mother Marion Kozak, also a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust, is a human rights campaigner. Miliband and his older brother David, the former Foreign Secretary, grew up with leading intellectuals and Labour politicians visiting their family home. Ken Livingstone dined at their house, while Tony Benn used to help them with their homework. Miliband has described himself as "weedy and square" at school with little success with the ladies. But in 2011, he married his long-term partner Justine Thornton, a barrister who studied at Cambridge and the mother of his two little boys, Daniel and Samuel.

How did he become Labour Party leader?

After Gordon Brown resigned in 2010, Ed decided to stand against his brother David in the leadership race, along with Ed Balls, Andy Burnham and Diane Abbott. While David was a favourite to win, it was Ed who secured the backing of three out of four of Britain's biggest trade unions, GMB, Unison and Unite, to beat his brother by a tight margin of 49.35 per cent to 50.65 per cent. The pair engaged in an awkward sideways hug after the result was announced at Manchester Central Conference Centre, but later confirmed that their battle for leadership had resulted in a breakdown of their relationship.

What does he stand for?

Ed was seen as a Brownite rather than Blairite but insists that he is one of the least "tribal" of MPs. He positioned himself firmly to the left of his brother during the leadership race and continues to campaign for higher taxes for the rich and an end to the "cost of living crisis". He was widely praised by green activists during his time as Climate Change Secretary, a position he held from 2008 to 2010, and has previously spoken out against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, calling it a "tragic error". He briefly won over the public by declaring war on the Murdoch media empire in July 2011; by calling for restraint on banks in February 2012; and by announcing proposals to freeze energy bills for 20 months in October 2013. He has said that the NHS will be "at the heart" of his party's plans over the next ten years.

How popular is Miliband?

Just 21 per cent of the public are satisfied and 65 per cent dissatisfied with the job Miliband is doing as Labour leader, according to the latest Ipsos Mori poll. This is his lowest rating since the last election and falls below his average satisfaction score of 29 per cent for this year. His highest satisfaction rating was 41 per cent when he was first made Labour leader and again in August 2012.

What's his worst gaffe?

Miliband has won praise for his ability to deliver confident speeches without notes, but his lack of prompts backfired at this year's Labour party conference when he forgot some of his most crucial lines. After years of jibes from the Conservatives about Labour's economic credibility, Miliband failed to mention the deficit in his final conference speech before the 2015 election. Like Cameron, Miliband has not been immune to Twitter gaffes either. After Blockbuster host Bob Holness passed away, Miliband was ridiculed for tweeting: "Sad to hear that Bob Holness has died. A generation will remember him fondly from Blackbusters."

Doctors' surgeries will open for up to 12 hours a day, seven days a week, by 2020 if the Tories win the next election, David Cameron is expected to announce today.

Many surgeries are currently only open from 9am until 5pm on weekdays, with millions of patients waiting a week or more for an appointment.But Cameron is expected to pledge £400m in funding over the next five years to ensure surgeries can stay open for longer.The Prime Minister will announce the move at the Conservative Party conference today in a bid to relieve pressure on hospitals and give working people access to a GP at weekends."This is only possible because we've taken difficult decisions to reduce inefficient and ineffective spending elsewhere as part of our long-term economic plan," he will say. More doctors will be required to carry out consultations via email, telephone and video calls.However, doctors' unions have said the plans are unrealistic with too few GPs to staff a seven-day service. The British Medical Association has previously stated that a seven-day service was "not feasible" within the current NHS budget and risked reducing weekday services.The Daily Telegraph says Cameron's intervention is designed to "counter Labour's plans to focus its election campaign on the NHS".Labour leader Ed Miliband last week committed to a £2.5bn fund to hire 36,000 nurses, doctors and midwives in order to "save" the NHS.Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham told the BBC today that "under David Cameron, it has got harder and harder to get a GP appointment". He added that the next Labour government "will guarantee a GP appointment within 48 hours or a same-day consultation with a doctor or nurse for those who need it".

However, the Conservatives have labelled Labour's plans "a gimmick they can't afford".

FURTHER details of Margaret Thatcher's ceremonial funeral on Wednesday have emerged as the debate over the cost and grandeur of the event continues, with claims that the bill will top £10m.

No Argentines welcome: Baroness Thatcher's family have vetoed plans to invite representatives from Argentina to the funeral, reports the Daily Telegraph, which adds that the organising committee is "planning to make the liberation of the Falkland Islands a central part of the ceremonial funeral on Wednesday".

Military on duty: A total of 755 personnel from the army, navy and air force will take part in the ceremony. Thatcher's coffin will be met at St Paul's by a guard of honour provided by the Welsh Guards. It will be carried into the cathedral by ten pallbearers chosen from units "notable for their service" in the Falklands. The BBC adds that there will be "three bands whose drums will be covered in black cloth".

Operation True Blue: Labour MP Andy Burnham has criticised the codename for the event, claiming it is too political. Plans for the funeral were first discussed in 2006, using the codename Iron Bridge. The name was changed when the coalition came to power "to give it a more Conservative feel", says The Independent.

International guests: Invitations to 2,300 guests will go out tomorrow. The Queen and Prince Philip have already announced that they will attend. Ex-Labour Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown will also be there. Among Thatcher's international contemporaries expected to attend are Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Russian President, and FW De Klerk, the last president of apartheid South Africa. Ronald Reagan's widow, Nancy, is unable to attend.

Bishop to give sermon: Thatcher's children, Mark and Carol, have chosen not to give a reading or speech at the funeral. The Right Rev Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, will preach the sermon. An old friend of Baroness Thatcher's, he would jokingly kneel down and kiss her hand when they met, according to the Telegraph.

Mourning dress controversy: The Foreign Office has retracted an order to diplomats and staff that they must wear mourning clothes on the day of the funeral, reports The Guardian. It withdrew the memo, sent on Tuesday, after complaints "from the highest level" of the civil service that because it was not a state occasion the 'black tie' order was inappropriate.

Cost of the event: The bill for Wednesday's funeral is expected to come in at around £10m, much of which will be paid for by the taxpayer. "Lady Thatcher's family is meeting an unspecified amount of the expense, thought to cover transport, flowers and the cremation, with the government funding the rest, including security," reports the BBC. William Hague has defended the cost, saying the EU rebate Thatcher negotiated has already saved Britain £75bn.