Early evening summary
-
Britain will have to “dial back” on military operations and exercises in the next few years if the Ministry of Defence (MoD) does not receive extra funding from Downing Street and the Treasury, Rich Knighton, the chief of the defence staff, has told peers. Later John Healey and Al Carns both delivered speeches in the Commons explaining why they resigned last week as defence ministers. Healey, the former defence secretary, said that the defence investment plan fell “well short of what is required” and, referring to Rachel Reeves refusing requests to escalate defence spending more quickly, he said: “Our adversaries don’t follow timetables set by the Treasury.”
For a full list of all the stories covered on the blog today, do scroll through the list of key event headlines near the top of the blog.
Earlier I posted some Ipsos polling suggesting that, if Andy Burnham were Labour leader, the party would get a 4-point boost in polling against Reform UK. (See 1.13pm.)
Deltapoll has also sent out some polling today.
Here are the headline voting figures.
Reform UK: 28%
Labour: 20%
Conservatives: 17%
Greens: 13%
Lib Dems: 12%
And here are the figures when people were asked who they would vote if Burnham were Labour leader.
Reform UK: 27%
Labour: 26%
Conservatives: 17%
Greens: 11%
Lib Dems: 11%
So the Deltapoll figures suggest having Burnham as leader could allow Labour to reduce an 8-point Reform UK lead into a 1-point lead, which is within the margin of error.
But, in its news release, Deltapoll includes what it describes as a “really important caveat”. It says:
This does not mean that if Andy Burnham were to become prime minister, we would expect Labour’s vote share to definitely increase by 6%, Labour to draw level with Reform etc. This is a future hypothetical question and us human beings are extraordinarily bad at predicting our own behaviour, particularly in a low information context like a Burnham PM. Nobody (perhaps even Burnham himself) knows the precise details of his position, let alone his policies, when it comes to the economy, the NHS, immigration, the cost of living, Brexit etc.
Deltapoll concludes:
Should Andy Burnham win [the byelection], Deltapoll’s result show there is support among the electorate for the idea of him replacing Keir Starmer as Prime Minister. It is far from clear, however, if Andy Burnham (or anyone else) can actually satisfy the British public’s desire for change. Any Burnham Bounce could turn out to be small and short-lived.
Badenoch says Tory win in Aberdeen South byelection would force government to back more North Sea drilling
Kemi Badenoch has described the Aberdeen South byelection.
In a post on social media, she said:
Whatever plot twist in Labour’s psychodrama unfolds in the North West of England, it’s a byelection in the North East of Scotland that could be the real game changer.
If Douglas Lumsden and the Scottish Conservatives were to beat the SNP, it would send a lightning bolt of a message to the occupants of Downing Street and Bute House that their war on oil and gas must end now.
And, during a visit to the constituency today, she said:
What people can see is that we can win here in Aberdeen South. Conservatives can win, but we need even people who don’t normally vote Conservative to support us, so that we can send a message to the Labour government and to the SNP that we will back the oil and gas industry.
It’s the only way to send a message by voting for Douglas Lumsden on Thursday June 18. He has lived in Aberdeen all his life, he’s worked in the oil and gas sector, he’s helped to run the council, he’s from here, he cares about the city, as do I …
Everyone is talking about the byelection in Makerfield, that is about one man’s job and one man’s ego, but this byelection is about thousands of jobs.
Jessica Elgot has a good article on who the key figures might be in an Andy Burnham administration. It’s here.
Jess suggests Miliband is in line for a big job. In the i, Caroline Wheeler and Kitty Donaldson are also saying that. But while Jess is talking about Ed being a possible chancellor, Wheeler and Donaldson are talking about David being a possible foreign secretary.
They report:
There were murmurs that Miliband, who’s younger brother Ed is energy secretary, was interested in returning to the House of Commons around the last general election when he repeatedly declined to rule out a comeback.
But the discussions this time are said to centre on a more unusual route: that he might accept a seat in the House of Lords and walk straight into the cabinet as foreign secretary …
“There have been discussions about David returning and it’s an idea that is worth taking seriously if Andy is back in parliament,” said a Labour source.
The one question that obsesses progressive politicians at the moment is how best to campaign against Reform UK and Nigel Farage. Sam Freedman has written about this at length in a post on his Comment is Freed Substack, and it includes polling showing what messages have most impact on potential voting intention. His conclusion is perhaps surprising.
Let’s start with the messages that don’t appear to work. Perhaps unsurprisingly attacking them on immigration has little effect because those inclined to vote Reform are typically willing to take aggressive measures to reduce numbers. Pointing out that millions of citizens could be harmed by proposals to scrap indefintite leave to remain actually increases their vote share. Which is line with other evidence showing that boosting the salience of immigration helps Farage, even if it’s Labour politicians explaining the robustness of their policies ….
