My belief that Andy Burnham is growing in confidence about his chances of electoral success has been reinforced by his comments made about the Greens yesterday.
He said in the House of Commons that local Green Party council groups have to either reject the motion passed by Green Party conference about Zionism being racism, or coalitions between the Labour Party and Greens in 18 councils in England and Wales might come to an end.
Let me be clear, I would not have voted for the resolution that was put to the Green Party conference, because I do think Israel should exist, and denying its right to do so makes no sense. The resolution presented a fantasy political outcome which has never been part of my political agenda.
That said, I think that Zionism can be, and very often is at present, a form of racism, and the fact that many Jews share this view reinforces that opinion. However, that does not mean that Israel needs to cease to exist and so, like many aspects of Green Party policy that are created by a tiny minority of members who can attend its conferences, this position is likely to be a misrepresentation of the views of the great majority of those who support the party.
That, however, is not the issue at hand. That issue is that Labour, which has supported genocide, and so has a position on the conflict in the area which I find deeply repugnant, is using this motion as a mechanism to separate itself from relationships with the Greens. I can only presume that this is not as a consequence of any principled position, because Labour appears to have none, but is instead the result of a growing confidence that it can recover votes from the Greens by doing so, with the risk of the collapse of coalitions controlling councils being taken because the Labour leadership thinks there is a bigger win to be had, which does, I presume, relate to general election prospects.
That confidence might be reinforced by the ITV exposés on Reform over the last two days, which appear to have been genuine journalism of a high quality, exposing how profoundly racism and misogyny have penetrated the Reform hierarchy of power. I suspect this will not worry the white male voters over the age of 50 who provide the core of Reform's support, but it does let both Labour and the Tories draw lines to the right of them.
So, are the two single transferable parties growing in confidence about their prospects of retaining power by seeking to draw lines to both left and right? And are both now looking for a general election to reinforce their control of parliamentary power?
There is nothing in opinion polling which supports their prospects by doing so. What is more, indications are that party support is volatile at present, and an election campaign might reveal much which would change potential outcomes. Remember that Theresa May went into an election in 2017 confident as to the outcome, and only survived by the skin of her teeth. Assumptions now about what might happen in a ballot in a couple of months' time might be decidedly premature.
However, I get the sense that the manoeuvres are continuing. Labour's posturing with the Greens does come at a real cost, and I can only presume that they have calculated the associated risks and think them worth taking.
For both Labour and the Tories, an election now would be a considerable gamble. Reform is, however, battered and undoubtedly down, and that is where they see the real risk coming from.
The Lib Dems will probably survive as a protest vote in the areas where they conventionally take on this role.
The timing could not be worse for the Greens.
Meanwhile, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I very strongly suspect that nationalist parties would be delighted to see a poll. Plaid Cymru would do well in Wales, where its challenger is Reform. The SNP would undoubtedly increase its parliamentary representation, and unionism is not having a great time in Northern Ireland.
The electoral calculus is hard to appraise at present, but I still have a feeling that Burnham thinks he is riding the biggest wave he will ever get. I am not ruling out an election yet.
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!
I am unconvinced about an early election. That said, LINO is happy to throw anti-sem mud at the Greens whilst continuing to support an Israel that has murdered 75,000 mostly women and children. The Greens would do well to open up a new front on this: the influence of a foreign state (Israel) on the formation of UK policy. The Greens need a nice snappy slogan… how about
“take back control” …………….gosh where have I heard that before?
Best form of defence is attack – the Greens need to attack LINO for its close links with a country very far away with which the UK has ZERO in common.
If an election is held, I can see it being very very messy. The DUP will get a kicking (remind me where one of its leaders is now……oh serving a long sentence in prison for child sex abuse) & burnt-ham might find himself with a quasi-ungovernable Commons. As has been observed, his cabinet are ciphers/no-marks – even if this rabble get re-elected (Feotus-boy Streeting? don’t think so) they are very much a gov’ of “all-the-no-talents” now & afterwards. & the anti-sem stuff & zionsim = racism – hmm, remind me how the water/sewage system is? energy costs? low are they? transport peachy? employment? tickety boo? But hey – what matters to LINO is the Greens and anti-sem. Pathetic. Pathetic LINO party, pathetic country, utterly incapable of discharging its responsibilities to govern in the interests of citizens.
