Andy Burnham Declares Bid to Succeed Keir Starmer as UK Prime Minister - Newstrends
Connect with us

International

Andy Burnham Declares Bid to Succeed Keir Starmer as UK Prime Minister

Published

on

Andy Burnham Declares Bid to Succeed Keir Starmer as UK Prime Minister

Andy Burnham Declares Bid to Succeed Keir Starmer as UK Prime Minister

  • Former Greater Manchester mayor launches leadership bid after Starmer’s resignation, with Wes Streeting backing him and a radical plan to reverse privatisation.

Andy Burnham has formally declared his candidacy to succeed Keir Starmer as Leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, hours after being sworn into the House of Commons on Monday. In a post on X, Burnham thanked Starmer for his service and said his resignation “marks the beginning of a transition and it is important that this process is conducted in an orderly and responsible way. I will put myself forward as part of this process.” He further stated that “the country expects stability, seriousness and a continued focus on the issues that matter most,” specifically citing progress on economic growth, the cost of living, public services, housing, and opportunities for the next generation. He emphasised that political change should never distract from the responsibility to improve people’s lives.

The path to a coronation appeared to clear further on Monday after former Health Secretary Wes Streeting, until recently considered a leading contender for the leadership, announced he would back Burnham rather than mount a rival challenge. Streeting said he was convinced that Burnham “is committed to building an inclusive party that draws on the best of our political traditions and that he can win the fight of our lives against the force of nationalism.” Calling for unity, Streeting urged the party to avoid spending the summer exaggerating small differences and instead roll up their sleeves to help Burnham deliver the change the party and the country need.

Burnham, 56, secured his return to Parliament last Thursday after decisively winning the Makerfield by-election in north-western England, a seat he needed to mount a formal leadership bid. He had signalled his intentions in his victory speech, warning that Labour had a “final chance to change” and pledging to “lay out a new path for Britain.” Under Labour rules, Starmer will remain caretaker Prime Minister until the new leader is chosen, with the leadership process expected to launch in July and a successor in place by September ahead of the party’s annual autumn conference. Should Burnham prevail, he would become the United Kingdom’s seventh prime minister since the Brexit vote in 2016.

READ ALSO:

At the heart of Burnham’s political platform is “Manchesterism,” an approach centred on local delivery, integrated public services, and a more active state. Drawing on his record as Mayor of Greater Manchester—where he introduced the Bee Network to re-regulate buses and standardise fares—Burnham argues that reasserting public control over essential services can deliver better outcomes for less money. A policy paper titled The Productive State, released on Monday by the Labour group Mainstream, provides a detailed blueprint for this agenda. It argues for a framework to reverse 40 years of privatisation, particularly in failing utilities, through measures such as special administration regimes, where the government steps in when companies like Thames Water face financial distress; bond-for-share exchanges, which would allow the state to bring healthy utility companies into public control without a massive upfront cash expense (though this would require legislation and likely face legal challenges); and establishing state competitors by setting up public corporations to compete with private providers. The essay argues that privatisation has led to a “privatisation premium”—a regressive hidden tax embedded in everyday bills that transfers wealth from households to investors. The state is then forced to subsidise inflated costs with welfare transfers, such as housing benefit or energy bill support. The paper contends that for millions of households, the basic non-negotiable expenses of life—rent, energy bills, water charges, transport fares, the cost of care—now consume so large a share of their income that insecurity has become a permanent condition. The ultimate goal, the paper states, is “an economy … in which the essentials of life are treated as rights rather than revenue streams”.

The Labour leadership contest appears increasingly likely to be uncontested, with Streeting’s endorsement removing Burnham’s most prominent rival. Reports indicate Burnham has secured the backing of over 200 MPs, with some allies suggesting the number could be closer to 300. Under Labour Party rules, a challenger needs nominations from at least 20% of the parliamentary party (currently 81 MPs) to force a contest. With Streeting withdrawing and Burnham’s support surging, a “coronation”-style transfer of power is now the most probable outcome. However, some MPs have expressed a desire for Burnham’s ideas to face “scrutiny” through a contested race.

Burnham’s policy platform can be broken down across several key areas. On utilities and privatisation, he proposes reversing 40 years of privatisation through bond-for-share exchanges and special administration regimes to bring failing utilities under public control, arguing that privatisation has created a “privatisation premium” that makes essentials unaffordable and drains public finances. On housing, he advocates a massive expansion of social housing and reform of the housing market to tackle the housing crisis and reduce the cost of housing benefit. On the economy and taxation, he proposes exploring a wealth tax, offering tax cuts for small businesses, and borrowing for investment, seeking to stimulate economic growth while addressing inequality. On devolution and governance, he champions radical devolution of powers to local governments and reform of the first-past-the-post voting system, aiming to address resentment towards the “London-centric” establishment and give more power to communities.

