Jeremy's Den: July 2026

And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals. And I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, “come and see”. And I saw, and behold, a white horse. And he that sat on him had a bow, and a crown was given unto him, and he went forth conquering and to conquer.

(Revelations 6:1-2)

The future keeps telling us what the past was about. You make the past mean different things by the way you use the time that comes after.

(Arthur Fancy, NYPD Blue, 1993)

Twenty years ago this week, we lost the great Syd Barrett, the heart, soul and brains of Pink Floyd's early years, as well as being the greatest forgotten genius of the Swinging Sixties. David Bowie acknowledged Barrett's influence by covering one of his songs and he was also an inspiration for Damon Albarn and John Lydon. In remembrance, today's soundtrack is Pink Floyd's first album The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, surrounded by the non-album singles penned by Barrett in the same time frame. The bonus track at the end is, of course, Shine On You Crazy Diamond, Pink Floyd's tribute to their former leader, in the full-length 25-minute final studio version released on Wish You Were Here 50 in 2025.

Nick Mason, Richard Wright, Roger Waters and Syd Barrett in 1967

It seems that one of the Realm's most urgent Great Matters is whether or not we should ban pre-pubescent brats from accessing social media. Which should have been done years ago and without giving it a second thought. All those who have seen them in the wild know that pre-pubescent brats are naturally stupid, feral and cruel, especially when travelling in herds, as they also are viciously gregarious. All traits that are massively exacerbated if the social media jungle becomes their natural habitat, because they don't possess the slightest veneer of sound judgment and are thusly totally influenceable and manipulable, even by one of their own with a few more working brain cells. That's how you got a horde of savage brats torturing and killing a swan in Portsmouth last year. More recently, another swarm of underage sadists have stolen an elderly dog and thrown him to his death on railway tracks in South Wales. So this is one of very few cases we should go along with the oft-decried precautionary principle, even if causality in not fully proven, and go for a blanket ban on social media for under-16s, with no loopholes or exemptions. Successive polls show that the Great British Public do approve of such a ban, and that it is even pretty much consensual.

Totally predictably, the ban is opposed by the usual keyboard warriors of free speech, the far-right loonies supported by Elon Muck and funded by Trumpian Christo-fascists and Putinist blood money. They can't even see the massive irony and lack of self-awareness when their idols Donald and Vlad are the most censorious authoritarians in the Global North, and the keenest on suppressing free speech in their own countries. Amusingly, there is also a backlash from the loopy woke now as the ban will be extended to BlueShite, their platform of choice where a search for "puppy" returns more fetishist perverts than cute wee doggos. This is a textbook case of the political horseshoe, where both the Fash and the Woke take their cues from alien ideologies imported from the USA. Christo-fascism and wokeism both define "free speech" as alignment on the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, under which Nazi propaganda is legal, among other repugnant stuff. There is nothing more un-British than that, and fortunately we do not fall into that trap, as two polls show a massive majority opining that protection from harm is more important than "free speech".

It is only natural that the Fash and their voters rally behind this fallacious notion of "free speech". that is part of the badly-digested extremist libertarianism they also imported from the USA. It is also enlightening that we hear similar asinine opposition from the woke side of the tracks, again revealing how the American roots of this imported ideology embed it deeply in some immensely individualistic vaguely social-libertarian view of society. It's not like the State is trying to indoctrinate kids, as Mao's Red Guards did, or as the militaristic Russian Reich and Christo-fascists in Texas are doing today. Wanking to TikTok furry porn is not an unalienable human right, and bans are already enforced or at advanced stages of the legislative process in half the civilised world, including woke-extremist Australia and California. If irresponsible parents are unable to control what their sprogs are exposed to, and keep them out of harm's way, and our dogs too, what is wrong with the law doing it?

The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

(Terry Pratchett, Diggers, 1990)

Population collapse is the crisis, not your pathetic poverty. Underachieving parasites deserve nothing.

(Elon Musk)

Nothing illustrates the threat of misinformation better than a select quote from Elon Muck, the entitled maniac who wants neo-Nazis to rule Europe and takes his cues from an odd mix of Adolf Hitler, Ayn Rand and Marie-Antoinette. Elon is not a one-man-band here, as the whole of the Trump Administration is the biggest provider of fake news and spreader of disinformation that is dutifully regurgitated by our homegrown Fash. There is an aura of putrid malevolence around both that fully justifies taking the most extreme measures to curb their influence here. We have had examples of this influence recently with the racist riots in Southampton and Belfast, which YouGov obviously couldn't miss, so they dutifully asked us which role we think social media played in what they called "the Belfast disorder", which is as much of a euphemism as the UK government labelling the Northern Ireland Civil War of the late 20th century "the Troubles".

Of course we think that social media played a part. Only Reform voters could be in denial about that. But we must not overlook that there were special traits to Belfast, it was not like Southampton the week before. It wasn't just a horde of Lucy Connolys taking it to the streets, there were elements reminiscent of the Civil War, like the control points that appeared "spontaneously" early in the riots. Checkpoints to filter access to parts of the city is typically what paramilitary militias did there thirty years ago, and obviously they have not lost that skill, and passed it on to the next generation. Bear in mind that Reform UK are in cahoots with the Traditional Unionist Voice, the most radical descendants of the "loyalist" paramilitary thugs of yore. We all know that the root cause of all recent racist riots, from Southport to Belfast, is the Fash stoking the fires with the help of Elon Muck, and turning "legitimate concern" into a fascist dogwhistle. Of course we are concerned, and very legitimately so, but about the influence of misinformation on politics.

The level of concern is so massive that it goes way beyond consensual. But the wording tends to water down the true significance of what we are facing. Misinformation is just jargon for what Winston Churchill called terminological inexactitude to avoid being censored in Commons. Fucking lies, in plain English, or fake news. Which do not come only from the far-right, but also from the far-left. Just look at the Putinist propaganda spewed by both sides. That from the far-left is more extravagant, delirious and revisionist than that from the far-right, who at least try and avoid being caught quoting the FSB verbatim. "Whom can we trust?", you may ask. YouGov asked, and found that we heavily distrust social media. But you should feel free to not trust that poll either, as what we have seen in real life tends to contradict its findings. I am ready to believe we do not trust political parties, but I just do not buy that we trust government websites. I'm not even sure that we actually look them up, or even know where to look. Then I am absolutely sure that more people trust social media than are ready to admit it, or why would the FSB and the Christo-fascists invest so much in bots and the fabrication of fake news? Trust Fox Mulder here, and Trust No One.

