Europe
Andy Burnham emerges as frontrunner for UK leadership after Keir Starmer resigns
Following the resignation of Prime Minister Keir Starmer from both his government post and the leadership of the Labour Party, Andy Burnham has emerged as the most likely figure to assume the UK’s leadership.
Burnham, the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, was elected to the House of Commons two weeks ago after winning a by-election in Makerfield by a wide margin.
Long prominent within the Labour Party as a leading rival to Starmer, Burnham has so far faced no declared challengers in the race for the party leadership.
Having expressed regret 20 years later for voting “yes” in the 2003 parliamentary division on the invasion of Iraq, Burnham built his early political career as a mid-ranking government official under Tony Blair’s Labour administration.
Burnham points to a pivotal moment in his political life when he was booed at a match at Liverpool’s famous Anfield stadium while serving as Culture and Sport Secretary in the government of Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown.
Representing the Brown administration at Anfield on the 20th anniversary of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, in which 97 Liverpool fans lost their lives, the then 39-year-old minister’s attempt to deliver condolences was interrupted by loud, angry shouts from the stands demanding justice for the victims.
Up to that point, successive British governments had rejected demands for a public inquiry into the disaster. Burnham says that from that moment on, he decided to pursue politics “outside of London” and to become “a voice for the voiceless.”
According to a profile in The Guardian, critics have dubbed Burnham “Captain U-turn” for giving the impression of shifting his political views over the decades, while others view him as “a man who listens.”
After graduating from university, Burnham moved to London, where he briefly worked for trade publications such as Tank World and Passenger World Management before securing a role as a researcher in the parliamentary office of Labour MP Tessa Jowell.
Having also advised the Culture Secretary of the time, Chris Smith, Burnham was elected as an MP for his hometown constituency of Leigh in Greater Manchester in 2001.
He initially served as a junior minister in the Blair administration before joining the cabinet under Brown as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He later served as Culture Secretary and subsequently Health Secretary.
In 2010, Burnham ran for the Labour leadership on a platform of “passionate socialism” but finished fourth out of five candidates, losing to Ed Miliband, who campaigned on moving the party further to the left.
Following Miliband’s defeat in the 2015 general election, Burnham ran for the leadership again, adopting a more moderate, “centrist” rhetoric aimed at highlighting a business-friendly stance.
Launching his campaign at the headquarters of professional services firm Ernst & Young, Burnham argued that entrepreneurs should be seen as “every bit as much our heroes as nurses.” He ultimately lost that contest to Jeremy Corbyn.
Burnham accepted a shadow cabinet role under Corbyn, taking on the position of Shadow Home Secretary. He was also one of the few frontbenchers who did not resign from Corbyn’s team in 2016 when the Labour leader was accused by some of failing to campaign actively enough to remain in the EU, a factor critics argued contributed to the Brexit victory.
In 2017, Burnham left Corbyn’s shadow cabinet to run for the newly created position of Mayor of Greater Manchester.
He won the election with more than 60% of the vote and was re-elected by an even larger margin in 2021.
During his tenure in Manchester, he won praise for reforming the region’s transport network by bringing bus services back under public control.
His fierce advocacy for a region that lagged economically behind much of the rest of the country earned him the moniker “King of the North.”
Upon becoming Mayor of Manchester, he pledged to eradicate rough sleeping. In the initial years, progress was made, with the number of rough sleepers nearly halved by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to 2016 levels. However, Burnham was unable to sustain this progress; by November 2025, the number of rough sleepers had returned to 2016 levels.
Should he become Prime Minister, Burnham’s primary challenge will be addressing the UK’s economic decline. According to some assertions, the prospective leader could move to reverse the privatizations that have defined the country for the past 40 years, turning instead to renationalization.
Under a new blueprint dubbed “Manchesterism,” an Andy Burnham administration could seek to reverse 40 years of privatization through a long-term plan to take over failing public utilities, issue debt-for-equity swaps, and establish competitive state-owned enterprises.
This policy paper, titled “The Productive State,” was published just as Burnham arrived in London to take his oath as MP for Makerfield.