[…] I had to read deeply between the lines to come to support my belief that an election might be on the way, about which I published this morning. […]
I think you’ve summed things up clearly. So there are two key issues:
– “but I still have a feeling that Burnham thinks he is riding the biggest wave he will ever get.”
– In addition, Burnham has said that he’d (only) do things in the next parliament, or the one after. So that ought to start soon or he’ll be subject to events, not able to set any agenda.
He obviously remembers Gordon Brown but Labour aren’t even polling 30% currently. With 2.5 years to go and a massive majority Burnham should have the confidence in himself to deliver and present a great case for Labour in May 2029. That said he’s overreacted to the Green motion on Zionism. Wanting an end to the state of Israel in its current form is a legitimate if minority view. Not one that I subscribe to though despite the horrors currently being inflicted on the Palestinians. It’s not as if these councils have any influence in events in the Middle East so he’s obviously grandstanding. Maybe he does think Reform and the Greens are on the ropes and he can deliver a swift albeit thin victory?
I think the Greens had the right sentiment but I think I would have proposed “zionism is a political ideology” That would go to the heart of this nonsense about this having anything to do with judaism. That link to religion is the biggest problem. But history and facts have been laid bare. Zionism is also a genocidal doctrine, stated clearly from the day it was born. I am a Quaker not a jew but i instinctively know thar no religion promotes the mass killing of an indigenous population or the stealing of their country.
The Greens allowed themselves to be pulled off course about the Zionism issue and for people like me who are usually sceptical about ‘party management’ this could have been managed better!
The truth here however is that there is a lot outrage and anger about this issue not helped by the heavy handedness of our own government(s) and Zionism itself.
The Jews have always lived in Palestine along with Muslims and Christians – people of the book, Abraham’s children. They have a right to be there. The Jews have also been persecuted in their history right up to now. If Israel exists for any reason, it is because the rest of the world cannot give the Jews safe haven. That is our failure. These were our Jews living amongst us and we failed them. What are the Jews supposed to do? Laugh and get on with it?
Until we can work out as a species that it is only more equal societies that make us safe from each other, what else can we do? Do the Greens know this?
If only we could have a truthful and conciliative discussion about this, it would help.
As for Burnham, I’m still waiting. What has he done? What? With all that money going into Reform, he must be in cloud cuckoo land to want an election in my view. The government bailed out the banks in 2008 as easy as falling off a log.
So why is it so hard to write a ‘Cost of Living Crisis Relief Bill’ for the people of this country? I’m sorry, but there are no excuses for Labour. We have seen what central banks can do.
For Christ’s sake do it or be damned Prime Minister!
There has been a policy of non-cooperation with the Greens since Starmer took over. Some who did cooperate with the Greens or LibDems or Independents were suspended or harried out of the Party. Where I live, a proposed coalition (Labour, Greens and Lib Dems) to block Reform two years ago was rejected by Labour with an edict from Central Office. That worked well in the County Council elections……
It goes back much further than that and my experience as a Green activist with a Labour controlled council is that they can play very dirty and are not to be trusted. There is the principle of Labourism, that only Labour can sort things. They only believe in coalitions when forced upon them. I am disappointed by Andy Burnham’s comments but unsurprised.
It’s a tough choice – between a party of liars and hypocrites complicit on genocide and still unable to condemn it, and also “commending” the warmongering rogue state of the USA, or a party that is the only one in Westminster adopting a realistic macro-economic policy acknowledging MMT reality.
I thought the “Zionism is racism” motion was political folly, but not a fraction as bad as Labour’s complicity in war crimes by Israel and USA.
The chaos and duplicity continues.
Much to agree with
I think it is unlikely. An early election in spring 2027 is more likely. Happy to eat my hat or kilt if necessary.
I think it would send more of a message to the politicians if the british public just boycotted these elections in their entirety.
I see two strategies:
a) vote for more of the same ie cluelessness
or
b) vote for us so that you can stop the other lot from winning
How about giving the people something actually worth voting for!
Why would you want to give in to those who would crush you?
Your logic makes no sense at all.
Yes, we need people worth voting for, but to give in is pointless in the meantime, and an option only available to the already privileged in my opinion.
I would be surprised if he does call an early election.
The reasons not to?
1 – Winter elections tend to never happen. Only twice in the last 100 years. No one wants to vote just before Christmas. Politicians spoil Christmas!
