It has been widely reported that Andy Burnham is planning to appoint James Purnell, with whom Burnham served in Gordon Brown's cabinet, as his chief of staff if he becomes prime minister.
The questions this raises are obvious, apart from who he is and what sort of politics he represents.
Two questions better than that are:
- Do we need another Oxford PPE graduate in government, when we know all the harm all these people have already done?
- Do we need another former chair of the Labour Friends of Israel in government, perpetuating the Zionist hold on its thinking?
To those we might add:
- Do we need another second-generation New Labour politician in government, placing in power yet another person of no apparent substantial achievement except for the fact that they owe most of their loyalty to Blair in power? Haven't we seen that this does not end well enough by now?
And of course this is this one:
- Do we need another former corporate lobbyist for neoliberal entities in Downing Street, because that is what Purnell has been of late? Again, haven't we learned by now that this does not tend to end well?
And, whilst mentioning neoliberalism:
- Do we need another of this ilk in power, and that is undoubtedly what Purnell is?
So what is Burnhma doing?
Is he surrounding himself with figures such as Purnell because he wishes to reassure markets, civil servants, Labour moderates and business interests that his government will remain within broadly familiar economic territory? Or does he really share common ground with him, suggesting that Burnham's government will be built in the mould created by Tony Blair, which ended so badly in the 2008 global financial crisis?
Those last two questions are not necessarily the same thing.
But they are questions that Burnham will now have to answer, because nothing at all suggests that Jamew Purnell is in any way connected to the realities of most people's lives, the problems that this country faces, or finding solutions to them.
So, why should he have such a powerful position in No. 10 if Burnham really wants to create change?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Not a very encouraging start at all, implying only crumbs for the rest of us from the top table.
Agreed
Josh Simons has given up 3 years salary to vacate the Makerfield constituency he was elected to serve and trigger a byelection last week. At a salary of 100k a year, that’s around £300k he would expect compensating for or he would not have surrendered the seat. Who is paying that, how, and where are they getting it from? No-one in the press is asking the grubby details, no-one is following the money.
Lord Simons and a Cabinet Office role, I think
If that is true then it should be more widely known, because that is not democracy, that is plutocratic behaviour for sure.
I read shortly after he resigned that he has an executive role at Labour Forward/ Future or whatever rebranding the toxic labour together eventually alighted on. Given the influence that they’ve had on the current iteration of Labour courtesy of LFI, I’d lay bets that not only will he be fine, he’ll be well looked after.
The rest of us proles, not so much.
‐—–‐————
Hope the hospital have blasted those stones into oblivion, Richard. Take it easy.
Thanks
James Purnell is Blue Labour.
‘Nuff said?
If not enough, I recommend the Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Labour
“Blue Labour is a British campaign group and political faction that seeks to promote blue-collar and culturally conservative values within the British Labour Party – particularly on immigration, crime, EDI and community spirit – while remaining committed to labour rights and left-wing economic policies It seeks to represent what it considers a working-class approach to Labour politics.”
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?
Yes
Security Services interference?
I’ve always been wary of “Deep State” conspiracy theories, but it’s difficult to find a convincing alternative explanation for both Starmer and Burnham being “turned” as they come into power.
We may be seeing the real Burnham in this, the one who stood against Corbyn to replace Miliband (both too leftist for Blairites). Bear in mind the majority of the regional parties and HQ have been infested with Blairite Labour for 20 years.
And we still haven’t seen what reward ex-Makerfield MP Josh Simons will be getting. He notoriously ran Labour Together and tried to get journalists banged up for reporting the illegal funds LT were getting.<p>
As soon as Simons stood down it seemed to me this might be another LT organised coup.<p>
Embedding a lobbyist for global corporates at the heart of Downing Street seems absolutely stupid – baking in conflicts of interest on all fronts. Any proper vetting process would have ruled Purnell out from any such role.
It suggests to me that neither approval from the general public, nor endorsement by party members matter any more.
“Publicly popular policies” are SO 2017. Who needs them?
As the Speaker might not say, “The Lobbyists have it, I think the Lobbysts have it. No need for a division. Lock the doors!”
I suppose the next key moment will be the Burnham King’s Speech. Until then, everything is for show – power plays, personality clashes, manouevering for position, bribing some opponents, silencing others.
There has been one powerful reality check in Burnham’s political career – at Anfield stadium April 2009.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-z3mBIi084Q
But I don’t know what he learned from it – whether it made him more moral, or whether it just made him more careful, more savvy, more attuned to the importance of good PR. (The Liverpool dead never did get real justice.)