The paper’s author, Mathew Lawrence—who is close to Burnham and worked alongside him on plans to bring public services under state control—released the document in coordination with Mainstream, a Labour group acting as a vehicle for Burnham’s leadership ambitions.
Former minister Miatta Fahnbulleh, a policy adviser to Burnham who is widely identified as the architect of his economic policies, described the paper as “an important contribution to the debate on how we solve this problem, deliver the change the public is crying out for, and begin rebuilding our broken economy.”
Lawrence stated that the paper envisions “a state that owns, invests, and provides to make life affordable; a politics that reclaims control over the essentials of a civilized life—clean water, cheap energy, warm homes, reliable transport—built and run by publicly accountable institutions.”
Subtitled “A Framework for Manchesterism,” the paper criticizes the long-standing trend toward the privatization of public services, arguing it lies at the heart of the UK’s growth and productivity crises by stripping away control over essential services and driving up the cost of living.
While neither the paper nor Burnham himself advocates for a wholesale renationalization program, they call for a framework of greater state intervention to protect the public from skyrocketing costs and the burden of bailing out failing private firms.
The Guardian previously reported that Burnham’s allies have discussed managing a 10-year project to bring large portions of England’s water and energy sectors under state control.
This process would likely begin with the struggling utility provider Thames Water.
Ultimately, Burnham’s allies want to bring energy transmission and supply companies, potentially including the electricity grid operator National Grid, under public control.
The paper outlines several pathways to achieving public control over the long term. For instance, if a company like Thames Water falls into financial distress, the government could intervene by implementing a “special administration regime.”
Burnham points to the Greater Manchester bus network as an example, where private operators bid for franchises to deliver services, but fares, timetables, and routes are controlled by local government.
For financially stable utility companies, the paper notes that the law typically requires the government to pay fair market value to acquire them.
To achieve this without a massive upfront cash expenditure, the paper suggests the state could use a “debt-for-equity swap” method, though it notes this would require primary legislation and likely face significant legal challenges.
Alternatively, the state could gradually assume control by establishing its own commercial public enterprises, though this path would potentially require large-scale borrowing.
While Burnham has stated a desire to prevent “excessive profiteering” in the sector, he has yet to detail exactly what a similar model would look like in practice for water and energy companies.
The Starmer government had already planned tighter regulation of the water sector through new legislation this autumn.
The paper has won praise from several prominent Labour figures, including Fahnbulleh and Stewart Wood, a Labour peer and former economic adviser to Ed Miliband.
Wood described the paper as “a valuable contribution to rethinking the social democratic case for a more active state that helps generate wealth and improve the quality of life across the country.”
Among the key commitments Burnham made during his Makerfield campaign was to stick to Labour’s pledge from the last election not to raise the main rates of income tax, VAT, and National Insurance.
During his campaign, he also indicated a desire to “look closely” at the possibility of raising the starting threshold for income tax, which is currently £12,570.
Burnham argues that housing policy has slipped too far down the priority list of successive governments. However, several of his signature policies—such as prioritizing development on brownfield land and restricting Right to Buy—have already been implemented by the current government.
According to the BBC, one of the biggest departures in Burnham’s advocated approach is to allocate the entirety of the 10-year, £39 billion affordable housing budget to social rent homes—the cheapest and most heavily subsidized form of publicly funded housing.
Like the Conservative administration under Rishi Sunak, Labour has reduced immigration levels by tightening visa requirements.
During his campaign in Makerfield, Burnham said that net migration “needs to come down further,” though he did not set a specific target.
On foreign policy, Burnham has expressed a desire to see the UK rejoin the EU within his lifetime, though he added that he has no wish to “re-run the 2016 referendum right now.”
His stance on relations with the EU will soon be tested. Among the legacies he would inherit from Starmer are a series of ongoing negotiations, particularly regarding youth visas, food regulations, and plans to link the UK back to the EU’s carbon pricing system.
Defence spending, which led to the resignation of Starmer’s Defence Secretary John Healey in early June, will be another key issue. While Burnham has stated he would “find more cash” than Starmer for defence spending, it remains unclear how he would achieve this.
Another significant challenge will be how Burnham manages relations with US President Donald Trump.