What did work was going after Farage on money/class and its impact on his policy choices. A message about the £5m he received from a crypto billionaire and how that had led him to endorse pro-crypto policies pushed Reform’s vote share down by almost four percentage points. Another around Reform’s plans to remove workers’ rights, recently introduced by Labour, pushed it down by just under three points. But the most potent attack line of all was linking Reform’s plans to bring back fox hunting to a general message about them only being interested in the rich (a 4.6 point drop).
Actually, perhaps this should not be so surprising to anyone familiar with Brits and their love for animals. (See 3.50pm.) And it won’t be surprising to any Conservatives who remember the 2017 election, when a casual manifesto promise to allow a free vote on reversing the ban on fox hunting became a big vote-losing liability.
Refugee groups condemn Tory plan to remove judges from asylum appeals
Refugee groups and lawyers have described Conservative proposals to strip judges of their powers to rule on asylum seekers’ appeals against deportations as “an attack on the concept of justice and equality under the law”, Rajeev Syal reports.
Starmer insists he's proved his critics wrong 'many times before', as he again says he won't 'walk away' from being PM
Keir Starmer has again insisted that he will fight any challenge to his leadership. At ITV reports, speaking at the G7 summit, Starmer said:
So very many times on my political journey people have said to me ‘it’s not possible.’
They said it’s not possible to turn the Labour party around, it’s not possible to win an election, it’s not possible if you do win an election to invest in your public services and stabilise the economy. Wrong every time.
And that’s why I intend not to walk away from this, but to carry on with what I was elected to do, which is to serve this country and bring back the change that people desperately need in their lives.
Starmer is expected to face a leadership challenge if Andy Burnham wins the Makerfield byelection on Thursday. In a BBC interview at the end of last week, Starmer said he accepted he would have to “turn things around” if he wanted to fight another election as Labour leader. These comments suggest he genuinely believes he could do that.
Many others in his party are not so sure.
Farage’s plan for equal pay legislation may cost female workers money, say unions
A law proposed by Nigel Farage to “strengthen women’s rights” could cost female workers money by removing equal pay for work of equal value, unions have said. Daniel Boffey has the story.
Rayner dismisses claim better pay and conditions for young people contributes to youth unemployment
Angela Rayner, the former deputy PM, has dismissed claims that better pay and conditions for young people is bad for their employment prospects.
Before she resigned last year, Rayner was a key figure driving the employment rights bill through parliament. It was described as the biggest boost to workers’ rights for a generation. The government has also overseen a significant increase in the minimum wage for young workers, and has pledged to ensure all over-18s over time get the full adult rate (now paid to over-21s).
Employers have opposed both these developments, claiming they make firms less likely to hire new workers. And last month, when he publised his much-admired report on young people not in education, employment or training (Neets), Alan Milburn, the former Labour cabinet minister, suggested these Labour policies were contributing to the problem.
Addressing the Unison conference this afternoon, Rayner insisted that better wages and conditions for young people were not to blame.
She said:
Let me start with the argument that better wages and conditions for young people are why there are not enough jobs for them, and that we must retreat.
Today, I want to take that argument on. Head on.
I agree that the tide of young people not in employment, education or training is a genuine problem.
But as Alan Milburn found, it is long-term and structural, and has been consistently higher than other countries since long before Labour took office, let alone improved pay for young people.
It’s why we didn’t bring in our changes to the minimum wage overnight but let the Low Pay Commission do its job.
And I’m passionate about getting young people, including those with disabilities or health challenges, into good jobs.
But abandoning our ambitions and making those jobs worse surely cannot be the way to get young people into them.
And this is the wider point. Better quality jobs – with a stronger voice for people at work – is the solution, not the problem.
It is how we build the higher productivity, higher pay economy that we need.
No 10 says Dartmoor ponies won't be culled - but Tories say PM can't be trusted, and launch petiton to save them anyway
This morning the Times ran a story about their being too many semi-wild ponies on Dartmoor and suggesting some of them could be culled. Anyone familiar with British voters, British newspapers and British polticians could tell what was going to happen next.
There has been uproar online. And the denials have come thick and fast.
A No 10 spokersperson said:
So, let me be very clear on this: this government will not allow a cull of Dartmoor ponies and we don’t manage feral pony populations by culling in this country.
Natural England has not recommended a cull of Dartmoor ponies and it does not have the power to order a cull and has not advised one.
And, more broadly, Dartmoor ponies are part of the cultural landscape of Dartmoor and play a vital role in the health of its moorland habitats.
[The ponies are] safe under this government.
A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:
Dartmoor ponies are an important part of Dartmoor’s heritage and also key to supporting the habitats of Dartmoor.
Natural England are not recommending a cull and this government wouldn’t support one.
But that has not stopped the Conservative party launching a petition. The Tories say:
Keir Starmer might have said he won’t allow the ponies to be shot. But the prime minister has a history of saying things and not acting on them, and u-turning when the going gets tough.
So the Conservatives are urging Labour to intervene, overrule Natural England and ensure Dartmoor’s ponies are protected, and calling on the public to sign our petition at www.savetheponies.com
Like most political petitions, this one seems to be more about data harvesting (it asks for an email address, and details of how you voted in 2024, and how you might vote in the next local elections) than about influencing government decision making.
