Gordon Fielden

One hears Andy Burnham speak at length about his record in Manchester, and there is no denying that he has sought to act in the interests of the city and its people. That, in itself, is entirely proper. Yet it is also right to be candid. Much of what has been advanced in Manchester bears a striking resemblance to the model long established in London under Sadiq Khan. The transport approach, the broader civic framework, and the general direction of policy follow a pattern that has already been tested elsewhere. There is nothing inherently wrong in that. When a model proves effective in a city of London’s scale and complexity, it is only sensible that it should be adapted and applied in a smaller city such as Manchester. Indeed, one might expect it. But let us be clear about what that represents. It is not innovation so much as replication; not a wholly new vision, but the application of an existing one in a different setting. It is also worth recalling that the move to the mayoralty came at a moment when his national political prospects appeared to have reached their limit. The office provided both a platform and an opportunity for renewal, and he has used it to some effect within that local context. None of this is to diminish Manchester, which is a fine and growing city in its own right. But it is not London, and the policies in question were not conceived there. They were, rather, adopted from a model that had already shown its worth. That may be prudent governance, but it is not the same as offering a distinct or original course for the country as a whole.

andy burnham i love you and your record of delivery as mayor of great manchester

The kind of ‘out of the box’ thinking we need.

There is no vacancy.

Throwback to when Andy Burnham called Keir Starmer Labour's "star summer signing" in the Commons..

Since Andy Burnham signalled his intention to step onto the national stage once more, one is entitled to ask a simple but necessary question: what, precisely, is new? What has been set out that has not already been heard, almost word for word, from the traditional left of the Labour Party over the past thirty years? Thus far, there has been remarkably little of substance that departs from that well worn script. He appears, in large part, to endorse the framework already established by Keir Starmer, adhering to the same red lines and broad direction, yet without offering any compelling articulation of what he would do differently, or why he should be entrusted with the highest office in the land. The impression given is not of a statesman presenting a defined alternative, but of a man animated chiefly by the desire to hold the office itself. We have, not so very long ago, seen where that path can lead. Boris Johnson pursued leadership in much the same fashion, displacing a colleague and leader, promising much, and ultimately delivering a period marked by instability, confusion, and a profound erosion of trust. It stands as a cautionary example of ambition untethered from substance. Meanwhile, the present government has, in many respects, proceeded with a quieter diligence. Without fanfare, and often without the recognition it perhaps merits, it has set about delivering on the commitments placed before the electorate. That work has not always been accompanied by noise, but it has been carried forward with a degree of steadiness that the country has long required. Against that backdrop, internal disquiet only serves to weaken the whole. Figures such as Angela Rayner, whatever their qualities and contributions, must reckon with the reality that unity is not a luxury but a necessity in government. Personal ambition, however understandable, cannot be permitted to take precedence over the broader national interest. At a time when vast financial power and media influence are so readily deployed to shape narratives and distort public understanding, what is required above all is stability, discipline, and clarity of purpose. And so the question remains, plainly and without embellishment: what is the defining change that would justify such a challenge? What is the clear, substantive departure that would make the country better served? Until that is answered with conviction and detail, the case rests not on vision or merit, but on aspiration alone.

Andy Burnham has officially launched his campaign to be the Labour MP for Makerfield - in a contest widely seen as a step on the way to challenging Sir Keir Starmer. The launch comes as the Green Party said their former candidate in the by-election had apologised for sharing social media posts that described an attack on Jewish ambulances in London as a "false flag". But Mr Burnham kept the focus this morning on the Labour party. So far, the by-election candidates are Andy Burnham (Labour), Robert Kenyon (Reform UK), Michael Winstanley (Conservative), Rebecca Shepherd (Restore Britain), Jake Austin (Liberal Democrats), Howling Laud Hope (Monster Raving Loony Party), with the Green Party expected to field a new candidate after their original nominee withdrew.