Now, if you want another nugget from Muck's heavily ketamine-damaged brain, which has as many holes in it as the Orange Baboon's dementia-riddled brain or a wheel of Emmental, he recently stated that AI will create so much wealth that everyone can have a penthouse if they want. I won't even discuss the obsessive fixation on the neverending creation of wealth or the morality of the widespread use of AI to replace humans, but just focus on the practicality. Where the fuck does Muck think we will find room to build eight billion buildings high enough for each to have its own penthouse? And what do we do with all the other floors that would be left vacant if everybody lives in the penthouse? Isn't that evidence enough that we should never believe anything Muck and all the other serials providers of disinformation and fake news ever say?

We build empires, rockets, and neural nets to save consciousness while useless eaters bitch about medical bills.

(Elon Musk)

Things become worse when political tribes turn into epistemological tribes and people start getting their information from “alternative” sources, abandoning the common ground of shared truth.

(Elif Shafak, The Guardian, 27 June 2026)

Misinformation is also quite clearly a threat to our mental health, as it totally distorts our perception of reality. It is even designed to achieve just that. Already half of us freely admit they can be fooled by AI and fake news, and those who say they can't are just fooling themselves. This is why Putin, Trump and Farage are such avid users of both. Trump has even publicly bragged about it, and how a swarm of lobotomised followers would grant him perpetual impunity. There is actually nothing new in this. Our ancestors called it propaganda, and Josef Goebbels theorised it three generations ago in pretty much the same terms as the Orange Baboon, just more intelligently. What is happening today is the same phenomenon, just boosted by more powerful technology. And, like every technology in human history since the invention of the leash, it has evolved extraordinarily fast for just two reasons. It can be used militarily. There is dosh to be made off it.

Now just ask yourselves how sure you are you can actually identify AI-generated deep fakes. For example, which one is the real dog here? And, when QE2 invited Paddington for tea at The Palace, how many of you believed it was genuine, with just Harry in a costume? We do have a collective understanding that protecting ourselves and our dogs from the malfeasance of AI-generated fake news is more than we can individually tackle. An overwhelming majority of us agree that it requires the government's intervention, and that they also must show some teeth and muscle, if not balls, in their confrontation with the Tech Bros. Now that would be a perfect campaign theme for the King Of The North, wouldn't it? Just imagine that, "I, Andrew Murray Burnham, do solemnly swear that I will take on and tame Meta, Google, X, Microsoft and the other wankers, make them pay their full share of taxes, and force them to abide by our laws or else be banned from operating in the UK until death do us part", or summat. Now that would be an absolute election winner.

We have been groomed to digest fake new for ten years now, since the Orange Baboon first articulated his self-serving concept of post-truth. This is also another domain where the reality of the political horseshoe is validated. Because the Fash and the Woke both want to abolish critical thinking and promote absolute and unquestioning submission to their doxa through the promotion of their ideological alternative realities. This is why both are unrepentant intolerant and censorious witch-hunters of free-thinkers, following the same patterns as Hitler and Stalin before them. Both the Russian Reich and Trumpistan have turned fake news into just another weapon in their new modus operandi for the New Model Cold War. Malevolent use of AI is now a standard feature of the political landscape and our everyday lived experience. It is only the beginning, but it is also not too late to start resisting. Blocking the out-of-control development of massive data centres that feed the various AIs while harming whole communities is a smart way to start, to show our resolve and to force our government into action.

When we cannot even agree on what the reality is, we have no reason to listen to each other.

(Elif Shafak, The Guardian, 27 June 2026)

Brexit revealed and reinforced the faultlines between political fractions, between generations and between locations. Constant political tension, social distrust and extreme polarisation only serve undemocratic tendencies and demagogues.

(Elif Shafak, The Guardian, 27 June 2026)

Of course, the biggest success of organised disinformation in our lifetime was Brexit, and the same forces were behind it as are behind today's promotion of the Fash all across Europe. American big business who want to plunder Europe as they have already ransacked their own country, American Christo-fascists who are totally supportive of theocracy as long as it is theirs, and Putin's imperialist genocidal Born Again Soviet Union. Oddly, there hasn't been much Brexit polling before the tenth anniversary of the collective suicide. The most comprehensive poll was released by More In Common just on Brexit Day, too late for me to incorporate it into my previous article, but I have some time and space for it now. We already know, from a shitload of polls, that we now think Brexit was the wrong decision, was handled badly by successive governments, and that we want to rejoint the EU. But what if we dig deeper? From the EU's side, for example, as it takes to to rejoin, doesn't it? Or, rather, from what we think is the EU's attitude, and that's More In Common asked us to do.

So we lean towards thinking that the EU is likely to happily let us rejoin. Without being really sure, that is. As usual, there are two sides to this story, which are not mutually exclusive. The EU is a mostly rational entity, and their natural pragmatism should tell them that it is in everyone's best interest to get the UK back on board. Increased tensions with the United States alone make that case, as the EU wouldn't want to leave their Western Flank wide open to American influence, which is aiming at weakening Europe and opening the continent to pillage by American Big Business. The same rationale that supports strengthening the Eastern Flank against Russian imperialism applies here. Then why the fuck would the EU now take us back with no questions asked, as if we were the prodigal son bringing the lost sheep back home? More In Common sensed there was an issue here, and probed further with a question about the way the EU would handle us applying to rejoin.

I genuinely think that neither of these options will materialise, and both are unrealistic. The idea of the EU wanting to punish us for being naughty boys is even ridiculously ludicrous. The EU are not Donald Trump, they do not hold grudges and seek petty revenge. The worst that could happen is a copious amount of caution on their part, as we haven't proved to be the most reliable and easy-going partner in times past. It isn't even about Brexit proper, it's more about the various tantrums of the Thatcher era and us assuming we deserved special treatment and opt-outs from everything we did not like. The EU has no reason to offer us opt-outs now, at least in the opening stages of the negotiation, because they wouldn't want to set any precedent that could be used by other countries seeking membership. So the most likely scenario is that they would stick to the rulebook and offer us just what they would offer anyone else, without fear or favour, and that could indeed be a problem. For us.

A majority of Britons believe that Brexit has either failed to deliver its rosy promises or it was a mistake from the beginning. But this does not necessarily mean there is a general appetite to open up the subject again.

(Elif Shafak, The Guardian, 27 June 2026)

Ten years ago, we all dared to dream that the dawn was breaking on an independent United Kingdom.

(Nigel Farage, 23 June 2026)

Right on, Nige. Of course we all wish this had been just a dream, like Season Nine of Dallas, but it isn't. It's more like Benito karaokeing Alice Cooper for £80 on Cameo. Then we can always see the bright side of life. Brexit made us £100bn poorer, but it made Benito £5m richer, so what the fucking fuck? A more pressing concern is what could possibly emerge if we ever opened serious discussions with the EU about achieving a closer relationship with them than the one we have now thanks to the Leave mob. It is not even about rejoining per se, just about getting closer, and already there are significant obstacles across our path. More In Common have selected seventeen topics that clearly show we are actually not ready to share decision-making powers with the EU, which would be the sine qua non for rejoining, or even agree to any compromise.