Helena Horton has a sensible account of the problem here.
Bridget Phillipson says Badenoch's 'Gestapo' jibe about her shows she's 'not fit to be PM'
Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, has finally got round to reading Tim Shipman’s account in the Spectator of the live interview he did with Kemi Badenoch at an event last week. She is not happy.
In a passage praising Badenoch’s willingness to be direct, Shipman says:
Ed Miliband’s insistence that these assets remain in the ground is ‘very much like what the Nigerian military dictatorships were doing in the 1980s and 1990s’. Bridget Phillipson, by raiding VAT on private school fees ‘has acted like a Gestapo officer’. Of Starmer she says: ‘I’ve grown to feel sorry for him, but I have also grown to dislike the way he does not take any responsibility.’
This afternoon Phillipson has posted a message on social media saying:
The Gestapo marched hundreds of thousands of innocent people to their deaths.
I’ve ended private schools’ tax breaks to invest in state schools.
No responsible leader makes vile comparisons like this. Kemi Badenoch is not fit to be Prime Minister.
Starmer and von der Leyen agree next UK-EU summit to take place on 22 July
Keir Starmer and Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission’s president, have agreed that the next UK-EU summit will take place on Wednesday 22 July.
After they met at the G7 summit, Starmer said:
My Labour government is delivering on our promise to reset our relationship and put Britain at the heart of Europe.
Together we will tackle the cost of living, boost jobs and create opportunities for young people.
Starmer denies being snubbed by Trump at G7 summit
Keir Starmer has denied being snubbed by Donald Trump at the G7 in France after the two did not have a bilateral meeting at the summit. Alexandra Topping has the story.
John Healey and Al Carns' resignation speeches - snap verdict
It would be easy to assume that, because John Healey and Al Carns both served with each other as defence ministers, and because they resigned on the same day for the same reason, they were engaged in some sort of common endeavour. Anyone watching them give consecutive “personal statements” in the Commons about why they resigned would realise that is completely wrong.
Although they were sitting not far from each other in the chamber, there was little interaction between them and their relationship seemed frosty. By all accounts, it is.
They both criticised the defence investment plan, but Carns suggested the main problem with the Dip was not how much was being spent, but what it was being spent on. (See 2.33pm.) This was an implicit criticism of the plan Healey had spent a year developing. He was also fiercely critical of the Northern Ireland Troubles bill – not Healey’s legislation, but legislation that Healey has been willing to support.
Healey started his own speech with a passage about his lifelong commitment to Labour. This may not have been intended as a jibe against Carns, who has very little Labour history because he spent his career in the armed forces where politics is shunned. But, even if that was not the purpose, it served to remind Labour MPs which of the two ex-ministers has deepest roots in the party. Carns does not have a privileged background, being brought up by a single mother in Aberdeen, but his evocation of the Labour party “chiselled out of the mines of the north-east” sounded a bit hackneyed, and it bore little relationship to Labour as it is now.
Quentin Letts, the Mail sketchwriter, says, watching from the gallery, it was clear who went down best with Labour MPs.
Healey’s the more powerful (and short) of the two resignation statements. Carns speaks as if addressing a parade ground. Plenty of Lab MPs nodded to both speeches but some backbenchers looked mutinous during Carns.
Carns suggests Northern Ireland Troubles bill will help republicans achieve what IRA wanted
In his speech Carns also said he thought the defence investment plans was not sufficiently funded.
But he then went on to spent more time talking about another reason for his resignation – his opposition to the Northern Ireland Troubles bill. On this, he went even further than he did in his resignation letter last week – because he suggested the legislation would help republicans achieve what the IRA was fighting for.
He said:
The IRA failed to achieve its political ends through the use of terrorist tactics. We must be exceptionally careful that we do not help them achieve those ends through other means.
The constant, never-ending legal wranglings that undermine the contract between the nation and those that serve is neither a good use of taxpayer money nor an effective execution of strategy.
Inquests, inquiries and an independent commission create a hierarchy of truth. It will cost us hundreds of millions for 15 years, painting the state as an aggressor, supporting our adversaries’ political objections and causing untold anguish for those that only ever deployed to protect us.
We have neither the political capital nor the resources to spare for this unjust journey.
Updated
Carns says MoD spending 'too much time preparing for last year’s war, not tomorrow’s'
Carns cited the defence investment plan (Dip) as the first reason for his resignation.
But, unlike Healey, who in his resignation letter last week and in his speech to MPs cited funding as the main problem with the Dip, Carns suggested the main problem was that it was focused on the wrong items.
This was an implicit criticism of Healey, who (unlike Carns) had been working on the Dip for months.
Explaining why he quit, Carns said:
Firstly, because I no longer believe the defence investment plan was preparing for the wars we are most likely to fight.
The character of warfare is changing at an exceptional speed.
In Ukraine a navy without a ship has destroyed a navy. A drone costing thousands can destroy a tank costing millions. A drone can now strike 2,000km into Russia at a fraction of the cost of a fighter jet.