While Burnham has noted that the UK must seek “a good relationship” with the US, he has also stated that he would not shy away from saying “we don’t agree with them.”
At present, the selection of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to be taking on particular importance. Two prominent names in contention are Wes Streeting and Ed Miliband.
Both Streeting and Burnham favor raising taxes on wealth rather than income. However, senior allies of Burnham expect Streeting—who has abandoned his own leadership ambitions—to be appointed to another senior cabinet post, amid rumors that he could become Foreign Secretary.
The Economist, emphasizing the need to tackle rising health and social care costs, adopt a pragmatic approach to the net-zero target, and cut red tape, has declared its preference: Wes Streeting.
Arguing that appointing Streeting would be “a sign of willingness to embrace growth,” the magazine is nevertheless not optimistic:
“The problem is that these policies run counter to Mr Burnham’s instincts, which are more aligned with those of Ed Miliband, another candidate for chancellor, who holds more statist views. Harnessing AI will require creative destruction; inefficient firms must be allowed to go bust, and workers must be able to move to jobs better suited to AI. Burnham seems instinctively opposed to the deregulation needed to achieve this. His allies, meanwhile, are demanding worker protections that are stronger even than those introduced by Sir Keir.”
Arguing that “such misconceptions” are visible elsewhere, The Economist contends that Burnham favors an “expensive state house-building programme” and wishes to reindustrialize the economy, which it describes as “a romantic notion that ignores the fact that Britain’s comparative advantage lies in services.”
Burnham, on the other hand, has not yet made a decision regarding the Treasury. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood also remains in contention.
Senior members of Burnham’s team remain divided over whether to appoint Miliband to the post.
According to The Times, allies of Miliband, the Energy Secretary, argue that he is the only candidate with both the experience and the radical approach needed to transform Britain’s stagnant economy.
However, his critics, including some ministers, argue that he does not offer sufficient support to business and risks damaging market confidence.
They also point to his opposition to new oil and gas drilling licenses in the North Sea, an option Burnham has indicated he remains open to.
On the other hand, his appointment of James Purnell, a veteran of the former Tony Blair government, as his chief adviser is seen as a promising sign by The Economist and the Financial Times.
Flint Global, the advisory firm headed by Purnell, counts BP, Amazon, Jaguar Land Rover, and Uber among its clients.
Burnham is also expected to appoint Lord O’Neill, a former Goldman Sachs banker and Treasury minister, and Andy Haldane, the former chief economist of the Bank of England, to senior economic roles in his administration.
The most concise assessment of “Burnhamomics” comes from Jennifer Williams, who has closely followed Burnham for many years as the Financial Times Northern England correspondent:
“It is hard to escape the fact that when Burnham arrived in Greater Manchester, he took over a project that was already underway; he successfully sold this to loyal Labour supporters as a rejection of neoliberalism and trickle-down economics. Yet, it was never that.”
Europe
Vučić scrapped plan to hold power after phone warnings, report says
Former Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić was preparing to retain power by force following the country’s parliamentary elections, according to a report by the British newspaper The Times, citing politicians and a former commander of a specialised police unit.
However, he abandoned this scenario after receiving phone calls urging him to back down.
Spasoje Vulević, the former head of the Serbian police counter-terrorism unit, told the newspaper that 4,000 police officers and 3,000 people whom he described as “thugs” were deployed to central Belgrade on voting day, 25 October.
According to Vulević’s assessment, Vučić was preparing to reject the election results.
Vučić’s spokeswoman denied the claim. Speaking to The Times, she said the police presence in Belgrade was a response to threats of violence from protesters and was unrelated to any attempt to seize power.
Member of the European Parliament Sandro Gozi also said he received alarming messages from diplomatic sources on election day indicating that Vučić was preparing for a scenario involving the use of force.
According to the newspaper, Gozi’s political group issued a statement around 21:00 local time, as initial projections were being released, warning that supporters of Vučić’s party could be mobilized to provoke clashes.
Where did the calls forcing Vučić to back down come from?
Radomir Saičić, a leading candidate from the winning Student List, also argued that plans had been made to alter the results by force if the vote margin between the sides was narrow.