Not all these topics are covered by EU rules and regulations that they would want to enforce strictly if we rejoined, but they are part of discussions within the EU towards greater integration. The list is also tentative and theoretical. as we do not know what the EU would actually put on the table if we engaged in actual negotiations about some possible scenario of rapprochement. The reality is that the EU member states do not agree between themselves on some of these issues, so it is hard to imagine they would allow the European Commission to include them in any discussion with a new applicant, not just the UK. The EU are very far from federalism, which some of you may remember was initially Winston Churchill's idea as early as 1942, and all member states want to retain a part of their ancestral national sovereignty. British public opinion just want to keep more of it.

Interestingly, More In Common also found that there is a very wide gap between our determination to preserve national sovereignty and our willingness to accept some sort of compromise over the same issues. This is quite an odd and stunning volte-face from just one question in a random poll to the next, but also a positive one, in a relative way. The EU may be willing to lend us an ear if we reframe our dual message, a mix of red lines and wiggle room for compromise, as complementary rather than contradictory. It would surely help too if the next government showed a clear intent to handle the issue in an adult way, not as a political football for the benefit of domestic audiences. Then the BAFTA for the most mendacious lack of self-awareness and biggest porkies has to go to Bozo. How does the fucker think the EU got the people of their countries vaccinated? They did it more efficiently than us actually, despite having a slower start, and none of them had multiple PPE procurement scandals or Partygate. Just saying.

In the long term, history will judge that it was right for us to have a different destiny. Without Brexit we would not have been able to vaccinate the people of this country.

(Boris Johnson, GB News, 23 June 2026)

Ten years ago the people of this country voted to leave the EU in the biggest expression of popular will in our history. We need to stop fearing the freedom and make use of it and move on together.

(Boris Johnson, 21 June 2026)

The second half of More In Common's laundry list drifts away from what you could call the operational details of a closer relationship with the EU, towards broader domains covering different aspects of another major issue. Who should have responsibility for our laws, for the rules and regulations we have to abide by? Ten years ago, the various shades of Leave were quick to vociferously and unequivocally endorse the absolute of Parliamentary Sovereignty, while campaigning for a referendum that was the complete negation of that principle. As always, the irony was totally lost on them. Now, the More In Common poll shows that we want our Government to make the rules, which is a constitutional aberration. This kind of rules are decided by primary legislation, which is totally in the hands of Parliament per the aforementioned dogma of Parliamentary Sovereignty. The Government's remit, per what is usually known as the Henry VIII Powers, is limited to secondary legislation, which in most cases is just the fine tuning of what has been passed by Parliament in primary.

Never mind the fine print at the bottom of page 37 of Hansard, what matters is that we broadly want the legal sausage-making to be handled domestically. But we are again keen on proving that we do not fear a contradiction or, if you really only want to see the bright side of life, are ready and willing to accept pragmatism in our dealings with the EU. Significant pluralities, and even majorities in half of the cases, are willing to limit our Government's powers and allow greater intervention by the EU. Quite amusingly, the issue on which we are least likely to accept power-sharing is immigration. The irony will again be lost on the Fash, as post-Brexit events have proven without the weeest shadow of a doubt that we were better off while part of the EU's regulation of immigration and asylum. Brexit created the small boats and the massive surge of illegal immigration four years ago. The EU had protected us from it, it's a fact that nobody in the right is ready to acknowledge.

The main conclusion I draw from such polling is that we do need to reframe the narrative and catch the Europhobes on the backfoot, or else we are condemned to ruminate the same old Brexit debate for seven generations to come. Foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of the EU is one of the strongest motivations of the Trumputinist Fash, and also a very opportunistic campaign theme for the Rump Tories. On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats' obsessive fixation on rejoining, without contemplating any intermediate solution, will lead us nowhere, because nobody else in the political spectrum will rally around it despite apparent popular support. Now, if Andy Burnham was just as badass as he wants us to believe he is, there is a simple and clear option to turn the tables and take the debate in a totally different direction. Forget about the EU and apply to join EFTA and the EEA. Think outside the box where no one has thought before, get EU Redux without the pre-scripted psychodrama about replacing the Pound with the Euro. Get it done, dusted and wrapped up before the next general election and we will live happily ever after. Simples.

A decade after Britain's momentous Brexit vote, any politician would have to be out of their tiny mind to campaign for Britain to rejoin the EU.

(Boris Johnson, 20 June 2026)

We’ve got to get beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets.

(Andy Burnham, The New Statesman, 24September 2025)

Let me show you something now, for a wee moment of reflection. Andy Burnham's favourability ratings, as measured by various pollsters since July 2025. The most popular politician in the UK is actually no longer that popular, as YouGov have duly noted thanks to their regular tracing. Come closer, and now you see that point where Andy's unfavourables start to skyrocket. The turning point is between two polls fielded on the 13th and the 22nd of May. Now look at the timeline. Josh Simons resigns his seat as MP for Makerfield on the 14th. The writ for election is moved in Commons on the 19th. The notice of election is issued on the 20th, at which point we know Andy will be the only one standing for the Labour selection and will thusly get selected unopposed. So we were basically indifferent to him, and quite liked him, when he was up there in Mancunium, out of sight and out of mind. Then it became obvious he was the Chosen One for the top rung of the food chain, and we started hating him. This is so fucking ridiculous, and so revealing of the appalling state of British public opinion. How come we are so inclined to instantly take down winners? The man isn't even PM yet, for fuck's sake!

It is quite amusing, fucking hilarious even, that the ongoing Labour leadership non-contest has driven the mediatariat to invent totally phony "unwritten rules", the latest perpetrator being Politico, to support Benito Farage's hysterical demand that Andy Burnham call a general election. This is faux journalism at its most mediocre, reflecting only the mediatariat's own appetite for a snap election that would generate easy clickbait and flashy headlines of fabricated drama. Since 1900, fifteen Prime Ministers have taken over mid-term, from Arthur Balfour in 1902 to Rishi Sunak in 2022, and only one called a general election within the same year, Boris Johnson in 2019. Gordon Brown is probably still regretting he did not call one in 2007, though. So fuck off to the sea with your snap election. I don't know if it was coincidence, correlation or causality, but it was quite amusing to see the metropolitan punditaro-mediatarial complex overheat while London was struck by the worst heatwave in living memory. Sadly, we have a string of polls showing that the Great British Public are buying the asinine unconstitutional arguments for a snap election. Opinium even asked twice in the same poll with different wordings, just to be sure the oiks would give the answer that was expected of them.

