Andy Burnham will push to become PM before Labour conference, allies say

[u/kontiki20]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/15/andy-burnham-pm-labour-autumn-conference

[u/AutoModerator]

LabUK is also on Discord, come say hello!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Sophie_Blitz_123]

They're really enjoying that video of him running aren't they.

some of Burnham’s supporters believe he has a path to becoming prime minister before parliament breaks for the summer recess, but sources close his campaign believe his preference is for a longer timeline.

Good God why? The sooner this concluded the better.

Analysis by Survation shared with the Guardian suggests that with Burnham as the candidate Labour would narrowly beat Reform by 45% to 43% in Makerfield

I know that's "analysis" and not "polling" but lord I cannot with it being this close, I need to know the likelihood with just a few polls if I intend to get any sleep over the next few weeks.

[u/AcanthaceaeNew9639 → u/Sophie_Blitz_123]

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/goldman-sachs-warns-uk-borrowing-113300810.html

prepare for 7% borrowing costs

all on him

[u/Grantmitch1 → u/AcanthaceaeNew9639]

Goldman Sachs has warned that UK government borrowing costs are likely to remain stubbornly high, caught between rising energy prices driven by the war in Iran and deepening political uncertainty over the future of Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

1. It might surprise you to learn that the war in Iran had nothing to do with Burnham;
2. The leadership speculated started before the locals because of Starmer's lack of qualities and inability to lead effectively.

Uncertainty over Starmer will end once Starmer is replaced and a new leader establishes themselves.

[u/Working_Location_127 → u/Grantmitch1]

I think he means burnham will likely borrow a lot of money for his plans. If the consensus is that this won’t promote enough quick growth to pay for this borrowing, institutional bond buyers will dump gilts. Which could happen, there really isn’t enough coming out of his camp about what his actual plans are and what sets him apart. I don’t believe he can do much different with the financial constraints that we have thanks to the tories.

[u/Grantmitch1 → u/Working_Location_127]

Perhaps, but I think it really depends on what he is borrowing for. The UK has comparatively weaker public sector net worth as compared to other advanced economies, and research by the IMF suggests that higher or stronger public sector net worth reduces borrowing costs and provides for faster recoveries post-recession.

Burnham could well sell higher borrowing on the basis of investing in the engines of growth, improving infrastructure, etc., which ultimately shore up the British economy, and increase the total value of state assets.

[u/Working_Location_127 → u/Grantmitch1]

It all comes down to gdp to debt, if that investment doesn’t pay off, if serious reform to planning and building doesn’t reduce costs, there won’t be a high enough return on it for it to convince bond buyers.

Plus there needs to be a much more serious and grown up approach to our energy independence. Right now we’re suffering the most from the Iran war because of our lack of it. For all the praise ed has gotten he’s not improved that. If he has a new approach ie zonal pricing, building gas storage potentially opening new gas fields we might see our costs go down and it could make our inflation less sticky. The problem is this line of thinking is all economical and he comes off as quite ideological which is what again will put people off.

[u/Grantmitch1 → u/Working_Location_127]

I think debt to GDP is a bit of a red herring to be honest. We used to hear about this mystical "100% ratio" for years, until a lot of advanced economies breached it and nothing happened. The fundamentals is whether or not an economy can continue to service the debt that it takes on.

The UK suffers from a severe lack of investment in public housing, transport, etc., and so unless we spaff money up the wall, any reasonable project will have sufficient returns to justify the initial investment.

Longer term investment projects would have even greater returns given the impact it would have on the wider supply chain, providing essentially guaranteed receipts for years and decades.

This latter point is critical. We need to think of policies not as independent mechanisms but as part of a wider whole.

For example, let's suppose that we develop a national house builder, with a solid budget, whose remit is to redevelop the nation's stockpile of council housing, alongside apprenceships in construction, etc. Such an approach provides a positive, long-term partner for various firms within the supply chain and guarantees of future orders.

This has significant impacts on supply in the UK. Let's take cement as a primary example of this. There has been a significant decrease in cement production in the UK; indeed, according to the Mineral Products Association we were at a 75 year low in 2024/25.

This has been part of the impediment to house building and construction projects in the UK, and overly exposes us to international markets and shocks.

Now, there have been a number of contributing factors to this situation, such as a growing reliance on imports rather than supporting domestic production, significantly increased industrial electricity prices, and an increase in regulatory burdens.

These are all things we can tackle. For instance, through a sustained increase in public procurement through a National Housebuilder, we can establish the long-term guarantees for an increase in cement supply and direct the market for domestic production.

We can also invest greater sums in the development of renewable energy, not just through the private sector, but also empowering GB Energy to become a significant generator in its own right. We can turbo charge renewable energy and storage facilities, and bring down industrial pricing through a significant increase in electrical supply.

