Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

Two (potentially contradictory) questions re: Healey:

1. Since he was a senior minister in Starmer's cabinet (I assume Defence is senior), I assume he was somewhat aligned with Starmer at one point. Is there an element of bringing more disparate Labour factions together with the appointment?

2. Since Healey was fairly central in getting the ball rolling on Starmer's resignation, perhaps there's a degree of mutual alignment between Burnham and Healey?

Bonus third question for Sheilbh: you called Healey's former role "Secretary of Defence". Is that the official title? Not "Minister of Defence"?

It's probably "Secretary of State for Defence".

[Sheilbh]

Two (potentially contradictory) questions re: Healey:

1. Since he was a senior minister in Starmer's cabinet (I assume Defence is senior), I assume he was somewhat aligned with Starmer at one point. Is there an element of bringing more disparate Labour factions together with the appointment?

Yes and no. I think yes in a broad sense, but he has also been far more brutal in firing Starmer loyalists than I expected (which I think is one of the reasons he may go for an early election).

I've said before but I think in actual policy terms in many ways Burnham may be the right of Starmer - but policy is the least important thing in politics and vibes matter.

He's also re-appointed Jonathan Reynolds to Business Secretary (demoted to Chief Whip by Starmer) - but boosted as DSIT scrapped so science, industry and technology move under Business and digital moves into Culture, Media and Sport (which Nandy kept), Angela Rayner () is back at Housing. Very pleased to see Bridget Philipson removed from Education (moved to equalities and replaced by Lucy Powell). Streeting to Defence is interesting.

I think the most exciting from my pov is Miatta Fahnbulleh as Energy and Net Zero Secretary as she's very good - one for the future.

2. Since Healey was fairly central in getting the ball rolling on Starmer's resignation, perhaps there's a degree of mutual alignment between Burnham and Healey?

100%. I cannot think of a more politically effective resignation.

Bonus third question for Sheilbh: you called Healey's former role "Secretary of Defence". Is that the official title? Not "Minister of Defence"?

So there is a really nerdy answer  on this The direct answer is that they are kind of used interchangeably but the official title is Secretary of State for Defence (all British cabinet minister, more or less, are Secretary of State for [insert department name]).

The nerdy answer is that in the case of the MoD and Ministry of Defence it is a legacy of historic roles in Britain. So the first "military" cabinet member is First Lord of the Admiralty - which was one of the earliest governmental roles, like First Lord of the Treasury (which became Prime Minister). Then during the Napoleonic Wars the Secretary of State for War is created and their responsibility is, broadly speaking the Army. Then in the interwar period there is a Secretary of State for Air which is because Britain decides it's going to establish a strategic independent RAF (i.e. not a purely tactical force that exists within the navy and the army). Those roles no longer exist - but the military roles still exist, say, First Sea Lord, Chief of the General Staff, Chief of the Air Staff and, chairing them, Chief of the Defence Staff.

The Ministry of Defence emerges as a role that is responsible for coordinating between those separate mistries the Admiralty, the Department of War and the Air Ministry. It assume even more importance in the Second World War when Churchill becomes Minister of Defence as well as Prime Minister and basically the Minister of Defence role shifts from just being coordinating to, in some sense, setting the strategic goals/grand strategy stuff. So it's a bit like a defence world version of the PM - they don't actually have an operational department underneath them, but they are first among equals with corralling the service ministries. That continues until the 60s when the service ministries are abolished and consolidated into the Ministry of Defence so they become Secretary of State for Defence. But it's still the MoD not the Department for Defence - like, say, the Department for Education, or Communities, Housing and Local Government (PM's can just make up entirely new cabinet departments on the hoof). And you still commonly get Defence Minister, Minister of Defence as well as Defence Secretary and most formally Secretary of State for Defence.

Edit: Also our first Evertonian Prime Minister - with Peter Reid in attendance at Downing Street to welcome him

Andy Burnham
@andyburnham
Let me say this officially: Up the Toffees 💙

Everton
@Everton
A Toffee at No.10. 💙

Congratulations to Andy Burnham on becoming the UK's Prime Minister. A lifelong Evertonian, long-time Hillsborough Law campaigner, regular @SFoodbanks donor and @EITC fundraiser.

Wishing you nothing but the best in your new role, @andyburnham. 👏

[Jacob]

Thanks!

I just read up on the lore of Hafnia sponsoring Everton too

[Sheilbh]

Won the league in that shirt - and it's a very nice design so a bit of a cult classic.

But yeah especially on a match day you will see people in Liverpool wearing a shirt with a Danish meat company(?) on it that no-one knows in Britain

I enjoy the more innocent days of sponsorship in sports before it was "CryptoGamble888"

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally outside of Westminster, Keir Starmer gave a peerage to Sadiq Khan, soon to be Lord Khan.

In part that's standard sort of patronage politics for a long-serving Labour figure but I also can't help but wonder if it's a gentle hint in year three of Khan's third term as mayor that he should maybe move on. Khan has always said that he would announce if he was running for a fourth term this year - so we'll see. The election will be in Spring 2028.

The reports are that James Cleverley fancies a go for the Tories and I think that he could do well - and would make a difference from the fairly weak candidates the Tories have had in the last couple of elections. But also there's a lot of reporting of different people in Labour fundraising and prepping for the possibility that there's a vacancy if Khan doesn't run. In particular Dawn Butler (who I quite like), also Rosena Allin-Khan (who succeeded Khan in his seat). There have been very long-standing rumours that David Lammy would be interested in a go at the mayoralty so it's interesting that he is one of the Starmer ultras who was fired from the cabinet tday and will, suddenly, have some time on his hands. From what I've read the view in Labour is that he should move on and let someone else have a go.

My own view is that Khan's been a pretty underwhelming mayor - I can't really think of any major achievements or policies or much of anything that he's really driven through in his almost 12 years of office. So I don't really think he deserves a fourth term - I like Butler and would probably want her as the candidate of those I've heard about. I'm not convinced by Lammy's time at FCDO or Justice - so I slightly worry he's not actually good at the executive stuff. Don't really have a view on Allin-Khan except that she maybe seems a little bit Al Carns - a very good press/PR operation.

[HisMajestyBOB]

"Lord Khan" sounds like the man who will found the Neo English-Mongol Empire. 

[crazy canuck]

We start worrying when he is put in charge of genetic therapy

[garbon]

This first policy on energy savings feels like it is getting a disproportionate push this morning.