I am old enough, and my dog is too, to remember that there never was that kind of pressure on Rishi Sunak in October 2022. No recurring polls, no incendiary statements denying him legitimacy, fuck all, jack shit. And it was as it should be, because we live under a parliamentary regime, not a presidential one. Whoever leads the first party gets the keys to Larry The Cat's kibble stash, and that's it. Handling the matter differently because we have a new Prime Minister from the Labour Party is evidence of a hypocritical two-tier frame of mind, which is sadly a perennial trait of the British Right and has become pretty much a defining feature of the Fash. One rule for us, one rule for them. Opinium also asked if we find it right or wrong that Andy Burnham will be elected unopposed, even though it's none of our fucking business, and we are actually split about it. Only Conservative and Reform voters really find it wrong, probably because a competitive election would have exposed the divisions within Labour and weakened Burnham.

The mediatariat are surely also miffed that there won't be any competition for Larry The Cat's guardianship, as shown by The Guardian telling stories of discontent in the ranks, which may be just a wee smitch exaggerated by Burnham's foes. If the media can't have the Agincourt of a snap election, they would gladly settle for Labour Gladiators, just to get their pint of flesh and their pound of blood. Won't happen. mates, so suck it up. Now Andy has decided to establish a Northern Number Ten in Manchester, which will undoubtedly trigger more venomous criticism, just like when someone suggested Commons should be rehomed in York during the 137 years of intensive works needed to prevent the Westminster estate from crumbling down in kind of a Very British Reboot of Designated Survivor. But also possibly because it does not exist yet, as it is currently being built on industrial wasteland in the outskirts of the city and, if the usual English skills in project management apply, will not be delivered before the next general election anyway. It is also a bit odd and off because, if you look at a map of Westeros, Winterfell is more like where Leeds would be. Manchester is closer to Moat Cailin, not the place where the King Of The North would set up his court. Just saying.

Andy’s said some dumb things and he’s done some dumb stuff, but the fundamentals are unfortunately absolutely correct. It isn’t working and we need a radical change.

(Anonymous Labour source, September 2025)

In an age when the public has decided, by default, that it is being lied to, being able to build trust and connect is a vital skill.

(Nazir Afzal, The Guardian, 30 June 2026)

There is nevertheless something the pollstertariat have learned the easy way, and now hold as a self-evident truth, about the Great British Public. We love nothing more than contradicting ourselves within seconds of expressing a strongly-held belief and, the more obvious the trap the pollster lays across our path, the more easily we fall head first into it. There is no reason why the fracas around the Labour leadership non-contest and the snap election should be an exception to that rule, and of course it isn't. All you have to do is ask, which More In Common dutifully did, They boldly went where no pollster had gone before, asking their panel if "the new leader", whose identity remained hidden for the purpose of the poll, has a mandate to govern and get on with the job. Without a general election, And we think he does.

How do we reconcile that with calls for a snap election? Don't ask me, ask yourselves, mates. Resolving contradictions was one of the keystones of Maoism, long before Andy Mackay made an album out of it, and Burnhamism should definitely appropriate it, if only to spare us multiple headaches. Andy himself will need that to cross the first milestone of his Premiership, the appointment of his Cabinet. Rachel Reeves has already accepted that she will go and, if you believe in what we could call "the optics of change", it is safe to bet that Ed Miliband will succeed her. It will also be interesting to watch what will happen to Shabana Mahmood after her row with Mike Tapp about foreign care workers. The same optics make it likely that she will go too, and I wouldn't be surprised if Angela Rayner got the job, and kept Tapp as her junior minister. Of course, we could speculate about that until after the Cabinet's composition is announced, but More In Common has surveyed which kind of logic we would like to see in the appointments, without any really clearly preferred option emerging.

So it's a split between keeping some of the incumbents and starting with a fully new team. Complete renewal is not really a serious option as more than half of the Parliamentary Labour Party are newbies from the 2024 intake, so there is a limited pool of the perfect combination of talent and experience. Speculation is also limited to MPs, but there is no law against appointing peers as full members of the Cabinet in non-ceremonial positions, it just does not happen often. Burnham has that option too, and I guess Jacqui Smith and Patrick Vallance are plausible picks for promotion from their current junior positions to the Round Table. If Rishi Sunak thought he could bring David Cameron back from the dead, why shouldn't Andy Burnham embellish his team with some ermine too? Or is there a plan to lure back David Miliband the Cameron way? Then More In Common also polled us about whom we think Andy will govern for. Don't say "for the people", it wasn't an option and the proposed choices go in another direction.

We are definitely split about that, with only a minority opining that Andy would govern for absolutely everybody in all corners and backwaters of the Realm. Of course Prime Ministers are not supposed to have favourites but they all do, don't they? It is quite logical to expect a change of priorities with less direct or indirect government funding going to the privileged London and South East. Shifting more resources towards the North, when Boris Johnson's "levelling up" has bever been more than a mirage on the horizon, would definitely make sense after generations of nothing substantial going further North than Birmingham, not even HS2. Now the nutters on the right have their knickers in a twist about that, as if Burnham was planning some Harrying Of The South, in a relative way. It is also quite amusing to see Lisa Nandy now investigating the National Lottery as too South-centric, which could be some crude attempt at preserving her seat at the table on Burnham's good side. That nevertheless leaves a blank, which may be the "something else" mentioned in the poll. What about Scotland and Wales? The SNP may have a golden opportunity for radical change here, if they are smart enough to seize it. Instead of squealing at the moon over Burnham's plan to scrap the Barnett Formula, which may not be his plan anymore, call his bluff and offer to trade Barnett for full fiscal autonomy. Nothing to lose here, mates.

We can but hope. Because that’s the thing about a Burnham premiership. A bit better than the last guy isn’t going to cut it.

(Frances Ryan, The Guardian, 30 June 2026)

A figure who was not even an MP until a fortnight ago could soon enter Downing Street without anyone knowing what policies he will implement, other than the obligatory buzzword of “change”.

(Frances Ryan, The Guardian, 30 June 2026)

Now that it has been firmly established that the King Of The North will be King Of The Seven Kingdoms before Anton Du Beke's sixtieth birthday, there is still time to reflect on what we really expect of him. Basically jack shit because the image the polls send back is that of a hub of negativity, peddled even by those who should at least be giving the New Boss the benefit of the doubt, if not wholeheartedly supporting him. But even The Guardian seem to enjoy playing Burnham Tataki, or summat like pre-emptive Schadenfreude, just like the right-wing press whose owners genuinely want him to fail. The problem is that the burnhamophobic narrative is also infecting the public at flank speed, faster even than starmerophobia before it. We have conclusive evidence of that in one of More in Common's many Burnham-themed polls, which asked us to pre-emptively assess how good or bad Andy would be at being Prime Minister.

