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.

[Syt]

Just saw that Giorgia Meloni is one of the longest (uninterruptedly) serving post-war Prime Ministers of Italy, coming up on 4 years. Meanwhile in the UK has had four since she came to office (she assumed office a few days before Liz Truss left).

Was a time this used to be reversed.

[The Brain]

Just saw that Giorgia Meloni is one of the longest (uninterruptedly) serving post-war Prime Ministers of Italy, coming up on 4 years. Meanwhile in the UK has had four since she came to office (she assumed office a few days before Liz Truss left).

Was a time this used to be reversed.

The incompetence of British PMs make their removal a matter of some urgency.

[Josquius]

I'm a little confused about Miliband as foreign secretary. That doesn't seem to be his area. He was doing well with energy and letting him expand on that would have been the way to go.
Chagos with Ed Miliband?
A senior holding position with the promise he will get the other half of the split treasury role when those reforms happen?
Cynical/tactical move aimed at Israel and that being a key cause of Labour losing votes on the left?

[Sheilbh]

Just saw that Giorgia Meloni is one of the longest (uninterruptedly) serving post-war Prime Ministers of Italy, coming up on 4 years. Meanwhile in the UK has had four since she came to office (she assumed office a few days before Liz Truss left).

Was a time this used to be reversed.

It's a joke that does the rounds a fair bit - especially with climate meaning we also have quite hot summers and a football team that in recent years has been relatively regularly going deep into tournaments

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

I think with the full title it tends to sound less cool - so Wajid Khan is already in the Lords as Lord Khan of Burnley. And I suspect Sadiq will be Lord Khan of Tooting

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

Maybe, most people aren't paying attention to politics so you do need to push like this and also you only get to make a first impression once - so a bit of action on cost of living is good. But also to be honest my main sense was that it was sort of a reminder of what a government with a comms strategy looks like Obviously they will be blown off course and they're not able to set the agenda and there'll be days in the Downing Street bunker like for all governments.

I'd add on this that short-form video is the way media consumption is going right now and Burnham has been good at those. I think the difference between Starmer and Burnham purely as a communicator/vibes-bearer is really interesting. I suspect Burnham will basically re-badge a lot of things Starmer was doing and because Starmer's government was shit at communication present them as something new - Darren Jones will snipe about it like the last Japanese soldier in Borneo. But for example his first speech at Downing Street yesterday (in short-form from his account):
https://x.com/andyburnham/status/2079214027788476800?s=20

[Sheilbh]

I'm a little confused about Miliband as foreign secretary. That doesn't seem to be his area. He was doing well with energy and letting him expand on that would have been the way to go.
Chagos with Ed Miliband?
A senior holding position with the promise he will get the other half of the split treasury role when those reforms happen?

They wanted to get him out of energy because he's a problem there (especially if you want Jonathan Reynolds back at business in a beefed up role). Personally I think one of the unfortunate consequences of leaving the EU is that we can't dispose of Miliband by making him a Commissioner.

Foreign Secretary is a "great office of state" which will help assuage his ego at being removed and not getting the Treasury. But you're right it is odd - a bit like Streeting at Defence - in that it's not really an area he's focused on before. Having said that, the positive spin for Miliband is that Burnham wants to spend less time on foreign policy than Starmer did to avoid the "never here Keir" lines so Foreign Secretary may matter more. Practically speaking I'm dubious that's the case - because there are so many meetings of world leaders nowadays I think the interpersonal relationship at the top has become more important than it's ever been (I think this is a bad thing and one of a few negatives from world leaders meeting so regularly) so practically all PMs end up having to be their own Foreign Secretaries.

Also on Burnham's plan there - all PMs start with the ambition of being domestically focused and end up focusing on foreign policy. In part because it's the refuge of a PM with low or dwindling political capital at home, and it's a stage where they're treated with (to their mind) an appropriate degree of respect (instead of getting barracked by members of the public/backbenchers) - so as premierships go on they tend to spend more time on foreign policy because they spend their capital at home. But also I've read about several PMs who had zero interest in it on entering office and by the end find it the most interesting/engaging bit of the job - I wouldn't be surprised if that happens with Burnham.

I also think there's a bit of a power play going on. Miliband was basically PM for a lot of Starmer's premiership. There was an awful lot of briefing about how and why Miliband needed to be Chancellor. There were lots of articles noting that Andy Burnham didn't have a staff or a team around him - only a few aides that he was "lent" by Ed Miliband and how they were in very close contact. If he then became Chancellor then I think that stuff around Ed Miliband, Shadow Prime Minister, would only intensify and weaken Burnham - on day one. Those briefings might not have been coming from Ed himself (but he's a very experienced operator) - but I think just as an assertion of power this is probably a smart move from Burnham because the Foreign Secretary is not going to be Shadow PM. And it also turned out that Andy Burnham did have his own team he could put in place - again including a fair few names no-one had expected (like James Purnell).

[garbon]

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

Maybe, most people aren't paying attention to politics so you do need to push like this and also you only get to make a first impression once - so a bit of action on cost of living is good. But also to be honest my main sense was that it was sort of a reminder of what a government with a comms strategy looks like Obviously they will be blown off course and they're not able to set the agenda and there'll be days in the Downing Street bunker like for all governments.

I think it wasn't great that even Sally Nugent was able to poke obvious holes into Jonathan Reynolds pitch on BBC Breakfast (so you are saying this is savings on average of £45 per year but this is only funded for 6 months; what about rise in energy prices with Iran war; people with large homes and high electricity use are the ones most likely to see the benefit) and then Darren Jones tweeted out his saltiness about how digital IDs had not yet been funded so this is actually an unfunded policy so far.

I was paying attention to the news and I'm entirely unsure how much the average person (for whom even just £45 would make a big difference) will actually see in savings vs. government saying it is doing something.

[Norgy]

From abroad, Burnham's vibe of "many mistakes were made in the 1980s" is just what the centre-left needs and wants.