It is not either/or. It’s an equitable mix of high-end sophistication coupled with low-end mass. That’s the balance we must seek.
But from my view, the defence investment plan did not strike that balance for various reasons.
Carns went on to give an example.
I want to give just a small example to bring that home because it can be often lost.
In a town in Ukraine similar to the same size as Hereford, in one day there were 12,000 drones in the air. Just comprehend that – 12,000 drones in the air and 90% of all casualties are from drones.
Not the rifle, not the grenade, not the tank, not the artillery, but from drones.
What will it take to realise these figures are not fiction. They’re not an embellishment of the truth, but a hard fact born of the blood and the steel of a hot war.
That is the mass of modern war – millions of drones against high-end, sophisticated systems that deliver late with huge levels of inflation and, importantly, cannot be reproduced at the pace required to sustain a conflict against a major adversary.
Carns said that Britain should not have to relearn lessons it had learned in the past about investing money in the wrong defence equipment. He went on:
We are no longer packaging up our military to deploy to a foreign field, but being ready to fight from here, right from the home base, for democracy, for the right to self-determination and for European security. The reality is we are spending too much time preparing for last year’s war, not tomorrow’s.
And I urge the house to push for transformation, push hard and push for delivery this side of 2030.
Updated
Al Carns suggests Labour has let down its core voters in his resignation speech to MPs
Healey was followed in the Commons by Al Carns, who also resigned as armed forces minister on Thursday last week, about eight hours after Healey. Like Healey, Carns also said he was going because he thought the defence investment plan (Dip) was under-funded. But there has been speculation that he only decided to quit after it became clear that he was not being offered Healey’s job.
Carns told MPs that resigning as a minister was “an exceptionally difficult decision”.
He said that, when he accepted ministerial office, he did so “with a simple purpose to serve those that serve us”. He went on:
There comes a point when honesty requires action. And for me, that point came last week.
As honourable members know, I came into politics for one reason. That was to enact change.
But to be able to work out where you’re going, we must realise where we have come from. The Labour party I joined is one that was chiselled out of the mines of the north-east. It was hammered out of the shipyards of Govan, Liverpool and Belfast. And it was forged in the factories of the industrial revolution.
Calloused hands, sore backs, people who did a hard day’s graft and asked for one thing in return – a government that has their back.
That’s the tradition I serve in this house, and it’s a tradition that shaped that decision I took last week.
And I resigned for several reasons.
Updated
Healey says UK needs 'bigger view of national security'
Healey said he was grateful to cabinet colleagues who agreed to cuts to fund higher defence spending.
He went on:
There are credible ways of meeting the mid-term funding challenges, working multinationally and as other nations in Europe are doing.
They could allow us to protect the ability to deliver our Labour missions across government.
Healey also calls for a different approach to defence.
We need a bigger view of national security. It’s not just the job for defence or the agencies. Every department has a part to play in national security and national resilience.
From energy to transport to health, security must run through the government like letters through a stick of rock.
And security must be felt in the communities right across Britain, reversing long term decline and bringing new jobs and new hope.
At the start of his speech Healey said that, now he was no longer defence secretary, he was glad he did not have to sleep with three phones by his bed. He ended with a joke about his personal love for HP sauce.
For now, Jackie [Healey’s wife] is just grateful I no longer carry three phones in my bag, although I do still have my bottle of HP sauce.
Healey says DIP 'well short of what's required', and UK's enemies 'don't follow timetables set by Treasury'
Healey said Keir Starmer knows what is needed.
The prime minister knows what the country needs for defence. He spelled out the threat this month when he said it is our intelligence assessment and the assessment of other countries in Nato that there could be an attack by Russia on Nato as soon as 2030.
So Britain must set the headmark of spending 3% on defence in 2030, and a clear path to 3.5% in 2035.
The commitment all Nato nations have made to each other and to their people … commands wide cross-party support.
Our predecessors in this house experienced what happens when deterrence fails. Our predecessors in this house entrusted us with institutions like Nato that they created to keep us safe.
We don’t choose the circumstances in which we serve or the responsibilities that fall upon us, either in this house or in government.
And it’s the duty of our political generation now to ready Britain for the uncertainties of the years to come. The decisions that we make in the months ahead will be judged by those who follow us.
At this dangerous time. I see the current defence investment plans falling well short of what is required, a rise of 0.08% from next year to 2030.
No date for reaching 3%, no path to 3.5% by 2030.
Well over half of Nato members will be spending 3% or more. And when allies are looking for British leadership, we must not fall behind.
When Nato needs European nations to step up, we must not fall short.
Our adversaries don’t follow timetables set by the Treasury.
Updated
Healey says defence needs 'harder choices', not just 'incremental change'
Healey says the government has been working 12 months on the defence investment plan.
Since the SDR [strategic defence review] we’ve seen the world changing still faster, with threats increasing and demands on defence, rising conflict in the Middle East, new Nato missions in the High North, the US moving forces away from Europe, intensifying attacks in Ukraine and increasing Russian aggression towards the UK.
