Burnham vs Starmer: Slim pickings either way

Keir Starmer and his government have been roundly despised since the very beginning of his time in No.10. His approval tanked like few PMs in living memory.

It’s not hard to see why:

• Disability payment cuts
• Refusal to negotiate on the Birmingham bin strikes
• Abandoning pensioners in a winter energy poverty crisis
• Providing military intelligence and diplomatic support to Zionist genocide war-crimes
• Racist scapegoating
• Appointing Jeffrey Epstien’s “best friend” to ambassador

The list goes on…

Now, add to that Starmer’s general treachery and disregard for honesty and public wellbeing, and we’re left with a clear picture of widespread contempt. It’s fair to say that few will miss him, across the political compass.

As Starmer appears set to exit, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is touted as a sensible, moderate replacement for PM — if only he can navigate a sinister NEC.

The ‘Big Burnham’ push

Burnham is considered by many to be on Labour’s “soft-left,” somewhat removed from Westminster bubble thinking, and representing a popular, alternative vision of Labourism. With his routine floating as PM replacement for months now, it almost feels like a done deal.

But now it’s really happening. His Wigan-based colleague, journalist intimidator Josh Simons MP, stepped down and publicly told him to run for the top spot.

This might be a welcome turn of events for some on the left — less right-wing is always better, no? Novara Media are hard-soft-backing Burnham; no doubt the Guardian will anoint him Keir’s heir. He is floated as the only positively-rated politician in Britain.

But I suggest that Burnham should not be considered a progressive or any-type “left” voice. I first had doubts about Burnham when he refused to comment on the bloody business dealings of Gulf oligarchs whose money he gladly funnels into Manchester (see circa 0:33 mins):

Video excerpt from an August 2022 episode of Pod Save the UK — via PSTUK / YouTube

That Man City’s owner is now under intense scrutiny for funding atrocities in Sudan.

Why Burnham is not in the ‘Mainstream’

Barely a year into Starmer’s premiership, a new political organisation named Mainstream was co-founded within Labour. Burnham and Clive Lewis were co-founders alongside others committed, at least in pixels, to a “democratic socialist future.”

So far, so good? Sure — it would be swell if Labour was less ragingly right-wing. Fewer drab Starmer Speeches would be welcome. Clive Lewis offering to sacrifice his own seat to achieve that suggests a degree of principle I won’t scoff at.

But I simply don’t think Burnham will deliver that future. To understand why I’m poo-pooing Burnham, who is no doubt popular across much of Greater Manchester. That said, Reform UK are now too.

Much of what he supports, or has historically supported, is in fact widely unpopular — even if the man himself is well liked. His historical record in office makes my case.

Burnham’s burning record

In 2003, Burnham voted to declare an entirely and foreseeably disastrous war on Iraq. He also backed the notoriously debunked UN Security Council resolution pressuring the country to disarm weapons it didn’t have, three weeks prior.

That war killed at least one million Iraqis, triggered societal collapses, enabled endemic corruption, and cost the lives of many British soldiers and civilians alike. Oh, and he also voted against the inquiry into that war.

He’s not alone in that, having joined Labour Friends of Israel. He wasn’t quiet about his “friendship”, labelling the peaceful, righteous BDS movement “spiteful” and praising the Balfour Declaration. Incredibly, he called Israel a beacon of democracy with “a long history of protecting minorities and promoting civil rights.” Yeah, right (-wing).

He’s made conciliatory statements around Palestine  — Middle East Eye makes a more sympathetic case for him. But he hasn’t, for example, pressured Greater Manchester Pension Fund to divest its many millions from Israeli genocide and apartheid, like it did against apartheid in white-dominated South Africa.

Burnham was even criticised by arch-neoliberal Cameron’s government for “posturing” against NHS privatisation, while supporting it during the Blair-Brown years. Not to mention he’s remained comfortably prominent through Blairism, Corbynism and now Starmerism (if something so definable exists), suiting himself to each guise.

Never trust a shapeshifter

I’m not deluded enough to think that Burnham isn’t popular and he would be better than Starmer – it’s not a high bar. If Burnham wins and gives us all proportional representation, I’ll eat my words. But I don’t trust Burnham’s promises.

How can I trust someone who votes for an illegal, murderous war based on lies, flip-flops between both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian coloniser-colonised dynamic, and backs NHS privatisation.

It’s clearly not just me that mistrusts Burnham — or, at least, I hold actual knowledge about Burnham’s record against his constant aura-branding. The public shouldn’t based on his record, like him as much as much as they do. How can we forget the millions who marched against the Iraq war — millions marched against the Iraq War, most Britons dislike Israel, and 84% support a publicly owned, socialised NHS.

Covering the Gorton and Denton by-election in February, I met Labour-gone-Green and Labour-gone-Reform voters alike. Many said they would’ve voted for Burnham if he wasn’t blocked. Many cited his well-branded ‘Bee’ bus network and capped fares, his Covid-era posturing or his supposed personal charisma/brand/vision. Some liked his so-called “Manchesterism.”

But we’ve seen where Labour’s fluid, PR-branding politics gets us — exactly where we are today.

When Burnham tried and failed to stand against Jeremy Corbyn for leadership in 2015, he did so on a vacuous platform of “big change” — sound familiar? It’s almost as if the Starmer script was written in advance by the Blairite-Mandelson core, and they tried to run it sooner but failed. Now, it seems, they will fail again.

Burnham might be a shot better than Starmer, sure. But don’t be fooled into thinking he can be trusted. Why trust a man who’s shape-shifted so often throughout his career? He’ll only shift again.

Featured image via the Canary

By Cameron Baillie

Source link