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

Can Europe Learn from Finland´s and Spain’s Contrasting Immigration Policies?

The immigration issue in Finland became a normal political process when the government programme of Petteri Orpo's (NCP) cabinet was agreed upon — or at the latest, when those decisions started being implemented into legislation.

In Spain, by contrast, power is held by a socialist government that pays no attention to the problems of immigration. Instead, it is planning to grant residence and work permits to a large number of migrants who have entered the country illegally. In other words, the government led by Pedro Sánchez has decided to ignore the elephant in the room.

Naturally, this failure to address the problems has led to a backlash. A serious sign of this was seen in the municipality of Torre-Pacheco, where a 68-year-old man was attacked by three North African men.

This prompted frustrated Spaniards to take matters into their own hands and engage in outright illegal actions — namely, physically attacking immigrants. Reportedly, no one has died in these incidents, but five people have been injured.

It remains to be seen what the consequences of this unrest will be, as those who have taken justice into their own hands — described as far-right individuals — are to be arrested and prosecuted. All this is taking place in a municipality where as much as one third of the population has an immigrant background.

* * *

The developments I described above should prompt reflection all across Europe. In particular, it would be worthwhile to compare the immigration policies of Spain and Finland. And to examine what they have led to — and what they are likely to lead to in the coming years.

For my part, I believe — in the spirit of former president Paasikivi — that the recognition of facts is the beginning of wisdom. But how on earth can this simple truth be understood by Sánchez's government? Or by the Finnish green-left?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Left Wants to Grill a Swedish Minister Over His Son’s Past – What’s Really Behind It? 
EU Citizens Don’t Want More Migrants – But How Can the Flow of Asylum Seekers Be Slowed?
EU Commission Should Take Migration and Related Crime Seriously

Pedro Sánchez Sides with Europe's Fifth Column on Russia

In the last century, it was quite natural for the political left in Western countries to form a fifth column in support of the Soviet Union. After all, socialists and communists shared a common worldview based on the philosophy outlined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

However, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and as a result, a large number of more or less democratic, non-socialist states emerged in the area of the former socialist superpower. The largest of these was Russia, whose new leader, Boris Yeltsin, together with his administration, began to steer the country toward a market economy system, which had proven to be vastly superior to the socialist planned economy.

At the time, there was also a belief that the previously divided world would unite, and that its eastern part would develop toward a Western-style welfare state. There was even talk of “the end of history.”

* * *

As I wrote yesterday, Finland has decided to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel mines. The decision was made with an overwhelming majority, but most of the current far left voted against it. This is largely the same group that has opposed measures aimed at preventing Russia from exploiting asylum seekers as part of its hybrid warfare.

In Spain, the country is governed by socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. He, too, appears to be siding with Russia by asking NATO to exempt Spain from raising its defense spending to five percent of its gross domestic product.

Behind this may be Sánchez’s calculation that Spain, being far from Russia’s border, is not in danger—even if Vladimir Putin’s army were to cross the border into the territory of the European Union. Or perhaps, like the Finnish far left, he is simply unable to recognize the threat that the heir of the former Soviet Union poses to the West.

In any case, it is clear that Ukraine’s harsh fate as the target of Putin’s imperialist aggression has taught nothing to the socialists in Finland and Spain. That is why they form an ideological fifth column within the European Union.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the socialists in other EU countries will also display a similar nostalgic sympathy toward Putin’s Russia as the left in Finland and Spain. And, of course, how NATO and U.S. President Donald Trump—who originally set the five percent target—will respond to the situation.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?
Ukraine’s Former Foreign Minister Warns Against Another 1939
Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?