Looking ahead, the Labour Party’s leadership contest is expected to be formally triggered in July, with a new leader in place by September. If Burnham is the sole candidate, he could potentially take over sooner. However, the political climate remains turbulent, with Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party posing a significant challenge, particularly in the “Red Wall” seats that Labour needs to retain. Burnham’s ability to navigate the fiscal constraints of the Treasury, market concerns, and the threat from the right will be crucial to his success if he enters No 10. For now, his “Manchesterism” pitch has put him firmly in the driver’s seat to become the UK’s next Prime Minister.

Andy Burnham Declares Bid to Succeed Keir Starmer as UK Prime Minister

Loading

International

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials

Published

on

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials
Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials

The United States has refused to issue visas to some members of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s delegation, including members of his communications team, ahead of his planned appearance at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York.

Iranian state media reported the visa refusals on Monday, September 21, 2026, while confirming that the United States has authorised the core Iranian delegation to travel to New York for the high-level UN gathering.

Pezeshkian is expected to address the 81st UN General Assembly on Wednesday, making his planned visit the highest-level Iranian presence in the United States since the conflict involving Iran, Israel and the US escalated earlier this year.

Iran’s state news agency, IRNA, reported that the Trump administration had denied visas to certain members of Pezeshkian’s high-level delegation, including personnel responsible for communications.

The Mehr news agency also reported the visa denials, citing a spokesperson for the Iranian presidency.

The decision does not amount to a blanket refusal of entry to the Iranian delegation. The United States has authorised the core delegation, which includes President Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, to attend the UN General Assembly.

The distinction is significant because the annual UN gathering brings together representatives of member states at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York, which is hosted by the United States.

The current arrangement follows restrictions imposed by Washington on the Iranian delegation during last year’s General Assembly. UN records show that Iran previously raised concerns over visa delays and denials affecting members of its delegation and argued that such restrictions hindered its participation in UN activities.

For this year’s meeting, Washington has also imposed restrictions on the movement and activities of the Iranian delegation while it is in the United States.

READ ALSO:

The State Department has said the delegation will face restrictions on its movements and on the purchase of certain luxury goods and other items. The measures come amid the absence of normal diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States and the continuing conflict between the two countries.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi left Iran on Sunday for the United States, travelling through Qatar.

The Iranian government has also used Qatar as an intermediary in communicating with Washington over the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for global oil and gas shipments.

Tehran has conveyed conditions for reopening the waterway, according to Iranian officials, while the United States has imposed measures against Iranian ports.

The Strait of Hormuz has become a major issue in the wider conflict because of its importance to international energy supplies.

Pezeshkian’s expected appearance at the UN General Assembly comes at a particularly sensitive moment in relations between Tehran and Washington.

The conflict has also become a major issue for this year’s UN gathering, with world leaders expected to discuss the Middle East, the war involving Iran, the conflict in Ukraine, the situation in Gaza and other international crises.

The Iranian president’s presence in New York could provide an opportunity for diplomatic contacts on the sidelines of the General Assembly, although the two governments remain sharply divided over the conflict and other issues.

US President Donald Trump is also attending the UN General Assembly this week and is expected to address the gathering.

Trump has indicated that he remains open to discussions involving Iran, while Tehran has continued to communicate through intermediaries.

The visa dispute therefore adds another layer to already strained US-Iran relations, but it has not prevented Iran’s president and foreign minister from attending the UN meeting.

For now, Pezeshkian’s scheduled appearance means Iran will have senior-level representation at the 81st UN General Assembly, despite Washington’s refusal to issue visas to some members of his wider delegation.

The immediate focus will be on Pezeshkian’s address, Iran’s position on the ongoing conflict and whether the UN gathering creates opportunities for further diplomatic engagement between Tehran and Washington.

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials

Loading

Continue Reading

International

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

Published

on

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

CNN, MS NOW and Politico have filed a federal lawsuit against the administration of US President Donald Trump, challenging the decision to revoke their journalists’ access to the White House.

The three major news organisations are asking a federal court in Washington, DC, to intervene after the Trump administration barred their reporters from the White House grounds and deactivated or confiscated their press credentials.

The organisations argue that the administration’s action violated their First Amendment press rights and the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections, alleging that their access was withdrawn because of dissatisfaction with their reporting.

The case was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, with the media organisations seeking expedited consideration of their challenge and an order restoring their access to the White House.

The lawsuit names President Donald Trump, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House spokesperson Steven Cheung and Secret Service Director Sean Curran as defendants.

The legal action followed Trump’s decision to exclude the three organisations from the White House after he accused them of publishing what he described as “fake news” about his administration.

Trump has argued that journalists remain free to report on him but that the administration is not required to provide White House access to every news organisation.

The president also defended the decision on social media, where he characterised the affected outlets as a threat to national security. The reports on the lawsuit did not indicate that the administration had presented evidence publicly establishing such a threat.

The dispute escalated on Saturday, September 19, when reporters working for CNN, MS NOW and Politico were turned away from the White House complex.

Their press access was reportedly deactivated or their credentials confiscated, preventing them from covering activities inside the presidential complex in the usual manner.

The organisations subsequently warned that the White House decision raised broader questions about whether a presidential administration could deny access to journalists because of disagreement with their reporting.