Came across this Byline article outlining some of the points detailed in The Productive State which is being touted as something of a guidebook to Burnham’s thinking. A lot of what is discussed comes across as yet more triangulation and rather messy, particularly with regards to Public Ownership and Energy. Taking vital utilities back into full public ownership and calling it that still seems like an anethema to members of the PLP. The appointment of Purnell and the continued influence of the Blue Labour group would suggest that while Burnham might make improvements as PM (compared with Starmer) I’m unconvinced whether those improvements will be enough to ‘right the ship’ for most people. Link to the article below:
https://bylinetimes.com/2026/06/24/how-andy-burnhams-manchesterism-could-really-reshape-britain/?utm_source=bylinetimes.beehive.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter&_bhlid=994adeeea39fb39b240ef8c7a4d87e8733640eff
No better or even worse than Mc Sweeney ?
He may be in charge
And an unelected mate, jobs for the boys, perpetuation of the pig trough politics of old. NO CHANGE AT ALL.
Good post. I had high hopes for Burnham, but with this proposed appointment his backtracking has reached a nadir. For me, the honeymoon is over – before it began.
This reveals Burnham’s direction of travel & (I’m guessing) the assorted favours done to get to the c oronation. It is clear that the Israeli lobby remains embedded in the heart of the UK gov, distorting what passes for UK middle east policy (what policy?). There will be no change – just a smiling face with a better line of rhetoric than Starmer. The UK is finished. It is a pathetic country, its citizens are regarded with contempt by the placemen in power, & there seems to be no mechanism to even have a choice amongst politicos that are recognisably human.
Two options:
1. Burnham is playing a canny game to get into power, reassure the city and placate the press, and once established will use his powers to abandon neoliberalism and implement real social change.
2. He’s already bought and paid for.
I’ve seen enough of Labour arty politics to go for option 2. every time. I will be delighted if I am wrong.
If Andy Burnham continues with the path the pay masters of the PLP have set, we’re going to see Fascism at the next election. People have rejected neoliberalism, and I find it depressingly ironic that people over 50 are going to vote reform and restore, who will definitely amplify ALL of our current problems.
You are right: people have rejected neoliberalism.
Starmer’s made much of the fact that he ‘changed’ the Labour Party over the last couple of days. He did. He turned it into the red carpet for Reform.
The singers keep changing, but the song remains the same. The same tiresome old jingle. Significant change never comes from the top down, it has to come from the bottom upwards. Which requires a major reset of the whole political establishment. Sadly history shows us, that the process tends to be violent and unpredictable.
Richard, regards your Q, ‘Is he surrounding himself with figures such as Prunell because . . ‘
I fear it is simply because he doesn’t know any better. Burnham is an example of the Peter Principle. He will lean heavily on all the establishment crutches that will be put in around him. What I fear most is that before the general public grasp this is Starmer Mk II, Burnham will call an election within the next six months and we get our hopium kicked down the road yet again.
RobertJ’s Youtube posting of Burnham’s 2009 Anfield speech is v revealing of Burnham’s severe limitations; unsuited for a Prime Ministerial role. Our best politicians in the past were learned but honed from years of civil interaction, either in trade unionism, or municipal governance, or having served in war, with values shaped by knowing real humanity and society’s iniquities and abuses.
Other than a revolution in community interaction, which could both wake up society’s apathy and nurture radical politicians, I’m not sure we can get out of this hole. But I know your posts matter greatly. I echo calls on here: take care & you are wished well.
Lastly, re the Britain that Burnham is now taking the helm, may I draw your attention to the most perspicacious and biting, journalistic snapshot of Britain I’ve come across in a long time. Tellingly, it’s not from the UK but from the Tehran Times. An incidental point is: ‘Foreign countries’ are sophisticated enough to know who we really are. If only most people in the UK were.
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/527598/London-Bridge-is-finally-falling-down-No-fresh-sacrifices-can
Thank you.
Sorry for the delay, and worth reading
Seems like we are replacing a boring middle manager in a suit and tie with a slightly less boring middle manager in a black t shirt.
It will be interesting to see how the American Democrat party bosses attempt to sabotage the Mamdani associated candidates who won in New York this week, ousting the favoured candidates of the Dems. Even if this is to the detriment of votes. That is sure to offer clues as to how Burnham and Co will deal with similar anti Labour party line sentiment here in Britain. I fear Burnham will soon be as unpopular and ineffective as Starmer if he maintains the same pro Zionist neoliberal course.
Agreed
It looks like a serial flouncers reunion. Burnham, Purnell, and Simons (if he returns) all have a history of running away when snubbed. All we need is David Miliband to complete the set.