Nato has now said we must prepare for war with Russia within the next five years.
This is the age of hard power and rising threat. This is not the moment for calibration or incremental change.
This means bigger politics, bolder priorities, harder choices.
Updated
Healey says he it was a privilege to serve as defence secretary.
And he stresses his commitment to Labour.
I’ve been a Labour MP for nearly 30 years, a Labour team member for 45 years, a trade unionist for longer still.
It is my family, literally. Jackie, my wife worked for Labour HQ. We met at a union conference. Two weeks later we were engaged.
He says he only wanted a successful Labour government.
He says he is proud of the party’s record on defence.
I’m proud of what we’ve done in less than two years as a Labour government.
We stepped up into national leadership for Ukraine. We’ve raised defence investment three years earlier than anyone expected, won record defence export deals, given the armed forces their biggest pay rise for 20 years, brought 36,000 forces family homes back into public ownership, and we’ve signed major defence agreements with Germany, Norway, France and the European Union delivering for defence, delivering for Britain.
Updated
Healey says he thinks his resignation will 'in time' help ensure defence gets more funding
Healey says he thinks his resignation will help get the MoD more funding.
I took the decision to resign with the very greatest regret and reluctance. I continue to be certain about this decision.
In time I believe it will be seen as necessary in securing the future of our armed forces and of our alliances.
John Healey delivers statement on his resignation to MPs
John Healey is delivering a personal statement to MPs on his resignation last week as defence secretary.
He starts:
Many in the media have pressed me to say more since Thursday, but I’m a proud parliamentarian.
I wanted first to speak in this house as I take my seat, as I take my seat on the backbenches for the first time for more than 10 years.
710 migrants arrived in small boats on Monday, figures show - but overall arrivals down 40% on same point in 2025
Some 710 migrants arrived in the UK on Monday after crossing the Channel, the highest number on a single day so far this year, the Press Association reports. PA says:
It follows a spell without crossings, with no migrants having made the journey between 1 June and 14 June.
The cumulative number of arrivals by small boats in 2026 now stands at 9,852, according to provisional figures from the Home Office.
This is down 40% on the equivalent point last year, when the total stood at 16,317.
It is also 14% below this point in 2024, when the total was 11,431.
There were 11 boats that arrived on Monday, which suggests an average of around 65 people per boat.
UK will have to ‘dial back’ military plans without more funding, says chief of defence staff
Britain will have to “dial back” on military operations and exercises in the next few years if the Ministry of Defence (MoD) does not receive extra funding from Downing Street and the Treasury, Rich Knighton, the chief of the defence staff, has told peers. Dan Sabbagh has the story.
Having Burnham, not Starmer, as leader would give Labour 4-point boost against Reform UK, poll suggests
The new polling from Ipsos released today also shows how people say they would vote given a choice between a Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage and a Labour party led by either Keir Starmer or Andy Burnham.
While Burnham is considerably more popular with voters than Starmer, these figures suggest that, were Burnham to become leader, there would be a significant, but not huge, rise in the number of people inclined to vote Labour.
The figures show a Starmer-led Labour party 9 points ahead of Reform, and a Burnham-led Labour party 13-points ahead.
Polling like this is particularly speculative, and ultimately it is very had to know how voters would react to a Burnham-led government because we don’t know what it would do. We don’t even know who the chancellor would be. But these figures imply that, while having Burnham as leader would help Labour electorally, his impact might be more incremental than transformative.
Greens condemn Streeting's call for Rosebank and Jackdaw drilling as 'environmentally reckless'
The Green party has criticised Wes Streeting for his call for new drilling to be allowed from the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North Sea. (See 10.44am.) Commenting on Streeting’s speech, Rachel Millward, the Greens’ co-deputy leader, said:
Wes Streeting has ceased to be relevant, but his so-called ‘progressive capitalism’ shows the degree to which fossil fuel corporations have their grubby hands all over Labour policy.
His call to open up new drilling in the North Sea is environmentally reckless and economically illiterate.
Rosebank alone contains enough fossil fuel to produce over 200 million tonnes of CO2 if burned – more than the combined annual emissions of 28 low-income countries.
Opening up these oilfields will do nothing to improve energy security or bring down bills either, because any oil and gas extracted will be sold at global prices on the world market.
Greenpeace UK also condemned the speech. Angharad Hopkinson, a Greenpeace campaigner, said:
Flogging more oil and gas from the North Sea to pay for cleaner energy sounds like a business scheme worthy of Del Boy. Any windfall from tax receipts would only be temporary because this basin is in terminal decline, not to mention the escalating costs in lives and money from more extreme weather. Streeting is backing the wrong horse several decades after it has bolted.
Updated
Burnham's approval ratings down since he launched byelection campaign, but still far better than his rivals', polls show
Andy Burnham has become less popular with British voters as a whole following his decision to stand as Labour’s candidate in the Markerfield byelection, according to two separate polls published today.
