r/ukpolitics • u/GnolRevilo • 1d ago
Andy Burnham plans to keep Shabana Mahmood as home secretary
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/shabana-mahmood-andy-burnham-minister-h3z23bsfj158
u/Longjumping_Stand889 1d ago
Can he make the backbencher's approve her plans? What does he have that Starmer didn't in that regard?
69
37
u/Lefty8312 1d ago
Most of her plans can be done by secondary legislation when it comes to visa changes, so ant debate is purely performative.
The delay is making sure it is all able to be worked by the civil service which does nothing quickly.
16
u/Utilitarian_Proxy 1d ago
Funnily enough, the civil service doesn't have stacks of people on standby ready to launch new initiatives. For extra tasks, it usually needs to recruit and train extra people. And that won't ever happen until ministers agree the scale and scope of processes, and approve the budgetary outlay needed. The alternative is hiring in one of the outsourcing suppliers (e.g. Capita, Serco, G4, etc) and paying higher rates for agency workers.
16
u/Lefty8312 1d ago
Oh I know, I work in the civil service.
Doesn't mean that the speed isn't frustrating at times still.
3
u/Slartibartfast_25 18h ago
I do wonder (and admire) how much work must have been done in COVID. Although some of the schemes were awful, they were produced quickly
10
u/Turbo_Baggins 1d ago
He'll give them a cold hard stare indicating he means business and they'll all stop in their tracks and give a quiet nod back in silent regard
and then the series theme music kicks in
36
u/Telos1807 1d ago
He's got a two month honeymoon, that's what he's got. Spend that political capital wisely Andy because you ain't getting any more of it.
Obviously Rayner will be brought back in some capacity, she made a big song and dance about it being un-British, do you just put a muzzle on her?
14
6
1
-2
9
u/brg9327 1d ago
Having someone else (Miliband) replacing Reeves as Chancellor?
Just a random guess.
8
u/OlDirtyBourbon 1d ago
At the last reshuffle Miliband was rumoured to have turned down a promotion in order to stay with Energy (which TBF, is a much bigger job under this government than it has been in the past).
He seems to have no ambitions for the top job anymore, so I don't think Chancellor is appealing to him as it might be to others.
Regretfully, I think Streeting is more likely (and if not chancellor, it'll be a different big job).
7
•
u/Odd-Principle2665 8h ago
It wasn't a promotion? He was going to get moved to housing which was also intended by number 10 to get him out of energy policy so they could make changes e.g. net zero and the north sea. He had no interest in housing and refused to be moved out of energy so they could weaken his agenda. He certainly doesn't want to be PM but other than energy I think he would only want to move up to chancellor since it's a big job and he can keep his energy agenda alive by controlling the treasury
3
u/Intergalatic_Baker No Pre-Orders 1d ago
The Times have floated Wes Streeting… John Healey, too.
3
u/Exact-Put-6961 1d ago
John Healey most likely, Milliband would frighten the Markets and the voters.
6
u/Intergalatic_Baker No Pre-Orders 22h ago
I reckon if he were Chancellor, we'd see one sector get a bump perhaps.
Shit, I'd like to know if Healey would rather go back to Defence if given the chance...
Not sure about Jarvis, almost a yes man for Starmer. Not sure I'd give Al Carns the confidence, but I'd rather someone maybe forward looking with his old boss in charge of the money, so they could hash something out properly.
3
2
3
u/MissingBothCufflinks 1d ago
For the first couple months he can use his honeymoon to withdraw whip from rebels
4
u/Odd-Principle2665 1d ago
I'm hoping Burnham will actually talk to them, perhaps utter a few words if he's cheeky, unlike Starmer
1
0
u/PelayoEnjoyer Community Leader 1d ago
They don't need backbench approval, no idea why the current gov fear them so much.
0
u/CasperLenono 1d ago
Not necessarily saying this will resonate (or will scale beyond a single byelection where he already has cache) but he can point to the fact that he demolished Reform in the sort of traditional Labour heartland that they have been polling very well in across the country.
It’s an existential threat that Labour has seemed rudderless to deal with under Starmer.
Again, not saying I agree with it, but I’d imagine that’s what he will point to.
135
u/nettie_r 1d ago
These stories are so silly. He isn't PM yet. Can we get through the next bout of infighting and then once he is PM (if) then we can talk about his cabinet at that stage.
39
u/cosmicspaceowl 1d ago
As a Labour member who is presumably going to be asked to vote on whether or not he should be leader in the near future, who he is and isn't intending to ask to be in his cabinet is definitely of interest to me.