This is one of these polls that make you lose faith in our collective sanity. The man is not even Prime Minister yet, for fuck's sake, and already a quarter of us assume he can only do a bad job. Can't we just leave him alone and cut him some slack until the new Cabinet is announced? Of course this will trigger more speed polls where anybody who is appointed will be fair game, because the mediatariat have a vested interest in keeping the flow of negativity alive. YouGov too had their avalanche of Burnham-themed polls, and once in a while took us further than just surveying if Andy looks better in short shorts or in a suit. For example, they probed our feelings about Andy's relationship with British business. Do we expect it to be better or worse than Keir Starmer's relationship with them? We're not really sure, probably because we do not know clearly what "business-friendly socialism" means, other than lowering taxes on pubs. Then Andy will not look as business-friendly if he appropriates, as he should, Wes Streeting's proposal to align the rates of the capital gains tax on the income tax.

This kind of question is also evidence of how far the Westminster System has drifted away from pure parliamentarism towards a mix of parliamentarism and presidentialism. The current psychodrama is a textbook case of this drift. Labour under Starmer didn't stand a fucking chance in Hell to win the next general, while Labour under Burnham could plausibly avoid disaster. It has nothing to do with policies, as the Labour Manifesto of 2024 will be Burnham's Tablets Of The Law just like it was Starmer's, the NEC and the PLP wouldn't have it any other way. Err... wait... cut and rewind... not so sure... because now we have one of YouGov's speed polls saying we feel just the opposite. Andy should not be shackled and gagged by the Manifesto, he should do whatever he thinks is best. Which is probably what he intends to do already because, ye ken, Andy knows that Andy knows best, and Andy has got a mandate just for being Andy. Interestingly, Labour voters are the most likely to give Andy a free pass at jettisoning the Manifesto and enforce Manchesterism, which could have interesting unintended consequences in the near future.

It is important to understand the full implications of this one poll. It is not just about a broad definition of what the next government's strategy should be. It actually sets the tone for the one big controversy that government is likely to face even before their first day. The potentially neverending debate about their legitimacy, which the punditaro-mediatarial complex will relentlessly bring back to centre stage, because it will allow some additional screen-time for their beloved Benito. If he is still an MP by then, that is. But this poll totally blows up the mediatariat's narrative, fed by their strategy of cuddling the loony far-right no matter what, that there should be a snap general election after Andy becomes Prime Minister. If we agree that he has a mandate to do whatever he wants, regardless of what the Labour Manifesto says, why would he gamble on a snap general to secure the very mandate that we just granted him? QED. Listen to vox populi, scrap the snap, and that's an easily resolved contradiction. Simples.

The natural gift that wins power is not the same as the discipline that rebuilds a nation’s trust, and No 10 is where warmth turns cold, swallowed by the bubble, the handlers and the daily war for survival. This is the test Andy Burnham now faces.

(Nazir Afzal, The Guardian, 30 June 2026)

The PM-in-waiting brings the promise of likability and a mission voters can believe in. Politics needs ideas but also a set of skills. Anyone who can't do the retail bit is doomed.

(Zoe Williams, The Guardian, 2 July 2026)

Now there must be some reason why we are ready and willing to let Andy get away with ditching the Manifesto and rewriting the lyrics to Things Can Only Get Better, and even the Woke Wing at The Guardian is indulging in some momentary positivity. It's not just that he looks good in a tight black T-shirt that might have been dark blue, or that Kit Harington would be a perfect fit to play him in BBC One's biopic next year, with the mandatory David Tennant as Keir Starmer. There have to be more serious reasons, like we realised that the man does have some substance beyond the shiny happy persona, and we like it. Just look at what we have had to endure as Prime Minister over the last fifteen years. An ectoplasm. a bot, a buffoon. a loony, a fashion model and a ghost. Not one deliverer, and now there is a faint background noise, behind the compulsory negativity, that the King Of The North could be The One. BMG Research and Opinium surveyed how we feel about an array of proposals Andy has made, partly in the past and partly in his recent speech that Opinium described as his first as Labour leader, though it was technically more like the motivation letter attached to his application, and the first impressions are encouraging despite some mixed results.

Of course, we are reluctant to throw good money after bad for a reboot of HS2, and Andy will have a hard time making a convincing case that it would be an asset for his New Model Northern Powerhouse. The same applies to his plan to move some of the SW1 power centre to Manchester, which may very well never happen, as we can easily picture a whole cohort of Humphrey Applebys already plotting against it. The reluctance against the land value tax is harder to understand, as it is redistributive taxation and probably the closest we will get to a wealth tax. In a perfectly logical world, only the likes of Jeremy Clarkson should feel inclined to grab their forks and ride their cows to Whitehall in protest. The second half of the list is more encouraging. Here we are really at the heart of the next government's revamped policies, those who were not in the Manifesto, and you don't even have to weed out the undecideds to get the support of a majority for all of them. It is trademark Burnham as it is a mix of business-friendly, progressive and populist, and he still manages to make us love all of it. Now he will need plenty of this talent to make all of it come true in time to turn around Labour's electoral fortunes.

Obviously, there is a lot of technical and legal work ahead, to turn a bullet list from a speech into draft bills and then workable Acts of Parliament. Especially as all of it would have to materialise within a year to make the change of direction visible and credible. It will unavoidably collide with the construction of an adjusted Budget, and also with all that has to be done in the domains not mentioned in Andy's speech. Justice, benefits, defence, foreign relations, Net Zero, to name just the most obvious. This will be challenging and demanding, and will surely test the public's patience with the New Boss. Not to mention the headaches and heartburns at the Treasury when they see the billions in new spending piling up. But is does not mean that we cannot have some fun along the way, as there is something Kemi Badenoch could do for us, if she can extract herself from the sensory deprivation chamber she has locked herself into since she became Rump Tory Leader By Default. That would be using Burnham's first PMQs to prove us that she does not just get the Game Of Thrones reference about him, but can also make her own geeky nerdy joke off it. Just five wee words. You know nothing, Prime Minister.

It’s widely agreed that Andy Burnham has a vision where his predecessor did not, but each wing of Labour loyalists is projecting their own version of what it is.

(Zoe Williams, The Guardian, 2 July 2026)

Every Labour MP who ventured up to Makerfield said it was a tight race. But the inside data almost instantly began to show that was not the case. It was already looking exceptionally favourable to Burnham by the second week of the campaign.