2 – Labour don’t have enough headroom in the polls. If Reform’s vote collapsed, maybe. Gone are the days of any party having 40%+. It’s most likely hung parliament time. If Labour are saying no to any coalition with the Greens, then the Lib Dems need to make it clear that their support will only happen with PR as Labour policy. I assume the SNP will want another independence vote.
3 – The danger that the Tories and Reform, despite their hatred for each other, will backstab their way to power in an unholy alliance of the far-right. Between them, they are still getting around 40-45% of the vote. With FPTP that could be enough even if Lab wins the most seats.
4 – Burnham would probably have to play the “if you don’t vote for Labour then you get Farage as PM” tactical vote. I think people are sick of having to vote this way. The next election has to be tactical voting for the right reasons, like genuine change, rather than just to stop the fascists.
5 – Minor point. Legislation is going through Parliament to give the vote to 16-18 year olds. All polls show the vast majority from this age group support either Labour or the Greens. The Tories and Reform have little support from younger people – for good reason. It might be enough to swing seats in close FPTP constituencies.
As someone here said – he could declare an emergency – ‘things have changed’ – wars in Middle East – energy/ food – shortages/price rises coming down the tracks, climate emergency getting worse than the science expected etc, etc..<p>
People might accept him actually doing things now rather than post 2029 – rent controls, water into public ownership, crash programme to build houses/prefabs , apprenticeships in building industry, equalising tax rates on earned and unearned income etc <p>
But please remind ourselves that his No 10 operation is a Labour Together Zionist operation full of City lobbyists and that he is PM courtesy of Josh Simons and co. They have quashed Milibands feeble attempt to sanction Israel, and will drill more oil and gass.<p>
He certainly won’t do any emergency stuff – and presumably will think he is at peak ‘bounce’ – but I don’t think he will go for broke with an early election – hundreds of his MP’s would be afraid of being dumped.
Much to agree with.
On other sites I have seen people interpreting the Green Resolution and ending the state of Israel as expelling the Israelis. I don’t have access to the arguments presented but it seems to be the ‘South African’ solution.
There is no doubt in the occupied territories the state of Israel annexes land with settlers, often taking prime spots. They build settlements for Israelis only who live under Israeli civil law while the Palestinians live under martial law. They are also precluded from certain roads and areas. Difficult to argue that, in those areas at least, it is not apartheid.
In South Africa many forecast the end of Apartheid would result in the massacre of the white population. It was messy but a fairly democratic multi-ethnic state emerged. Northern Ireland might perhaps be another example (given foreign help ).
The argument it seems, is that an apartheid state cannot continue but it must be replaced with a multi-ethnic state. (remembering too that not all Jews and Arabs are religious -this is a secular and colonial struggle in essence )
It is supported by Miko Peled son of an Israeli general who makes the point that many Israelis rarely meet a Palestinian -except in an employee role, and by Ilan Pappe the historian.
But the scale of racism in Israel as measured in polls is high and many of the leaders are Fascist. On the other side, the scale and length of the repression is such that many Arabs must find it deeply unpalatable.
There are those who think the scale of the settlements makes two state solution impossible. Sixty ! former British Ambassadors wrote to FT in April saying Israel is trying sabotage the possibility of a 2 state solution. Our govt doesn’t have a clear plan how it would work.
I was at the Greens conference and voted for the motion Zionism is Racism. It does not claim Israel has no right to exist, nor that Greens members attending Zionist synagogues will be sanctioned …. these are all distortions to create the politicians’ and the client media’s pro Zionism narrative. The motion does call for one democratic land with equal rights for all ethnicities. Claiming it ends the two-nation possibility is nonsense given the Israeli government’s outright rejection of this solution and their total illegal occupation and criminal destruction of Gaza, ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and replacing displaced Palestinians with Zionist thugs.
It is not possible that Burnham’s leadership of the Labour Party will make any significant difference to the lives of the people he claims to represent – and Polanski is experienced as a real threat to Labour’s election chances … Thus he is being assaulted in the same way that the libellous campaign against Corbyn was fomented – a hysterical attack by the media and from the Zionist-backed right wing in his own party, smearing him as anti-Semitic. Polanski must stand firm and not apologise for calling out the Zionist State of Israel as a racist genocidal and apartheid state. He needs as much support as we can muster.
Thank you for clarifying what you understood the motion to mean, particularly as you were present and voted for it.
There is an important distinction between opposing Zionism as a political ideology, criticising the actions of the Israeli state, and denying Jewish people their rights or security. Those distinctions must be maintained.