“If the results were close, there were plans to overturn the outcome of the vote by brute force,” Saičić said. “However, according to the information I obtained, numerous calls to him from the police and other figures prompted him to change his mind. They convinced him that executing this plan would end very badly for him.”
Former commander Vulević, on the other hand, was sceptical that police officers could have played a decisive role.
Noting that Vučić personally selected the unit commanders in Belgrade and that these figures were unlikely to oppose him, Vulević said: “I suspect that representatives of European governments called Vučić; these were talks conducted at the highest level.”
European Parliament member Gozi did not confirm the claim that the telephone calls had a decisive effect.
“I cannot rule out the possibility that phone calls took place, but in any case, the vote margin against him was far too large,” Gozi said. “Vučić was stunned.”
According to The Times, roads were closed in Belgrade during the evening, gendarmerie personnel appeared on the streets, and groups of men dressed in black headed toward the city’s Pioneers Park (Pionirski Park).
Vulević claimed these individuals arrived in groups of 20 to 30. However, the newspaper reported that at 21:30, an hour and a half after polls closed, Vučić backed down and his assembled supporters dispersed.
From the Novi Sad collapse to early election defeat
Early parliamentary elections were held in Serbia on 25 October.
According to Election Commission data, after processing results from 8,139 ballot boxes, the Student List secured 52.65% of the vote, while Vučić’s United Serbia coalition remained at 39.22%.
Vučić conceded defeat without waiting for the final results.
“It is obvious that we have lost these elections. The Student List has won,” the politician said, attributing the opposition’s success to support from European countries and the US “deep state”.
Prior to the election, the country was the scene of prolonged mass protests that began after the collapse of a railway station canopy in the city of Novi Sad in November 2024.
Protesters initially demanded accountability for those responsible and an investigation into corruption allegations, before subsequently calling for the government’s resignation.
Having dissolved parliament in September 2026 and announced his resignation from the presidency, Vučić was subsequently nominated as the candidate for prime minister by his party.
Europe
EU scrambles for takers for remaining €21B in SAFE defence loans
The European Commission has until the end of the year to convince EU member states to take up around €21 billion in unused defence loans and support Ukraine’s defence.
The worsening security situation in the Black Sea could encourage Romania to seek additional loans. Bucharest has already secured €16.7 billion under SAFE.
The remaining figure became final after Hungary and Italy significantly scaled back their requests under the EU’s €150 billion Security Action for Europe (SAFE) programme.
On Wednesday, after approving Hungary’s spending plan, the final pending application, the Commission announced that it would soon launch a second call for applications.
The situation is very different from August 2025, when Brussels was confident that demand would far exceed the available €150 billion.
Applications from 19 EU countries eventually exceeded that sum by around €40 billion.
Now, national elections and pressure on public finances may make governments reluctant to take on additional debt.
Some EU diplomats told Rapporteur that the conditions for the second round remain unclear, making it difficult to say whether their countries would apply.
The Commission must publish the second call by the end of December. Unlike the first round, where countries could use the loans for national procurement contracts until May 2026, the remaining money must be spent on joint procurement.
Poland benefited from the previous flexibility, securing €43.7 billion, the largest national allocation, and moved quickly to sign contracts.
Warsaw announced that 90% of the money would go to Polish companies.
Brussels also hopes the remaining money will be used to bolster Ukraine’s defence.
In July, during an official visit to the country, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen suggested that around €10 billion in unused SAFE loans could be directed to Kyiv.
Defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius mentioned the Freyja anti-ballistic missile project among the initiatives under consideration while discussing the second SAFE call at an E5 meeting in Paris this week.
Military sources told Rapporteur that participation in the second round had been considered under Romania’s previous government, but the proposal would now require a fresh political assessment.
Diplomatic sources in Athens told Rapporteur that Greece has also shown interest. The country had previously made an unsuccessful push to increase its allocation by several billion euros.
Polish Deputy Defence Minister Magdalena Sobkowiak-Czarnecka told Polish media this week that Poland was also discussing the conditions for another possible application, while Ireland has shown interest in the remaining funds.
Italy, having already reduced its initial request, is considered unlikely to participate in the second round.