READ ALSO:

In their court challenge, the outlets are expected to argue that the government cannot use access to public officials and government facilities as a means of punishing or influencing the content of news coverage.

The case comes as the Trump administration has significantly changed the way White House press access is managed.

The administration has increasingly exercised greater control over which journalists attend certain presidential events, while also expanding access for reporters from organisations it considers more favourable or less represented in traditional White House press coverage.

The latest dispute, however, concerns the removal of access from three established national news organisations at the same time.

The White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) has criticised the exclusion of the outlets and raised concerns about the implications for press access and government transparency.

Other media organisations and press-freedom groups have also expressed concern over the decision, arguing that government officials should not determine access based on whether they approve of particular news coverage.

The White House, on the other hand, has maintained that the administration has authority to determine access to the White House and has repeatedly accused some mainstream news organisations of inaccurate or unfair reporting.

The legal battle also has implications beyond the three organisations involved because federal courts have previously considered disputes between the executive branch and news organisations over access to the president.

One prominent case involved CNN reporter Jim Acosta during Trump’s first administration.

In 2018, the White House revoked Acosta’s press credentials following a confrontation during a presidential news conference. CNN challenged the decision in court, and a federal judge ordered the temporary restoration of his access.

The Trump administration has also been involved in a more recent dispute with the Associated Press.

The administration restricted AP’s access after the news agency declined to adopt Trump’s preferred terminology for the Gulf of Mexico. A federal judge later ordered the administration to restore the AP’s access in certain circumstances, although subsequent litigation resulted in distinctions between generally accessible areas and more restricted presidential events.

The current lawsuit involving CNN, MS NOW and Politico raises related but distinct questions about the government’s authority to control press access.

A central issue is expected to be whether the administration can exclude news organisations from access that is otherwise made available to members of the White House press corps because of disagreement with their reporting.

Another issue is the extent to which the First Amendment limits government decisions affecting journalists’ access, particularly when the alleged reason for exclusion is connected to the content or viewpoint of their reporting.

The media organisations are also challenging the process used to revoke their access, arguing that they were not given adequate notice or an opportunity to contest the decision before their credentials were withdrawn.

The case has already affected White House media arrangements beyond routine presidential coverage.

CNN had been scheduled to provide the television pool feed for Trump’s Monday trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, but the assignment was removed from the White House press schedule following the access dispute.

The White House press pool is important because participating organisations provide shared coverage, photographs, video and other material that can be used by news organisations that cannot send their own journalists to every presidential event.

The lawsuit therefore places questions of press freedom, government transparency and presidential control over media access at the centre of another federal court dispute involving the Trump administration.

For the three organisations, the immediate objective is restoration of access to the White House and the ability of their journalists to resume reporting from the presidential complex.

For the administration, the dispute involves its stated authority to determine who receives access to the White House and how that access is organised.

The court’s handling of the case could provide further guidance on the constitutional limits surrounding White House press credentials, particularly where access decisions are alleged to be connected to the content of journalists’ reporting.

Until the court rules, the competing claims remain disputed. The lawsuit itself does not establish that the administration violated the Constitution, while the White House’s allegations against the news organisations remain the administration’s stated position rather than findings by a court.

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

Loading

Continue Reading

International

18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse

Published

on

18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse
18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse

Eighteen suspects accused of involvement in the 2021 assassination of former Haitian President Jovenel Moise have been transferred from Haiti to the United States to face trial.

US officials said the suspects were transported to Florida on Sunday, as American authorities continue their prosecution of people allegedly connected to the plot.

Federal prosecutor Jason Reding Quinones said the suspects were flown from Haiti on a military aircraft to face proceedings in the Southern District of Florida.

He said US authorities had so far indicted 30 people in connection with the assassination and warned that the prosecutions were not over.

Among those transferred was Joseph Felix Badio, a former anti-corruption official with Haiti’s Ministry of Justice who has been identified as a major suspect in the investigation.

Haitian government and police sources said the other suspects included Colombian nationals who were allegedly part of the group involved in the operation.

READ ALSO:

Colombian Nationals Among Suspects

Colombia’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that 17 of its citizens had been transferred from Haiti to the United States.

The ministry said the Colombian government was monitoring the development but had not participated in the decision or process that led to the transfer.

Moise was killed at his private residence in Port-au-Prince on July 7, 2021. Investigators said a group of about 20 Colombian military-trained mercenaries had been hired in connection with the operation.

The president’s security detail came under scrutiny after failing to prevent the attack.

In May, four men were convicted in a Miami federal court over charges connected to the plot, including conspiracy to kill or kidnap Moise and providing material support for the operation. They could face life imprisonment.

US prosecutors said the men were linked to CTU Security, a Florida-based private security company, and had allegedly been attracted by the prospect of lucrative contracts after Moise was removed from power.

The assassination plunged Haiti further into political and security turmoil. The country has since struggled with gang violence and remains without a president, while preparations continue for elections scheduled for December, subject to security conditions.

18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse

Loading

Continue Reading

Trending