(Jessica Elgot, The Guardian, 26 June 2026)

There are also clear upsides to the fast-tracked Labour Succession unfolding under our eyes, as Keir Starmer has switched focus to his legacy and left the menial task of winning the next election to Andy Burnham. One of the most welcome unintended consequences is that he has now found the baws to squeeze the Treasury's baws and has made them cough up an additional £1.5bn for defence. We still haven't reached the £18bn requested by John Healey, but we're getting closer. The most important part is not the dosh itself, but the announcement of a complete change of plan for the Royal Navy. It may sound counter-intuitive, but the cancellation of the Type 83 destroyers and the Type 32 frigates is actually good news. The Ministry of Defence has at last listened to the criticism that it was planning to spend billions on gold-plated obsolete white elephants that were just incremental improvements on a long line of designs going back to 1970s concepts, and has shifted to the new Common Combat Vessel and the range of Type 9x platforms that go with it, clearly the best option we have so far for a blue water Navy fit for 21st century conflicts. Just have to call Ukraine for consultants now, to improve our innovation and efficiency. Andy Burnham has a golden opportunity to reopen the case before the Autumn Statement, and finally get the £18bn plus the £5bn still needed on top of that to plug the rest of the defence black hole, as poll after poll shows strong popular support for increased defence spending.

The Last Days Of Starmer are also the last window of opportunity for pollsters to survey our hypothetical voting intentions "if Andy Burnham was Prime Minister". In two weeks at the most, he will be, so the hypothetical will become the run-of-the-mill generic. The last two we have so far, and plausibly the last two of their kind, come from More In Common and BMG Research. Both paint a far less rosy picture than what we could extrapolate, hypothetically, from the Makerfield by-election. In both cases the swing from Reform to Labour is far lower, and the Burnham Effect feeds on nicking votes from the Greens, LibDems, SNP and Plaid Cymru. This is definitely not what Burnham should aim for, as it leaves Reform with a massive number of MPs in a hung Parliament. Neither a Lab-Lib coalition nor a Ref-Con coalition would command a majority, though Lab-Lib would be closer on 305ish seats. But a strong and stable government would require some acrobatics from Burnham, to secure some kind of benevolent neutrality or minimal conditional support from the other left-wing parties. Now that would be fucking awkward.

Now there is definitely one domain in which Andy Burnham should never follow in Keir Starmer's footsteps. The U-turns because, if you U-turn within a U-turn, as Starmer too often did, you do not get back where you started. You are dragged into a downward spiral of doom like a starship drawn into a black hole where a giant spider is waiting for its lunch. Just draw it on a napkin and you will see. But some U-turns are acceptable, though, like repealing Shabana Mahmoud's racket of asylum seekers, which would return only a miniscule amount while generating just the kind of bad optics Andy will want to avoid. Or scrapping the outrageously stupid deal with Trumpistan over medicinal drugs, that would burden the NHS with a £45bn ransom to American Big Pharma every year. It is quite ironic, in a karmic sense, that the most damaging of Keir's U-turns was the one he could not possibly avoid. Letting Andy stand in Makerfield after blocking him in Gorton instantly turned the King Of The North into the Knight In Shining Armour who had Crushed The Fash, the kind of aura he would never have got if he had just narrowly fended off the Greens in Gorton. For Starmer too, the dildo of consequences did not arrive lubed, and there was no alternative to capitulation without a fight.

There’s a joke doing the rounds about Andy Burnham. It usually goes something like this: a Blairite, a Brownite and a Corbynite walk into a bar. “Hello, Andy, what can I get you?” asks the barman.

(Morwenna Ferrier, The Guardian, 5 July 2026)

For thirty years, this country has been run into the ground by an establishment that does not care about the interests and concerns of ordinary British people.

(Rupert Lowe)

There is a new narrative emerging now from the mediatariat, that their once beloved Reform UK may well have the best days of their lives behind them because they are caught in a pincer movement between Labour's resurgence under Andy Burnham and the radicalised far-right embodied by Rupert Lowe's Restore Britain. Lowe himself gained the Great Yarmouth constituency from the Conservatives in 2024 on 35% of the vote as a Reform UK candidate. Less than a year later he fell out with Reform chairman Zia Yusuf, was withdrawn the Reform whip on accusations of bullying and verbal threats, and finally left to found Restore Britain. What looked at first like just another fringe loony outfit gained recognition at the 2026 locals, when they stood as Great Yarmouth First and nicked all of the town's nine seats on Norfolk County Council on 46% of the vote. They thusly caught Elon Muck's attention, who saw an opportunity to take a shot at Benito Farage by supporting Lowe's Trumpian agenda, which aims at deporting everybody who is not pure-bred white English Christian back where they came from, which may be from Great Yarmouth to Hackney. Now we have a poll from More In Common to help us understand what the Great British Public make of this new arrival among the Fifty Shades Of Fash.

These results do not actually favour Restore Britain, probably because they haven't made enough of an impression yet. But we probably won't have to wait long for this. Just until Benito Farage is demoted by the Standards Committee and forced into a by-election because of the multiple bribes he took over the years. Then you can expect Rupert Lowe to send his stormtroopers to Clacton to make sure Benito loses his seat, no matter whom to. That's what friends are for, innit? But the poll also sadly shows that the mediatariat's master plan to promote Reform is working. Now they're the party of ordinary people and change, and the dominants of the right. I guess German polls would have found the same about the Nazi Party in 1932, if there had been any. Taking down their best enemy would certainly increase Restore Britain's visibility and Rupert Lowe's name recognition, which they are currently lacking per the More In Common poll asking who we think is the leader of Restore.

Half of us have no fucking clue who Restore's Führer is and a quarter get it wrong, with some hilarious mistakes thrown in. Some of us identifying Jeremy Corbyn or Zarah Sultana as the leader of Restore Britain is of course not spontaneous at all. It happened only because More In Common included their names in a pre-scripted list of prompts, which is state-of-the-art trolling. Or taking the piss. Now you could argue that it is not as ridiculous as it seems, because Corbyn too wants to Restore Britain to a previous state that exists only in his memories of protests past. But, when Lowe wants to take us back to Victorian times, Corbyn's ambition does not go further than the 1980s, when the politics of opposition were simpler and you could ride your moral high horse to a Billy Bragg free gig on behalf of the CND, fully funded by the Soviet Embassy in London. Then More In Common could not resist the obvious urge to survey hypothetical voting intentions with Restore Britain on the ballot, which in turn led to another highly speculative scenario from me.

So Restore Britain could bag 7% of the popular vote, mostly snatched off Reform UK. This works only if you assume that Restore would find candidates for all 632 constituencies in Great Britain, which is far from a given. It is irrelevant for the purpose of the poll anyway, as hypotheticals are never meant to be realistic. This one is inconclusive as it would just deliver a hung Parliament with Reform and Labour tied and no path to a majority on either side. More In Common really fueled my imagination as they conducted a generic voting intentions poll, the Burnham Hypothetical I mentioned earlier and the Restore Hypothetical at the same time and with the same select panel. I obviously could not resist the urge to calculate the impact of a Compound Hypothetical, aggregating Restore on the ballot and the Burnham Bounce. It is more encouraging for Labour, if you believe that such a once-in-an-epoch alignment of the galaxies could ever happen. It is not yet fully conclusive, as we would still get a hung Parliament, but with Labour just one seat short of the actual working majority for the purpose of divisions. My educated gut feeling is that we should not conveniently dismiss that scenario too hastily. Rupert Lowe still has three years to find the other 631 candidates he needs to nuke Farage, and Burnham has the same three years to succeed in convincing us he deserves a term on his own terms. Stranger things have happened.