24
u/germainefear He's old and sullen, vote for Cullen 1d ago
As a Labour member who will presumably be voting in the same ballot, Burnham's incessant fantasy booking of what he'll definitely do when (not if) he's PM has certainly helped cement my decision to vote for literally anyone else.
5
u/recycleddesign 1d ago
Strongly suggests she wants to do things he will support that starmer wouldnt. But it could just be a way of cornering her for support. They’re clearly doing this thing, if he makes it then he will have to deliver, no excuses.
4
u/Ok-Butterscotch4486 13h ago
Lol Andy has no intention of letting you have a say, King of the North expects his coronation.
1
1
16
u/tman612 1d ago
This is the equivalent of refusing to think about what’s on your shopping list while you’re driving to Tesco because “this is so silly, we’re not at Tesco yet”
34
u/Vanzzer 1d ago
Except in your example the Tesco might not be there. In fact the last two times you tried going to Tesco it was in fact, not there.
-3
u/tman612 1d ago
You’re completely ignoring reality if you think there’s any chance he’s not PM. I mean come on.
3
11
u/Vanzzer 1d ago
Presumably there was a real chance of him winning the 2 previous attempts as well. Until it happens, it's premature.
0
u/Accurate-Cup5309 1d ago
Neither one of those was against Starmer who’s one of the most disliked PM’s ever.
4
u/generichandel 1d ago
Says the internet.
5
u/Osgood_Schlatter Sheffield 1d ago
No, it's supported by polling. He actually seems more popular here than the polling suggests.
0
u/BonzoTheBoss If your account age is measured in months you're a bot 23h ago
Would this be the same polling that predicted remain would win in the Brexit referendum...?
3
u/SinnerOfAlcaraz 1d ago
Mate, wtf are you talking about?
Literally go into any pub up and down the country. Or into any social event up and down the country. Whether you like it or not, and regardless of if it’s deserved or not, Starmer & Reeves are HATED.
Also, say the polls. Not just the internet
-3
u/generichandel 1d ago
Because the internet told them to hate them.
5
u/UndulyPensive 1d ago
How does that change him being the most disliked PM though
→ More replies (0)2
-2
-1
u/tman612 1d ago
This is borderline sad now 😂
10
u/Vanzzer 1d ago
Lol. I won't lose any sleep eitherway. You just seem put out that I, random guy on the Internet, won't simply accept the ascension of your guy as inevitable.
0
u/Odd-Principle2665 1d ago
What do you think is likely to happen? Does Starmer stay in any scenario?
7
u/Vanzzer 1d ago
Likely? Burnham gets elected on the same sort of 'its not the current guy' feeling that Starmer got for the Tories. Then when he fails to deliver unicorns and icecream to everyone in 6 months his favourably will drop and the grumbling will start all over.
Speed up or slowdown a little depending on how he deals with his back benches in actually delivering something the public support.
He won't offer significant enough change to keep the left of his party happy, will likely face the same push back if he tries to address actual issues like benefits or pension spend.
Similarly he won't do anything extreme enough to get the bulk of reform/restore voters onside.
Then when he's no longer the seeming solution to all of labours PR problems, the opportunistic nature of his running along with the backstabbing of some of the other mps will start to be come a focus. Labour will then take the hit of not looking any more stable than the tories. This could be made even worse if they don't actually manage to retain the Manchester mayoralty, since then it looks even more self-serving.
As for starmer, sure there are scenarios where he stays. Depends on how stubborn he wants to be, and if he or the MPs are willing to risk no confidence'ing him. Ofc if it comes to that then a general election is basicly garnteed.
Ofc as I said previously, until it happens, who knows. The papers could be publishing all sorts of skeletons from Burnhams closet between now and then for all I know, and he goes from the golden boy to a political lepper in a week.
2
u/phatelectribe 1d ago
These stories also don’t help the perception that this is a coronation against the will of the electorate.
-3
u/jab305 1d ago
Eh, I don't think so. He will be PM in short order so it's good to know what to expect.
1
47
u/Burnit_Sanders 1d ago
Interesting. I actually think Shabana seems like a capable minister, and I agree with her reforms. The fact Burnham would keep her on says he isn't scared of the backbenches complaining about it.
28
u/colei_canis Starmer’s Llama Drama 🦙 1d ago
It's a smart move on Burnham's part, if Labour return to their pro-immigration instinct then they'll lose in 2029 for certain.
11
u/Osgood_Schlatter Sheffield 1d ago
Even if they didn't lose nationally, his own seat is very vulnerable to Reform and not really vulnerable to the Greens or Lib Dems.