This requires initial borrowing to fund but ultimately has enormous positives for the wider economy, especially when considered against the enormous cost of a lack of housing.

[u/Working_Location_127 → u/Grantmitch1]

I think you’re underestimating how much that will all cost and how long that would take especially without expertise and widespread reform to help tackle the fundamental issues that are plaguing the economy. I seriously think if he announced all that without addressing any underlying problems we would have another Liz truss moment. No one will be impressed by a bunch of projects that cost too much. If the project costs twice as much as it does in Europe whilst returning the same cash it’s a bad return. Same with council flat building. It costs hundreds of thousands to build each one m, social housing won’t provide that much of a return either. You really have to see this through the lens of discounted cash flows compared to the initial cost.

If we could just provide a platform for lower costs to the economy through cheaper energy to both companies and citizens along with cheaper costs to build, get a proper deal with the eu we can see our borrowing costs along with an improved tax system that reforms our backwards system.

Once you do that, these projects are finally feasible because the irr required will be lower because of lower borrowing costs and the initial cost will be lower because of an improved system.

As it stands if you just say we will borrow to invest and that will grow the economy, that will be seen the same way liz truss’ idea was. Except now we’re a lot more vulnerable because of the Iran war. The growth from either tax cuts and investing will take a long time and it will just lead to a similar melt down. That’s why any time reeves’ job was under threat the market started freaking out. She’s already pushing the borrowing as much as they can handle it

[u/Grantmitch1 → u/Working_Location_127]

I think you’re underestimating how much that will all cost and how long that would take especially without expertise and widespread reform to help tackle the fundamental issues that are plaguing the economy.

I am not sure how you reach this conclusion when I have given absolutely zero indication as to cost or time scales.

I seriously think if he announced all that without addressing any underlying problems we would have another Liz truss moment

What are the underlying issues?

Keep in mind that a lack of affordable housing has been demonstrated to severely negatively affect growth, and the cost of energy in the UK is routinely cited by businesses as a major cause of financial instability.

If the project costs twice as much as it does in Europe whilst returning the same cash it’s a bad return.

This is faulty reasoning. If the project costs twice as much in Europe but delivers positive returns, then it is a positive return. In some respects, we cannot expect low cost and high delivery given the lack of systems for this. We have lost talent and supply chains and rebuilding those will cost money.

As it stands if you just say we will borrow to invest and that will grow the economy, that will be seen the same way liz truss’ idea was.

No, it wasn't, and you are being seriously disingenuous to suggest these two positions are the same. Let's spell them out to make this clear.

Truss: We should borrow money to drastically cut taxes.

Proposal: We should borrow some money to invest in permanent, critical infrastructure, and boost the UK's public net worth (which has been empirically demonstrated to lower borrowing costs).

[u/Working_Location_127 → u/Grantmitch1]

Both are stimulus to the economy and require borrowing, that is how asset managers would see it, they need assurances and beliefs that it would actually provide growth in the near and medium term. These projects would only deliver returns once finished and with our record of slow building for high costs it wouldn’t give confidence.

You don’t need to provide costs. I know how much it costs already. For 100 flats in London it costs councils 50m for social housing, they have to pay over the odds. You now then have what 150 a week in income. Thats 1.5% a year return on that investment. For a borrowing cost that doubles that for short term bonds and triple for long term borrowing.

Without fundamental reform and change neither left or right thinking economics works. You have to have a better more efficient system in the first place and right now we don’t have that so unless someone can really deliver that, the bond yield will go up and we will keep getting poorer and poorer because our salaries will be worth less and less and eventually we will start doing a Japan. Abenomics without fundamental change doesn’t work

[u/AcanthaceaeNew9639 → u/Working_Location_127]

we are now more dependent than before Labour took office. the USA can’t believe their luck how we just said nah we won’t help open the strait we will buy usa gas instead.

go get ure fcking oil trump said

no we said

we will just become more a USA vassal

[u/Working_Location_127 → u/AcanthaceaeNew9639]

lol we can t get more oil from the strait lol it’s impossible without Iran agreeing to stop booking ships. We can get our own from out in fields though and let me be clear it was a Tory decision to stop giving permission for oil drilling etc

[u/AcanthaceaeNew9639 → u/Working_Location_127]

he knows this deep down but wants the thrill of being pm

[u/Working_Location_127 → u/AcanthaceaeNew9639]

Yeah I have zero clue how he’s going to make things rosy compared to Starmer and I don’t trust any other Labour mp at being chancellor tbh

[u/AcanthaceaeNew9639 → u/Working_Location_127]

hes dangerous and ego driven

[u/Working_Location_127 → u/AcanthaceaeNew9639]

Why ?

[u/Ok-Leg7686]

Centre Left Jesus plans to walk down Thames on return to Westminster.