@labourunionsuk @AndyBurnhamGM

The ☀️ is shining, and it's time to hit the streets in Makerfield! Join trade union and Labour comrades from across the country this bank holiday weekend, to campaign for @AndyBurnhamGM 👇 events.labour.org.uk/results?postco… 👆

Andy Burnham: “I’m for us. I’m for us.” Expect he’s not for us and he’s not for Makerfield. He’s for whatever stepping stone can further his career. I can’t believe people are fooled by this.

@LabourList @MetroMayorSteve

💬 "Only Andy really who can make this a straight race between ourselves and Reform" 🔴 Friend of LabourList @MetroMayorSteve spoke with us briefly at Andy Burnham's campaign launch in Makerfield today...

I am bound to say that this is, in truth, quite extraordinary. The elevation of Pippa Crerar to political journalist of the year invites not admiration, but a certain quiet incredulity. It is difficult to reconcile such recognition with a body of work that, in this instance at least, appeared more concerned with the construction of a narrative than with the disciplined pursuit of fact. Her much-trumpeted “exclusive” on the so called vetting file proved not merely flawed, but fundamentally unsound. It was reported with undue haste, insufficient rigour, and without the care that one would reasonably expect in matters of such consequence. What followed was not the candour or accountability befitting the profession, but rather a conspicuous silence. There has been no proper acknowledgment of error, no apology to those misled, and no clarity whatsoever as to the provenance of the alleged civil service source. In that light, the standing of The Guardian must inevitably be called into question. A publication once regarded as a serious organ of record now appears, at times, to drift towards the habits of the gutter press, where assertion overtakes verification and prominence is afforded to the loudest claim rather than the soundest evidence. That may satisfy certain internal measures of success, yet it does little to inspire confidence beyond those circles. What we have witnessed here is not journalism at its most exacting, but something altogether less disciplined: a display of self regard in place of scrutiny, and of haste in place of judgement. For many, that distinction is now painfully clear.

It appears that Thomas Tuchel has left Jarrod Bowen out of the World Cup squad, and, if one is being honest, it is a decision that is difficult to argue against. We have all seen that he has not been at his usual level this season, and by his own high standards he has been below par. That is not a slight on him as a player or as a servant to West Ham United, but rather a reflection of how good we know he can be. At his best, Bowen is capable of tearing defences apart and delivering decisive moments. That has simply not clicked for him this year. Whether it is confidence, form, or something less obvious, he seems to have lost his way somewhat. Even so, he has an opportunity now. A strong performance, showing both leadership and the quality we all know he possesses, could yet put him back into contention should circumstances change. Sunday becomes crucial. The players know what is required. A win, in whatever form it comes, is the immediate priority, though naturally a convincing scoreline would help matters considerably. From there, it is a case of seeing how things unfold. Nothing is settled yet. If the worst were to happen, there is a growing sense that it may force a reckoning at the club. Questions around ownership and long term direction cannot be avoided indefinitely. Real ambition requires investment and a willingness to build properly. Without that, the cycle simply repeats. For now, though, the focus remains on the pitch. The supporters will be there, as they always are. If the performance matches the occasion, the atmosphere will follow. If not, there will be understandable frustration. Either way, it is down to the players to give something for the fans to believe in.

Our final game of the season 😤

Maybe in Manchester, but not much further afield. Andy Burnham still carries the weight of the Mid Staffordshire NHS scandal, which happened on his watch as Health Secretary, and for many people that has never been forgotten. And when you set that alongside the current attacks from the mainstream media on Keir Starmer over the Mandelson issue, there is no real comparison. The Staffordshire scandal went to the heart of patient safety, standards of care, and loss of life. It was, at the time, a far more serious and dangerous situation than the political row we are seeing now.

@GordonFielden @Peston The reality remains Andy Burnham is far more popular with the public than Keir Starmer.