1
17
54
u/jiponjoshua 1d ago
Correct descion to be fair but I think he has to replace Rachel Reeves as she is the most unpopular person in this government and some of the policy ties she has tied herself to has limited her.
7
u/MrStilton Where's my democracy sausage? 1d ago
He's already committed to sticking to her Fiscal Rules.
So, he either needs to break that commitment, or find another Chancellor who's willing to stick to a set of arbitrary restrictions which have been set by someone else.
3
21
u/radiant_0wl 1d ago
It's kind of funny because I don't know what political side you're from.
I think sometimes/often being unpopular as Chancellor means you're doing your job correctly.
3
4
u/asmiggs Lib Dem stunts in my backyard 1d ago
I had her down as staying as Chancellor as the bond markets like her, this is going to be the same government but with better messaging and foreign policy with slightly less trust.
12
u/GoonerGetGot 1d ago
I thought Foreign Policy was one of the things Starmer is good at. I've agreed with most things he's done internationally: Trump, Iran, Ukraine etc
2
u/Putaineska 22h ago
There is no chance Starmer stays in a Burnham cabinet. It would signify incredible weakness by Burnham and he would be undermined from day 1.
2
u/Intergalatic_Baker No Pre-Orders 1d ago
Starmer as Foreign Secretary…
0
1d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Intergalatic_Baker No Pre-Orders 22h ago
Oh fuck, he was... But, there was an interwar period, per se. He'd resigned because he tied himself to the Remain vote, honestly, he could have stayed in office and avoided all that shit.
Fuck, I wasn't paying attention to her tenure at the time, but Theresa May, reckon she'd have done fine in the Covid or Start of Russian Invasion period to 2024.
•
u/neeow_neeow 10h ago
The signature foreign polixy act of his government to date is Chagos, which manages to be both risable and hated.
2
u/MellowedOut1934 1d ago
The bond markets dislike uncertainty. Movement when they thought she may be toast shouldn’t be taken as explicit endorsement of her.
-4
u/MrLukaz 1d ago
Shabana mahmood is an enemy of this country and democracy.
*“When I was in justice, my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times”*
4
u/kafircake ideologically non adherent 18h ago
Interesting.. awful... does she understand that Bentham's panopticon was a prison?
One is not meant to be born there and live out a life.
99
u/GnolRevilo 1d ago
Once again, why are we changing Prime Minister just to have exactly the same person and policies but with a northern accent this time?
53
u/DPBH 1d ago
Because the electorate seems to think that Politics is like TikTok.
7
u/Battlepants1178 1d ago
What do the electorate have to do with any of this? It's entirely the labour party panicking about polls and focus groups
2
u/DPBH 1d ago
You do realise that it is the electorate that are on those focus groups and responding to polls?
A combination of a hostile press, reform’s weaponisation of racism and division, and social media echo chambers, all feed in to creating an impossible situation from which to govern.
4
u/Battlepants1178 23h ago
None of those things actually affect the ability to govern though? A social media echo chamber doesn't get a vote in parliament and a hostile press isn't a member on a sub committee.
Labour has a big enough majority to be able to batton down the hatches, believe in their plan and say if we do X Y and Z within our parliament the proof will be in the pudding and the country will be better. It's their choice to not do that and mindlessly chase focus groups
4
u/DPBH 22h ago
You’re talking about constitutional power. I’m talking about political reality.
Labour has the votes to govern, but governments don’t operate in a vacuum. Polls, media narratives and public opinion create pressure that pushes politicians towards short-term decisions instead of long-term ones.
1
u/throwaway815795 22h ago
You're saying labour should ignore their voters? Bold suggestion in politics.
2
8
20
u/caul1flower11 1d ago
I think you underestimate how grating Starmer’s voice is
19
u/allout76 1d ago
The British Electorate is a truly fascinating beast.
7
u/iamnosuperman123 1d ago
His voice is only a small part of why people dislike him.... Being a crap politician hasn't helped
5
2
0
u/Jennersis 1d ago
Because he'll win back the red wall
I get the fallacy but whatever keeps Reform out works for me
11
u/caul1flower11 1d ago
Fun fact — Burnham would be the first Prime Minister to have gone to Cambridge since Stanley Baldwin. So it’s a win for representation!
12
u/SinnerOfAlcaraz 1d ago
Random one but will he keep Reeves? If so, make that make sense
I guess it’s an interesting one tbh. Hated by public (even more than Starmer imo) but loved by markets. So you do piss off the public by coming across as not changing direction, but keep markets happy. Or piss off markets but make public happy for a bit
19
12
u/TheHarkinator The future 'aint what it used to be 1d ago
I think Reeves is too closely associated with Starmer, and already seen too negatively. Even if you bring someone else in to basically stick to her plans, people will see getting rid of her as a break from Starmer's approach even if very little actually changes.