Burnham is still more popular than other Labour politicians. But the polling suggests some voters have become more negative about him as a result of his decision to put himself forward as a byelection candidate in the clear hope off being able to replace Keir Starmer.
Here are the figures from YouGov.
YouGov says:
In earlier polls in this series, Andy Burnham achieved a positive net favourability rating (+9 at its peak). However, his popularity declined starting from the middle of May – the period that encompassed the Labour party revolt against Keir Starmer that included Wes Streeting’s resignation and Josh Simons stepping down in Makerfield, triggering the by-election that Andy Burnham is likely to win.
As a result, Burnham now takes a net favourability rating of -11 in our latest poll: 30% of Britons like the would-be PM, versus 41% who dislike him.
The YouGov report also says Wes Streeting’s unfavourability ratings have risen since he resigned as health secretary with the intention of challenging Starmer for his job, and Ipsos in its report says it has picked up on the same trend.
According to Ipsos, Burnham’s ratings have fallen in particular with people over the age of 55, people who voted Conservative in 2024, people who think Labour is doing a bad job in government and people from Scotland.
However, the Ipsos report also shows that, of the 17 leading politicians it polled, Burnham has the highest – or least negative – favourability rating.
Updated
Starmer should set out timetable for his departure if Burnham wins byelection, Streeting says
Peter Walker is a Guardian senior political correspondent.
Keir Starmer should set a timetable for his departure if Andy Burnham wins the Makerfield byelection on Thursday rather than battle to stay in Downing Street, Wes Streeting has said.
Answering questions after his speech on the economy (see 10.44am and 11.32am), Streeting reaffirmed that he would fight in any leadership battle, and insisted he has the necessary support among Labour MPs, but refused to say whether he would trigger a contest.
He said:
I would hope that after Thursday’s byelection, when the results are in, and I very much hope Andy Burnham wins ... I hope the prime minister will at that stage reflect on his own position and set out a timetable. I think that would be a better way forward for everyone and would enable that better culture that we aspire to.
When he resigned as health secretary last month, Streeting had been expected to trigger a leadership contest himself, and the fact he did not prompted opponents to assume he did not have the backing of the 80 other Labour MPs needed to trigger the process.
Asked if he did now, Streeting replied: “Yes, I have the support I need to be on the ballot.”
However, he refused to say whether he might seek to trigger it next week. He said:
I think I’ve been extremely clear about this. I think there should be a contest. I have every intention of standing in that contest, and I’ve not triggered a contest, because we’ve got a byelection under way where one of the inevitable candidates is on the ballot paper.
To have sought a contest before Burnham was potentially back in parliament would be to “pull a fast one”, Streeting argued.
Starmer says Dan Jarvis, new defence secretary, being consulted on DIP ahead of final version being published
Speaking to reporters at the G7, Keir Starmer also defended the defence investment plan (DIP) draft that led to John Healey’s resignation as defence secretary last week. Starmer confirmed that Dan Jarvis, the new defence secretary, is getting some input before the publication of the DIP in its final version.
Starmer said:
The position on investment in defence is firstly that we increased last year defence spending from 2.3% to 2.6%, that’s the biggest increase since the 1980s, and that means £270bn will be spent this parliament on defence.
On top of that [the] defence investment plan which obviously gives us capability for the future. We will put even more money in relation to that. I’ve been really clear that’s required difficult decisions, I have taken the decision to reallocate money from other departments.
Obviously the new defence secretary is reading in and we’re talking to him about how and what we will spend that money on, in terms of capability, and he’s got his own thoughts now on what the priorities should be, and so that’s the discussion we’re in the middle of at the moment.
Healey is due to give a personal statement to MPs about his resignation at around 1.30pm.
Starmer says arson attacks on property linked to him should be seen in 'broader context' of Russian threat
Keir Starmer has welcomed the conviction of two men convicted of conspiring to carry out arson attacks on property linked to him – and said the attacks should be seen in the context of the threat posed by Russia.
Asked about the case, which resulted in convictions yesterday, Starmer told reporters at the G7 summit in France.
Well, obviously it was a bad attack, and all the details have now come out in court and justice has been done, so I’m pleased in that respect, particularly for my family who were affected by it.
I think it has to be seen in its broader context. Here we are in the G7. We’ve just had the Ukraine session and actually there was real unity in the room, in the G7, about the fact that Ukraine is doing better now, regaining territory, that the sanctions are having a real impact on Russia and a real sense that now is the moment for all of us as a G7 to ramp up the pressure.
So I see this all in its context, but justice has now been done, and I’m very pleased.
Full details of the Russian links to the attack, some of which did not come out in court, have been published in this excellent BBC investigation.
Streeting warns against 'expensive' pledges in leadership contest, and defends bond markets, in dig at Burnham
Wes Streeting has made an implicit dig at Andy Burnham in his speech this morning on “progressive capitalism”. (See 10.44am.)
In a speech setting out his platform as a potential Labour leader, Streeting warned against “expensive and popular pledges”, saying that he would not be offering these.