The consensus at the top of the Labour Party appears to be that Keir Starmer won’t announce a timetable for his departure until Andy Burnham fights the Makerfield by-election. But that makes very little sense to me. Because, as I said on ITV’s News at Ten, the probability he can survive as PM, even if Burnham were to lose the by-election is low. This is what his cabinet colleagues and trade union leaders have made clear to him (and to me). So the timing and manner of his exit are now at the mercy of events, which makes him a lame duck prime minister - whose utterances about policy will barely be heard above the racket of speculation about how and when he will go. This would be humiliating for any PM, but perhaps doubly so for Starmer given that his genuine success in taking Labour to a landslide victory after the nadir of the 2019 election would risk being forgotten and ignored if his last weeks in office are spectacularly chaotic. The limitations on his power are already conspicuous. As his closest colleagues tell me, he was only powerful enough to do the most limited and unambitious of reshuffles to fill the vacancy at health created by Wes Streeting’s resignation - although the disaster of last week’s elections would have been the trigger for a more comprehensive reshaping of the Cabinet if the PM were stronger. Starmer lacks the authority to force any of his ministers to move or leave the government. It’s telling that the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood kept her job even after her allies briefed she told the PM his time is up, and that Streeting dictated the timing of his own resignation, even though his enforcers were actively briefing against the PM. In the Cabinet, the prime minister is supposed to be the first among equals. In Starmer’s case, scrap “the first” and maybe insert “second”. Also, resignations and sackings have over months left his Downing Street team depleted. As even his friends tell me, few want to take a career risk by working for him, partly because of the open secret that he won’t be in post much longer (and partly because the Whitehall zeitgeist is that he is the worst kind of delegator, one who insists on delegating but then shows little loyalty or understanding when things go wrong). So what’s the alternative to him being in office but not in power, as it were? Perhaps he should emulate Tony Blair, despite many in his party having repudiated the Blair years. In September 2006, Blair announced he would resign within a year and he stood down the following June. This longer timetable meant Blair wasn’t tainted by the chaos of unexpected immediate elections. And because the election schedule was dictated by him rather than by factors beyond his control, he looked commensurately stronger. He appeared to be the master of events, not the victim. The “will he? won’t he?” about Starmer last week was exhausting just to narrate, as I had to do. Goodness knows how bad it was for the main protagonist, Starmer. To be clear, any PM that says he’s off is weakened by that very pledge. But Starmer might actually have even less authority in today’s limbo, where everyone but he acknowledges the reality that he is a short-dated stock.

@GordonFielden @ClickyB Self-serving Labour MPs: enough of your treacherous chaos and disloyal backstabbing. You owe your seats to Starmer’s landslide victory. Now is not the time for your petty leadership plots. Wind your necks in, get behind him and fix the damage, or get out. Your MP on? PLEASE RT.

Rachel Reeves said the move forms part of the government’s economic response to ensuring that UK families' finances do not suffer from international events.

NEW: Families across the UK are set to benefit from a VAT cut on children’s meals, family entertainment and attractions as part of Labour’s Great British Summer Savings.

@Channel4News 82%

UK net migration down almost 50% to 171,000 channel4.com/news/uk-net-mi…

@KenLeft @JanetMobbs @Hepworthclare @johnmcdonnellMP Yes, it is my opinion. That is precisely the point. I do not have to agree. The difference is that facts and history support my position on these matters.

@GordonFielden @JanetMobbs @Hepworthclare @johnmcdonnellMP A set of views I share- & I could just as easily say that the arguments in your posts are simply "your view". Clearly, after the '10 results Labour couldn't stay with Blairism anymore or- as David would have done- have gone FURTHER right, & fought elections on 50s Tory policies.

It’s the 120th anniversary of the adoption of the name the Labour Party. Today, there’s a growing call across the Labour & trade union movement about the need to restore democracy & members’ rights in the Party. If you agree, sign up to the statement in Richard’s message below.

Is the man whom Labour members least want also the man whom Britain most needs? My newest piece, arguing that Prime Minister-in-waiting Andy Burnham should make Wes Streeting his Chancellor — and why his entire premiership may just depend on it. Link below! 👇

I would rather we said no to the pair of them and kept Keir Starmer from #labourpartymember

This by-election is an anti-politics revolt #Echobox=1779387981" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">thetimes.com/comment/column…

The Labour Party is inhabiting three different parallel universes. The prime minister has had a good week. Andy Burnham is sticking to the fiscal rules and migration reforms. Wes Streeting is for squeezing the elites with a wealth tax. theguardian.com/politics/2026/…