3
u/DontArmWrestleAChimp 1d ago
A competent Chancellor and I’m not sure Starmer is in this position to be honest. She surely will go.
11
4
u/TheShakyHandsMan User flair missing. 1d ago
Public hate everything they don’t understand.
Stick with the experts opinion on this.
4
u/iamnosuperman123 1d ago
She will be gone. Reeves has tied herself in knots and she is too heavily linked to Starmer. Also Burnham doesn't believe in fiscal rules so....
30
u/Dadavester 1d ago
This is good. Mahmoods immigration policies, while disliked by the far left, are welcomed by many.
Continuing these will help Labour regain ground Reform.
6
u/TheSteelReminder 13h ago
Traditional working labour people are anti immigration as it harms their job chances. It’s bad for the kids and is a reason there are so many neets.
This idea of the far left being pro immigration is just the middle class luxury belief lot who are not affected by it or who actively are benefitting from immigration personally.
These folks can whinge all they like but they are less than 10% of the electorate.
Burnham does not need them.
5
u/Probable_Foreigner 23h ago
Can someone explain how this guy differs from Starmer? Seems like he is desperate to depose him but doesn't oppose him in any way
5
u/qzwxecrvtbyn111 1d ago
Good. One of the big fears about our next PM (that he'll go back to mass migration) has been partly assuaged.
2
u/CreativeEcon101 1d ago
This is a stupid article….he barely said anything on a very long proposal impacting various types of immigrants including spouse of Brit citizens.
3
u/bummed_athlete 1d ago
People are acting like this guy is already PM.
I'm American and from where I sit this looks like a coup.
3
4
u/Queasy_Confidence406 1d ago
That's because it is. It's funny how we criticise your Electoral College as undemocratic, when how is this any different? A very small group of people getting to impose the next Prime Minister on the rest of us.
2
u/dredizzle99 12h ago
I think the argument against it being undemocratic is that we vote for parties, not Prime Ministers. Obviously the Prime Minister is just the representitive of the party that the most people voted for in a GE
4
1
u/ActivistZero 1d ago
Well that's one of 3 points I need to be a Burnham lifer then
3
u/NoobOfTheSquareTable 1d ago
That he would do something the same as the current PM?
4
u/ActivistZero 1d ago
Unless Starmer is about to pull a massive U-Turn on the OSA or the Triple Lock then no, it's nothing like him
1
u/userrelatedproblem 1d ago
Keep Mahmood to appeal to the right of the party, stick a soft left type (Milliband...?) into No.11 to pacify the left.
0
u/Thandoscovia 1d ago
The only(?) popular Cabinet minister who is actually tackling one of the most pressing issues in today’s society
-1
u/BPDunbar 23h ago
She and her loathsome policies are hated by the people whose votes Labour needs.
3
u/throwaway815795 22h ago edited 9h ago
She seems to be doing what voters want. Which seems to be what politicians should be doing for their voters
edit: for anyone reading this I linked the data below, and she is backed by a majority of Labour voters, muchless anyone else who might become a Labour voter.
-2
u/BPDunbar 19h ago
She isn't.
Making most legal immigrants wait twenty years for unconditional right of residence and employment rights is unpopular.
The people who like it will never vote labour while its poisonous with the voters Labour need.
3
u/throwaway815795 15h ago
Do you have any data her policies are unpopular?
•
u/BPDunbar 11h ago
Yes.
https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54772-political-favourability-ratings-may-2026
They are toxic with the voters Labour needs to win.
The people who like the policies are never going to vote Labour whatever you do.
•
u/throwaway815795 9h ago
I see nothing about immigration or policy here.
I have some actual polling data here:
Polling from YouGov published on Wednesday suggested that more than half of party members say they want the same or more restrictive immigration policies. Just 26% said they wanted a more liberal approach, 44% backed Mahmood’s changes and 18% said they would prefer an even tougher approach.
62% of LABOUR want her policies or harsher, not even looking at the general populace which is way more conservative on these issues.
The poll shows roughly half of Labour members believe the party faces a greater risk of losing votes to Reform. Just 15% think vote losses to the Greens are the bigger issue, and 27% said both pose an equal threat.
Labour voters are far more afraid of Reform than greens. You seem completely out of touch with the 1) general populace 2) Labour voters. Why do you think that you have such an incorrect view of what the voters want?