He did not explicitly mention Burnham at this point, but it seemed clear that he was referring to the Greater Manchester mayor, who is expected to win the Makerfield byelection on Thursday and tipped to replace Starmer as PM at some point later this year.
Burnham has said relatively little about how he would govern as PM, or how he might diverge from Labour’s manifesto agenda, but he is vulnerable to claims that he would ramp up government spending.
Last week he had to backtrack after appearing to commit to offering financial compensation to Waspi women. He also wants to bring the water and energy sectors under public control. How this might happen has not been spelt out, but critics view this as evidence that a Burnham administration would not have a strong commitment to fiscal restraint.
Streeting said:
There is a risk that a Labour leadership contest becomes a Dutch auction of the most expensive and popular pledges to appeal to the party faithful at the expense of the British people. Not on my watch.
We can’t play fast and loose with the public finances or the trust of the people. Not when the risks are so high and faith in politics is so low.
As I’ve said on my leaflets in Ilford North at every general election: you may not always agree with me, but you’ll always know where I stand.
You won’t find me making pledges to win your vote in a leadership election only to let you down after the ballots are counted.
(Burnham’s wife is Dutch – although this may have had no bearing at all on Streeting’s choice of metaphor.)
Streeting also made an even more explicit dig at Burnham when he defended the bond markets. He said:
Bond markets are not Bond villains and fiscal rules matter. Fiscal discipline matters because credibility is the precondition for an activist state. With debt approaching 100% of GDP, Britain has very little room for error.
This was a reference to Burnham telling the New Statesman last year in an interview that the government should not be “in hock” to the bond markets. At the time this was taken as Burnham saying politicians should not let the bond markets determine government borrowing decisions, but in a recent Guardian interview he said his remark had been misinterpreted, and that what he meant was that politicians should not “end up losing control of public spending” leaving them in hock to lenders.
Burnham is more far popular with Labour members than Streeting, polling suggests, and, although Streeting says he is a candidate for the leadership, at Westminster many people assume that Burnham could end up replacing Starmer without a contest because his lead in the party is so strong.
In an interview with the Sun, asked if he would rule out doing a deal with Burnham that would allow Burnham to become leader without forcing an leadership ballot, Streeting implied he was ruling this out. He replied: “Yes, I’ve said there should be a debate, I’ve said there should be a contest.”
But, to stand, Streeting would have to get 80 MPs to formally back him. While he does have significant support, some of his backers may not want the party to go ahead with a formal election that would last weeks.
Updated
Streeting says UK capitalism 'suffers from lack of competition' as he makes case for 'progressive capitalism'
Wes Streeting, the former health secretary and Labour leadership hopeful, is today calling for new laws to speed up the construction of critical infrastructure projects.
In a speech this morning, he is saying:
We used to be a country that could do great things. With the promise that the next generation can have it better than the last. We still can. And I want to give people reason to believe again.
If parliament can act in days to save British Steel, it can act with urgency to save Britain’s future prosperity.
Successive governments have been sleeping, while Britain’s crying out for action. I will pass emergency laws to build data centres, nuclear power generation, transport infrastructure connecting people with jobs, and more. We still can build the infrastructure to grow our economy, we have to, and - if I become prime minister – we will.
According to a preview, Streeting is making these comments in a speech on “progressive capitalism”. He is running what is in effect a leadership campaign, although when he resigned as a cabinet he said he did not want to launch a formal bid to replace Keir Starmer until Andy Burnham was back in parliament and able to stand as a candidate himself.
Streeting’s decision to focus on the need for laws to speed up infrastructure building is surprising because in the first session of parliament Labour passed a Planning and Infrastructure Act that was specifically intended to speed up the process leading to the construction of what are designated as nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). Streeting’s speech suggests he does not think this law goes far enough.
In the speech, Streeting is also calling for the government to allow more drilling to go ahead in the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North Sea.
And he has called for a national “global talent programme” with the aim of recruiting 20,000 world-leading scientists, AI experts and engineers to the UK over the next three years. He says £250m should be set aside to fund this.
In an article for the Financial Times published at the weekend, Streeting explained what he meant by progressive capitalism. He said:
I am putting forward an agenda for progressive capitalism, that backs enterprise, rewards work, takes on vested interests and makes markets serve our shared goals of growth, fairness and a better future for the next generation.
That means doing three things. First, push the frontier of innovation. Create the conditions where highly productive firms can scale.
Second, take the best to the rest. Spread new practices to the tail of the economy, where competitive forces will incentivise adoption. It may be counterintuitive for a politician on the left to say, but British capitalism suffers from a lack of competition.
Third, we need to invest in the resilience of our core strategic industries. Britain will remain an open economy reliant on global supply chains, but we can no longer assume that critical capabilities will always be available. Energy, defence, and data infrastructure offer opportunities for re-industrialisation. They have both economic and national security importance.
Anyone can make the pro-growth choice when there are no downsides. This country needs a government unafraid of taking on vested interests and doing controversial things in the national interest.