The shields are up and the Klingons are shooting at us and every time they land a punch they are sapping our power.

(Rupert Lowe)

The answer for the UK is the rewiring of Britain to make it work differently, and better for all the nations and regions, and not the rupture that independence would mean.

(Andy Burnham, September 2022)

In the latest iteration of their monthly Political Trackers, YouGov polled Scottish Independence, but with a twist. They did not ask the Scottish subsample of their panel, just the English and Welsh. How convenient. Maybe we should have proceeded that way with the Thirteen Colonies instead of being dragged into a war we could only lose. Just imagine what would have happened next. Slavery would have been abolished thirty years earlier. Washington DC would never have been built, so Donald Trump wouldn't have had any historic landmarks to vandalise. Actually, Trump-As-We-Know-It would not even exist as there would be no Presidency. Happily ever after and sunlit uplands and all that. On the flip side, the County of Albanyshire alone would have as many MPs as Greater London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined, and probably use their votes to request representation without taxation. Can't win them all, I guess. Back in our variant of the space-time continuum, our close neighbours are not really supportive of our independence.

The English really oppose Scottish Independence, on no uncertain numbers, whatever their region. The Welsh support it, so maybe we should form some sort of alternative Union with them and tell SW1 to go fuck themselves. The English are also not really interested in getting an English Parliament modelled on the Scottish Parliament. There may be several different explanations for this. The most likely is that they consider the House of Commons to be the de facto English Parliament, even if EVEL is no longer enforced. Or the Sassenach may be smarter than we think, have looked up the Terms of Devolution, and concluded that they want their Parliament to have more powers than ours. Or, you never know, they may just be waiting to see which scheme Andy Burnham has in mind for English Devolution, which would likely be regional rather than national. Then YouGov had to ask the trick question, about who the English and Welsh think would be better off or worse off if Scotland became independent. As you might expect, the results do not disappoint.

So half the English and four out of ten Welsh opine that Scotland would be worse off as an independent nation. This only means that they still believe the ancestral narrative that the Pesky Jocks are subsidised by the rest of the UK, and they have GERS to prove it, even it is now considered irrelevant, out of touch and not even worth a debate by most. The problem is that the numbers don't add up if you put the two faces of the mirror together. If Scotland would hypothetically be worse off as an independent nation, then logic dictates that England and Wales would be better off. But the poll says that the English and Welsh do not believe they would be. There is definitely some faulty logic at work here, which probably does not really matter as this issue will not be subjected to the test of reality in the foreseeable future. Andy Burnham will not agree to hold another Independence Referendum, as his best offer is more devolution, probably falling short of even Gordon Brown's DevoMax of times past. Which is probably just as well, as the SNP have long ago dropped any pretence that they have any sort of plan for independence, and the Scottish Greens just can't be arsed to give a shit.

Andy made the point that he's not a fan of referendums, isn't going to be granting one, and it's not something he is willing to consider.

(Anonymous Scottish Labour MP, The National, 5 July 2026)

You know you’ve arrived as the Prime Minister-in-waiting when even Donald Trump has heard of you. Well, sort of. The name rings a vague bell. Call it a start in the new era of the not-so-special relationship.

(John Crace, The Guardian, 25 June 2026)

Now the North's Great Matter is the by-election for Mayor of Greater Manchester, to be held on 30 July. In normal times, this would have been a non-event and a shoe-in for Labour, as Andy Burnham cruised to victory on two thirds of the popular vote thrice, an unrivalled hat trick that helped build his persona as the King Of The North. But a lot has changed in the ten Metropolitan Boroughs that make up Greater Manchester between the Mayoral election of 2024 and the Council elections of 2026. The most spectacularly visible change happened in Manchester itself, where a massive Green surge did much better than just challenge Labour's ancestral dominance. But Labour should also worry about another great disturbance in the Force, the advent of various local parties or organised action groups in 2026, who coalesced the anti-Labour pro-Palestinian vote and are lying in wait for another opportunity to trip any Labour candidate.

Some of the changes are not instantly visible to a cursory glance at the current composition of the Councils, as all these Boroughs only had a third of their seats up, but the vote shares are merciless. Stockport was and is the odd one out, steadily massive LibDem territory for the last thirty years except at the Mayoral elections. But the other nine Boroughs, once solidly Labour, have changed dramatically, as Labour did not come first in any of them. Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside and, most notoriously since the Makerfield by-election, Wigan have switched to Reform. Manchester itself is a Green-Labour marginal, Salford a Reform-Labour marginal and Trafford the oddest of all, a Green-Labour-Conservatives three-way ultra-marginal.

Find Out Now polled Greater Manchester in January for voting intentions at a general election, and their findings were eerily similar to the aggregate result of the local elections, where many upsets happened. Of course, this is probably just coincidental and says nothing about the Mayoral election, that will rely on different dynamics. Focaldata has since polled the Mayoral race and their findings are more encouraging for Labour. Of course, Reform is breathing down their neck, much too close for comfort. But they will surely find some reasons to believe in the Makerfield by-election, where Andy Burnham started with a 3% lead in a couple of polls and ended up taking the seat by storm on a 20% lead. Labour's position may even have improved thanks to the flow of events, dear boy, events. If the Fash are stupid enough to prioritise the protection of their Führer's personal interests over a politically significant election, just sit back and watch and let them do it.

Bev Craig is obviously Labour's best choice to succeed Andy Burnham. She has been a Councillor for fifteen years, in charge of health and wellbeing for the last four years before she became Leader of Manchester City Council. She has held this position for almost five years now and is in charge of economy and business for the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. She is also often credited with being the true architect of Manchesterism. But the by-election is a challenge for her, even with the switch back from first-past-the-post to supplementary vote. The electoral system was irrelevant for Burnham as he cruised to triumph thrice with thousands of votes to spare, but it matters for Craig. She has to come on top of the first preferences, as being elected by tactically-motivated second preferences would be a stain on her Mayoralty from day one. It is quite predictably obvious how the Fash would weaponise that to question her legitimacy, so she must come first on firsts, preferably with a better margin than the poll predicts.

This is the first time the UK has found itself looking for a new PM, a new James Bond and a new lead for Doctor Who, all at the same time.