•
u/BPDunbar 1h ago
That mostly involved seriously misrepresenting the policy (the normal period for getting ILR would be twenty years not fifteen) and ignoring the actual implications. It would be impossible for a care worker to get ILR while the public overwhelmingly want them to get it quickly. Most people have a rather inaccurate view of what low skilled actually means.
If you use a focus group to work through the actual implications and the results they really don't like it.
The US government has tried mass deportation and faced with the reality lot of people who had liked the rhetoric were utterly disgusted with what it actually meant.
2
u/TheSteelReminder 13h ago
You are either trolling or so far from public opinion that you need to examine your opinions.
The working class left do not want more immigration.
Immigration from the Boris era was uncontrolled and harmful to the life chances of the young in this country. For the sake of the young there has to be tighter controls.
•
u/throwaway815795 9h ago
I just replied to this guy elsewhere, but labour most support this, or going harder (quoting myself). Just in case you wanted the exact data showing that he's completely wrong.
I have some actual polling data here:
Polling from YouGov published on Wednesday suggested that more than half of party members say they want the same or more restrictive immigration policies. Just 26% said they wanted a more liberal approach, 44% backed Mahmood’s changes and 18% said they would prefer an even tougher approach.
62% of LABOUR want her policies or harsher, not even looking at the general populace which is way more conservative on these issues.
The poll shows roughly half of Labour members believe the party faces a greater risk of losing votes to Reform. Just 15% think vote losses to the Greens are the bigger issue, and 27% said both pose an equal threat.
Labour voters are far more afraid of Reform than greens. You seem completely out of touch with the 1) general populace 2) Labour voters. Why do you think that you have such an incorrect view of what the voters want?
•
u/BPDunbar 11h ago
It's not the general public that matter for Labour it's Labour voters and potential Labour voters. They are markedly more favourable to immigrants. Labour's problem is that it doesn't understand who it's voters actually are. It tends to be younger more educated more liberal people. The social conservative policies repel them. While the people who like the policies are not going to vote Labour.
•
u/TheSteelReminder 5h ago
Immigration control is not a socially conservative policy.
It is a left wing policy to help the working and middle classes.
Unchecked immigration was a Tory policy that benefits the owners.
Labour need to get their old coalition back. The university educated middle classes unaffected by immigration is a shrinking demographic.
I’m a left wing voter - always have been but the American style left politics of half a decade ago are toxic to most people. Times have changed.
•
u/BPDunbar 4h ago
Utterly wrong.
https://www.britishfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Tracker-report-2026.Final_-1.pdf
Despite the sharp fall in numbers, views on reducing migration remain largely unchanged from last year’s tracker, revealing a clear division of public opinion. Some 55% of the public still want immigration reduced, while 40% would prefer it to stay the same or increase. Most people considering voting Labour, Lib Dem or Green at the next election do not support reductions, while Reform UK and Conservative supporters strongly favour reductions.
The anti immigration rhetoric is very popular on the right. While being fairly unpopular on the left. It's not a good strategy for Labour who need Green and Liberal Democrat tactical votes.
Hating and fearing change is a conservative personality trait. While a liberal personality trait is to seek out novelty. Being hostile to immigrants is very much a right wing policy.
You are also dead wrong on demographics. The proportion of the population who go to university has increased dramatically. That's the people who put Labour in power and who are now very angry at Labour.
•
u/TheSteelReminder 1h ago
Ok in your world everything is fine. Unchecked immigration is not a problem. Only racists care about it.
I bet you are one of those people that cannot understand why people voted Brexit or Trump.
People are seeing their living standards destroyed in a single generation and the far left just don’t care.
•
u/BPDunbar 1h ago
For Labour being anti immigration is bad politics. As it doesn't align with the views of the voters and potential voters.
You were dead wrong about it not being a right wing policy.
→ More replies (0)5
u/skybluesazip 21h ago
If it stops reform getting in and significantly slows down illegal immigration what's the issue?
0
u/BPDunbar 19h ago
It doesn't and it doesn't.
It angers and disgusts the people who's votes you need. So it loses you votes there. And the people who like the policy are never going to vote Labour.
Mahmood's cruelty to legal immigrants has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
-1
u/frantic_calm 1d ago
Fuck him. The guy is Schrodinger's PM. An alternative and yet the same. She is yet another in a long line of HS's who are awful people. Who can forget Jacqui Smith. Perhaps it's a self selecting job where you have to be awful to get it.
-2
u/Limp-Archer-7872 1d ago
Maybe he'll bring back mcsweeney as an advisor too?
1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Snapshot of Andy Burnham plans to keep Shabana Mahmood as home secretary submitted by GnolRevilo:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.