Updated
Thames Water nationalisation moves closer as government ‘objects to rescue deal’
Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary has objected to a £10bn rescue proposal for Thames Water because it would place an “undue burden” on consumers, pushing the troubled utilities firm closer towards public ownership. Julia Kollewe has the story.
Elon Musk claims social media ban for under-16s shows UK 'police state'
Elon Musk, the pro-far right trillionaire X owner, has been using his platform to attack the UK government’s plan for a social media ban for under-16s.
He reposted a tweet saying:
JUST IN: UK Government clarifies adults will still be able to use social media by verifying their identities with digital IDs, facial recognition, passports and credit cards.
And he added the comment: “UK is a police state.”
He reposted another saying:
the purpose is not to remove young people from the internet. the purpose is to remove anonymity from the internet in a country where the government routinely punishes dissent with jail. the british caliphate is no longer free.
And he added the comment: “Exactly.”
And, without adding a comment, he reposted this from Laila Cunningham, the Reform UK candidate for London mayor.
My 17-year-old daughter: “I’m confused. We’ve always been taught not to share personal information or anything that identifies us online because it isn’t safe. Now they want us to do exactly that to access social media.”
UK ministers lobby Trump to avert backlash against social media ban
Ministers have embarked on a concerted lobbying operation to prevent a backlash from the Trump administration to the under-16s social media ban announced by Keir Starmer, Kiran Stacey, Dan Milmoa and Aisha Down report.
Here are some pictures of Keir Starmer at the G7 summit yesterday.
Starmer vows new sanctions on Russia and nuclear energy support for Ukraine
Keir Starmer has vowed to “choke off” Russian revenue with further sanctions and to provide hundreds of millions of pounds worth of energy support for Ukraine, as he met world leaders in France for the G7. Alexandra Topping, who is covering the summit at Évian-les-Bains in France, has the story.
Anti-Burnham fake news on Makerfield Facebook accounts has surged, report finds
Good morning. Andy Burnham seems to be on course to win the Makerfield byelection on Thursday. But, if he does win, it will be despite a huge increase in the amount of hostile, fake news about him circulating on local Facebook groups. This has been documented in a report out today by the Social Market Foundation thinktank that has important implications not just for Makerfield, but for how politics functions today in a social media environment awash with lies.
In its report, the SMF says:
Nearly 1 in 6 pieces of news shared in local Facebook groups during the campaign is false, with misinformation heavily targeting Labour and its candidate Andy Burnham, a new study has found.
The Social Market Foundation analysed over 1,800 posts across four local Facebook groups – representing different towns and settlements within the constituency with 66,000 members across them in total – and found that the share of news posts classified as misinformation jumped from 4% before the by-election was called to 16% during the campaign, a four-fold increase.
These findings come just days ahead of what has been billed as the most consequential by-election for a century. Nearly half of Britons (46%) now seek out local news through social media, second only to television and ahead of every other source. Over a third (34%) make use of local social media groups for this purpose – despite the fact these online sources do not come with fact-checking and editorial guidelines associated with the press …
The shift towards engagement driven rather than recency driven feeds can raise the prominence of misinformation. We can see the implication of this in Makerfield’s local Facebook groups. In one of them, 5 of the top 10 posts were misinformation. In another, 8 of the top 25 were misinformation. If people engaged with the post – whether agreeing or challenging them – it meant the misinformation would get boosted by the platform’s algorithm.
This chart from the report illustrates the extent of the problem.
The SMF has published this study as part of a larger study into the impact social media is having on politics. Earlier this month it published a report saying fake news is three times as common in places without proper local journalism.
Today the Reuters Institute has published its annual study of global digital news and it says “for the first time, social media and video networks are, on average across the markets covered, more popular than both TV and owned news websites and apps as sources of news.”
Theo Bertram, director of the SMF, says his Makerfield report shows why Ofcom should be doing more to tackle fake news on platforms like Facebook.
Voters in Makerfield are being exposed to harmful misinformation – and at an even greater intensity than we have seen in the rest of the UK. Too often local misinformation goes unchecked by big tech and unchallenged by national media. We need stronger enforcement from the companies and sustained investment in local news and reporting.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9am: Liz Kendall, the technology secretary, takes part in an LBC phone-in.
9.30am: The Department for Work and Pensions releases figures about personal independence payment (Pip) claims.
10am: Wes Streeting, the former health secretary and Labour leadership hopeful, gives a speech on “progressive capitalism”.
Morning: Keir Starmer speaks to broadcasters in Evian, where he is attending the G7 summit. He will also do a “huddle” (off-camera briefing) with lobby correspondents covering the trip.
11.30am: Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
Noon: Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, gives a speech on proposals to restrict judges from intervening in deportation cases.
Noon: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
Afternoon: Kemi Badenoch is campaigning in Aberdeen South, where there is a byelection on Thursday and the Tories are hoping to take the seat from the SNP.
Afternoon: John Healey, the former defence secretary, is expected to make a statement in the Commons about his resignation last week.
2pm: Angela Rayner, the former deputy PM, speaks at the Unison conference.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