(Nadia Khomami, The Guardian, 26 June 2026)

Even the most loyal Keir people know they have a better chance of keeping their seats with Andy. That’s not saying he is the Messiah. But it is a fact.

(Anonymous Labour MP, The Guardian, 26 June 2026)

Earlier reports, that hinted Your Party had gone into fission, may have been premature as they don't seem to have reached the stage of reabsorption into the total animal soup of time, at least for now. It is indeed a bit of a sad ending for Jeremy Corbyn, whose audience has shrunk from the Pyramid Stage at Worthy Farm to a half-empty backroom at the Hope And Anchor, but he should have retired earlier. Like standing down and offering his seat to Zack Polanski, who probably has jack shit chance of ever being elected anywhere else if the next general turns into a burnhami. But Corbyn and Polanski are being retuned to irrelevance now, as the trendlines of voting intentions show the conjunction of a Burnham Bounce for Labour and a Farage Slump for Reform. There is nevertheless a glitch in the Matrix as Reform are losing ground to the Conservatives and Labour are nicking votes off the Liberal Democrats, so it is not a total win-win.

Today's snapshot of voting intentions includes the last eight polls, fielded by Lord Ashcroft, Survation, Ipsos, Find Out Now, Opinium, More In Common and YouGov between 29 June and 8 July. That's a supersample of 20,392 or roughly the normal displacement of a Colossus-class battleship from the 1910s. There is a mix of bad and good news in there. The bright side of life is that Reform is less than 4% ahead of Labour, down from 8% two weeks ago, which is a fucking big Burnham Bounce even before Burnham is in. The seat projection looks good at face value, with Reform very far from a majority, but there is still a long way to go before they lose the top spot. The bad news is that part of the Burnham Bounce rests on snatching seats off the LibDems, while the Conservatives are seen gaining quite a lot from Reform, compared to their performance of two weeks ago. But it's early days, and we have every reason to hope that Burnham will be smart and artful enough to land some bruising blows on the Fash quickly.

Now we have another mystery to solve, The Curious Incident Of Robert Jenrick At The BBC, who again reported it as if they were the Clacton Führer's counsel. You could easily think that Vigilante Bob is planning a coup against Benito Farage, as he appeared absolutely delighted to confirm all the details of Benito's relationship with a convicted money launderer and wire fraudster, who subsidised him with the proceeds of his gambling. After Thai Chris' £5m bribe, Posh George's multiple small gifts to "Daddy" may well be the last straw triggering Benito's ultimate and well-deserved demise. Or it may be Benito's £25k an hour second job for a gold dealer, just make your pick from the daily expanding list of his shady secret deals. Now Benito has decided to jump before he was pushed, and we will get a by-election that started as a stunt and has already turned into a total farce in just two hours. On top of that, offering to pay for the by-election, which is illegal anyway, when you are under investigation for shady financial deals, shows that you are not the sharpest note in the scale. With only Count Binface standing, Benito will win this one in complete ridicule, be investigated again as soon as he is sworn in again, found in breach of whatever, recalled and forced to face a real by-election. Unless there is a Tatton Effect in Clacton, and the whole farce reaches its climax with Count Binface coalescing the whole of the anti-Benito resistance vote and defeating him, being thusly granted a new persona as Jonathan Harvey MP. Now that will be real fun, and the perfect people-vs-establishment outcome.

Nigel Farage is still trying to work out whether it will be easier to make money inside or outside frontline politics. Being Prime Minister could be just a lucrative side hustle.

(John Crace, The Guardian, 1 July 2026)

Imagine good growth, housing and jobs. Hope in every heart. Imagine it no more. Let’s make it happen.

(Andy Burnham MP, 29 June 2026)

The breakdown of predicted votes and seats by nation and region shows that the Burnham Bounce is pretty widespread all across England, except in London where the Greens are still riding high, but very tiny in Scotland and Wales. Andy Burnham's opposition to a second Independence Referendum has obviously taken its toll in Scotland and strengthened the SNP's position, and has also had some ripple effect in Wales, where public opinion is highly supportive of Scottish Independence. But Burnham obviously considered it was a sound strategy to get that out of the way unambiguously right away, and he may even be right. Scottish Independence is definitely a double-edged can of worms for any Labour Prime Minister, and Burnham would probably have got the same result if he had shown an open mind, with the obvious downside that he would have taken massive flak from the right. I guess that lousy prospects for Scottish Labour are an acceptable price to pay for keeping all quiet on the English front.

The most obvious effect of the Burnham Bounce is seen in the North West of England, as you might expect. Labour are now predicted to top the popular vote and bag the highest number of seats there, after a very long sequence of polls where Reform emerged as the dominant party. It does not work as well in the rest of the North or in the Midlands, though the polls predict some progress for Labour there too. Oddly, the effects of the Burnham Bounce are also seen in the South of England, where Labour are predicted to hold more than half the seats they bagged in 2024, doing thusly better than at any election since 2010 and almost as well as in 1997. The downside is that they would achieve this by snatching votes off the Liberal Democrats, who would then lose a number of seats to the Conservatives and Reform. But this is acceptable collateral damage, innit?

Now, you may ask, has the LibDems' counter-burnhamian Cuddling Of The South gone too far? You may think so when one of their MPs has been witnessed standing up at PMQs to oppose the construction of a hospital he lobbied for two years ago. Mister Ed's spads should explain him that going The Full Nimby will only take the LibDems so far, and that allowing their opponents to rebrand them as the Party Of Golf Courses can only hurt their carefully crafted public image. It did not get better when Layla Moran MP, usually one of the most vociferous propagandists of the trans ideology lobby, tabled an Early Day Motion to grant Harry Kane a knighthood, and the party dutifully made it their Great Matter to publicly lobby for it. A truly progressive party would never have undertaken such a ridiculously frivolous endeavour, and would instead have denounced FIFA as the abject hub of corruption and submission to the whims of the high and mighty that they are. Even the usually compliant and dosh-motivated UEFA went ballistic over it, for fuck's sake. Thank Dog for Belgium squarely defeating the cheats. Otherwise, the LibDems would have had egg on their faces if the United States had reached the final only because FIFA chose to suck the Orange Baboon's dick and unsanctioned one of their players under direct pressure, and defeated England in that final.

I’ve always been a Labour politician that’s about unifying people, trying to be positive and working together. That’s my approach to politics. I think politics needs less division and less factionalism these days.

(Andy Burnham not-yet-MP, The Guardian, 4 June 2026)

Roger Keith "Syd" Barrett

(Cambridge, 6 January 1946 - Cambridge, 7 July 2006)

Jeremy's Den

10/07/2026

In The Shadow Of Yesterday's Triumph

In The Shadow Of Yesterday's Triumph