I also think we should recognise that advocating a single democratic state with equal rights for everyone is a substantive political position. It is different from supporting a two-state solution, and people are entitled to debate its implications. That does not automatically make its supporters antisemitic.
What matters is that Palestinians and Israelis should enjoy equal human rights, security and democratic representation. Criticism of Israel’s government, including its conduct in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, must remain possible without automatically being characterised as antisemitism.
The problem is rejecting a two-state solution. That seemed an unnecessary and counterproductive step at this moment. I think it was a mistake.
As for Zack Polanski, I agree that his political arguments should be assessed on their merits. But I would be cautious about attributing coordinated motives to his critics without evidence.
The essential requirement is an informed debate about Palestinian rights, Israeli policies and the political alternatives, rather than accusations that prevent those issues being discussed.
I see the spat with the Greens as reducing the chance of a General Election, because it increases the chance of not being able to form a minority government when polling suggests he’d lost the majority.
PMs call a General Election to increase their ability to get votes through. Throwing away a hundred or more MPs who can be whipped to vote with you in almost all instances is political suicide.
If this is the best Burnham is going to get, then he’ll take a couple of years or so of power before losing it, rather than a longer period as a ‘lame duck’ leader.
The IMF just reported that the UK is on course to be better than the rest of the G7 on Debt to GDP. That gives every reason for Labour to wait – let that trend continue, with a few small sweeteners in the meantime, and then offer something bigger to buy sentiment just before the mandated General Election date.
David, is that the same IMF report as the one saying the UK should not contemplate taxing banks rather than modifying the way the welfare system works? That made me laugh out loud. But I may have misunderstood – I switched on the radio in the middle of the report this morning.
forgive a second post. Fortress Israel is not sustainable IMHO
If the US decides it will leave the Middle East or even stop unconditional support, Israel is in trouble. In his memoirs Obama hints that his foreign office (State Dept ) people told him support for Israel -by which they meant condoning their actions as much as the supply of weapons -was losing the US credibility in the Global South. It applies to us as well. How long will they continue the policy?
Israel is place for hi-tech industries. Many of those involved could be employed elsewhere. They often have second passports. Periodic call ups for military service interferes with family and work life-and a chance of being killed or wounded. Many object to what they have to do. Some are already leaving. If the US backs away the exodus will increase but most Israelis have no where else to go.
Birth rates are falling even among Muslims. The Ultra Orthodox depend on the state, don’t serve in the iDF, don’t teach their children science, maths, English and have large families.
I don’t believe ether that most of the Israelis or Arabs want to massacre the other. Most people want security. Israelis -and some of the Resistance- would be well advised to reject the hard men and look for a win-win solution instead. A two state could be a step to another sort of state.
Noted.
I would very much value you to do a post or video on the Green Party’s “Fiscal Referees” policy adopted at their conference. It got drowned out by a 3 word slogan, but I’m told it’s aligned to MMT? https://greenparty.org.uk/2026/10/04/greens-agree-bold-new-economic-framework-to-put-people-and-planet-ahead-of-fiscal-rules/ https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/09/exclusive-greens-radical-plan-for-the-economy-revealed. I can get you the full wording of the motion if it will help?
Your link did not work. I assisted witb this motion on several occassionbs but no one has yet sent it to me and I have not been able to find the final wording. If you fnd it and can send it, thank you.
i was at the recent Green Party conference. There is nothing in the Zionism is Racism motion that says Israel should cease to exist. I voted against it because it would obviously weaken the Green Party. Sometimes a political group has to announce its principles even though it is politically damaging. In this case we had already made it clear that we viewed Israel as a genocidal and apartheid state. To say that they are also racist adds very little. I fear that Israel is going to increase its destruction in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and elsewhere. There is a very long and painful road ahead of us to arrive at a just sollution. There are 7 million Jews and 7 million Palestinians in that small land. In the first instance we should all try to reduce the damage being done by the powerful Israeli state, but everything we do must be framed by the goal of a fair and just future being negotiated by the 2 peoples.
It is not entirely relevant to the present but the guilt of European states and the US cannot be overstated. In the 1930s and 40s as millions of Jews tried to escape they kept to tiny quotas for Jewish immigration. The UK offered more places in Palestine. The Jews who went there were not invaders, rarely Zioniosts. They were desperate people who wanted to live. Of course this does not excuse the brutality which has followed.
Thank you Larry.