Europe
EU prepares Ukraine peace mission to Abu Dhabi led by Björn Seibert
The European Union is preparing to take a direct role in the diplomatic negotiations surrounding the war in Ukraine.
According to a report by Euronews television, the European Commission and the European Council are establishing a joint delegation of high-ranking officials to attend an upcoming round of talks between the parties. Björn Seibert, the head of cabinet to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, will lead the delegation.
The German diplomat, described in the report as an influential bureaucrat, is expected to head the team attending the talks scheduled to take place in Abu Dhabi in early November.
“We are strongly committed not only to ending the war, but also to achieving a just and lasting peace. This is our goal, and this is precisely the position we defend in the current talks,” a European Commission representative said in a statement on the matter.
Brussels’s key figure behind the scenes
A European bureaucrat of German descent, Björn Seibert has long been recognized as von der Leyen’s closest aide.
Seibert first joined von der Leyen’s team in 2013 during her tenure as Germany’s defence minister, later moving with her to the European Commission.
According to reporting by Politico magazine, Seibert gradually developed into one of the most powerful figures behind the scenes of European politics.
The magazine noted that Seibert has been directly involved in clearing senior appointments and has played an influential role in managing relations with both the European Parliament and the US.
This setup has also sparked controversy within the institution. Critics claim that concentrating power in the hands of the cabinet chief and von der Leyen leads to excessive centralization in administration, whereas supporters argue the model ensures rapid, efficient decision-making.
If these multilateral contacts materialize to bring together delegates from Europe, Ukraine, the US, and Russia under one roof, they will mark the first talks held in this specific format during the peace process.
Diplomatic engagements so far have been conducted either bilaterally between Russia and the US or as trilateral meetings that included Ukraine.
However, the EU delegation’s participation at the negotiating table is not yet finalized, as the issue remains under consultation.
European capitals have actually spent months searching for a similar diplomatic channel. Politico reported in January that EU member states had discussed appointing a special envoy to lead talks with Moscow over Ukraine, an effort backed by French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.
The Telegraph newspaper reported in October that, alongside Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Czech President Petr Pavel, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen were being mentioned for the European representative role.
The newspaper noted that officials were also weighing the option of creating a joint delegation of representatives instead of choosing a single figure.
Reservations from Moscow over European intentions
Moscow, for its part, views Europe’s position as potentially decisive in resolving the conflict. “It is not enough to talk only with Kyiv; it is necessary to talk with the whole of Europe, which fully backs Kyiv in its desire to prolong the conflict. Perhaps Europe’s stance is of key importance here,” Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov said.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitriy Peskov also stated that Moscow would support the emergence of an EU negotiator. “Having a negotiator is good. If that negotiator genuinely seeks to contribute to a peaceful settlement, it would be much better,” Peskov said.
Conversely, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov struck a cautious tone on 27 October regarding European countries’ interest in joining the talks. Lavrov stated that Europe wants a seat at the table without altering its outlook toward Moscow.
Arguing that Europe disregards Russia’s position on the root causes of the conflict, Lavrov emphasized that European nations do nothing beyond levelling accusations and demanding a halt to hostilities.
“This merely demonstrates the Europeans’ desire to join the negotiation process. However, the positions with which they would enter the process remain a major question mark,” the Russian minister said.
Despite these conflicting signals, Russian President Vladimir Putin previously noted that Moscow has not closed the door to dialogue with European nations.
As a preferred European negotiator, Putin previously named former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder.
-
America2 weeks agoHow Elon Musk fuses private empire with state power, Ben Tarnoff explains
-
Middle East2 weeks agoEgypt delays parliamentary vote on deploying troops to Saudi Arabia
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD leader Weidel calls funding lost Ukraine war a grave mistake
-
America1 week agoUS wealthy demolish multimillion-dollar mansions for land
-
Europe1 week agoEU rejects US proposal to resume Russian gas flows through Ukraine
-
America1 week agoAt least 47 major US data centre projects halted or cancelled
-
Middle East1 week agoNetanyahu unveils security doctrine and regional alliance map
-
Middle East1 week agoNetanyahu trails Eisenkot in Israeli polls despite Trump backing
