Does Andy Burnham Stand a Chance of Success?

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer resigned yesterday. Various forms of dissatisfaction with him lay behind the decision, but the fundamental problem was likely the collapse in support for the Labour Party. Nor does it help that, at the same time, Reform UK, which has drawn much of its support from concerns over immigration, has become the country's most popular political movement.

Western media outlets (including the BBC, CNN, MTV3 and Yleisradio) have cited a number of reasons for Starmer's resignation, including the rising cost of living for pensioners, plans to cut benefits paid to disabled people, his acceptance of gifts and freebies, Labour's poor performance in recent local elections, the emergence of a credible rival from within his own party, the country's growing debt burden, sluggish economic growth, his intention to appoint Peter Mandelson despite the latter's association with the Epstein scandal, broader structural issues related to healthcare and housing reform, and his lack of charisma as a politician.

It therefore remains to be seen how British politics will develop under a new prime minister. Will the next prime minister – most likely Labour's Andy Burnham – succeed in reviving his party's popularity, or will he go down in history as the last prime minister of an old establishment party?

* * *

According to Wikipedia, Burnham described himself as a socialist in 2010 and emphasised a philosophy he called aspirational socialism, characterised by redistribution, collectivism and internationalism.

Burnham strongly opposes nationalism, which he has described as "an ugly form of politics". As Mayor of Greater Manchester, however, Burnham has pledged to be "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime".

Politically, Burnham currently places himself – again according to Wikipedia – on the moderate left of the Labour Party. This view is also reflected in several media outlets, including the Financial Times, New Statesman and LabourList.

For my part, I believe that the key to Burnham's success lies in resolving the problems related to immigration and immigrants in the island nation. If he fails to do so, his career at the pinnacle of British politics is also likely to be rather short-lived.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?
Just Another Case of Multiculturality in Manchester, UK
When Diversity Beats Doctors: Three UK Healthcare Realities to Make Stalin Envious

A Timely Reminder of the Failures of Europe’s Political Leaders

Next Sunday, we will once again move the clocks forward by one hour. This was reported by Uutissuomalainen, according to which “the proposal to end clock changes is still awaiting consideration by the EU Council. Not all member states have formed their positions.”

The article also stated that “the European Commission wants to promote the abolition of the daylight saving time directive. Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism Apóstolos Tzitzikostas launched an evaluation in February to examine the EU-wide impacts of clock changes.”

The report is expected to be completed by the end of the year, the Ministry of Transport and Communications said in a press release. After that, the Commission will assess further actions.

* * *

In this respect, it is rather remarkable that this is by no means a new issue. As I myself wrote already six years ago, “perhaps an even more illustrative example of the EU’s inability to make decisions was once again highlighted last night. We still had to move the hands of the clock, even though a majority of EU citizens would like to end it and both the Commission and Parliament have already made decisions on the matter.”

And that is not all, because as much as eleven and a half years ago I could state that “studies have shown that changing the clocks is harmful overall, and therefore the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare has recommended abandoning the practice.” This has not changed over the years, as a scientific review article published last year found that “the transition to daylight saving time was associated with harmful effects ranging from reduced sleep duration and quality to increased sleepiness.”

* * *

Therefore, it is worth repeating once again the fact that this endless clock-changing farce is likely to weaken people’s faith and trust in the European Union—if it has not already made it a laughing stock. And what is worse, year after year it shows ever more clearly that this is not merely about people’s feelings but about harsh reality.

Indeed, the clock-changing farce undeniably demonstrates the shocking incompetence of our continent’s leaders, which is undoubtedly one reason why we have fallen behind the United States both economically and militarily, as the striking chart of GDP development below clearly shows.

Unfortunately, clock changes and economic problems are not the only areas in which European leaders have failed. At the same time, they have also managed to fill many member states with welfare migrants from developing countries—while the birth rate of the native population has dropped dramatically.

European politicians have also succeeded in weakening the continent’s military capability to such an extent that Russia has been able to wage its war in Ukraine for years without the EU being able to intervene. And even worse, they have encouraged the U.S. president to question the usefulness of NATO—developments that could ultimately lead to the loss of Europe’s future and the way of life of its people.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Carbon Sink Policy Lacks Cost-Effectiveness
Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?
Changing the Clocks Reduces Trust in the European Union