Burnham unopposed & likely to be PM by mid July

[Twiglets1]

Wes Streeting confirms on social media that he won’t stand as a candidate for the Labour leadership. He says that a contest where candidates spent the summer “exaggerating small differences” would not be good for the party or the country, and having spoken to Burnham, he is confident that that there is “a place” for the policies he has been advocating under a Burnham premiership.

The Guardian say this means it is now very, very likely that Burnham will be PM be mid July. It is conceivable that another candidate may come forward. But, apart from Streeting, no one else has publicly signalled an intention to stand, and with Burnham now a shoo-in, it is hard to imagine any other MP getting the support they would need to be a candidate.

heguardian.com/politics/live/2026/jun/22/keir-starmer-resignation-timeable-andy-burnham-labour-leadership-prime-minister-latest-news-updates?page=with%3Ablock-6a390a538f08adffab1e97fd#block-6a390a538f08adffab1e97fd

Of course. Why would anyone disagree?

Ofcourse the same applies

Why do you ask?

Am I missing some detail here .... who would disagree?

I have just read it carefully again and it is violent disorder after a football match. This is a distraction ... for some reason? It is ridiculous the stunt that Farage is pulling in Clacton, isn't it?

It’s the ultimate in pointless whataboutery.

Excellent, thanks.

Meanwhile, top comment on BBC site.

Comment by vinnievega at 11:45 9 Jul
vinnievega
11:45 9 Jul
Failed in 2 labour leadership contests and now in charge of the country. Called for a general election when the tories changed leader. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Reply
6375 Likes

Fair.

Are you going to explain why you asked the question?

There are many more examples you can use.

Read my PP - it was as topical as you can get.

Are you suggesting there was another reason???

I don't know that why I am asking.

What did you expect people to answer? Hug a hoodie/hooligan?

It’s so irrelevant it’s difficult for anyone to make a logical connection.

Well, if you factor in Bullandbear being a fervent fan of Farage, it perhaps begins to make sense...

Nope. It still doesn’t make sense. Why would anyone with half a brain not agree with football hooligans being prosecuted?

I think if foreign migrants commit any type of petty crimes or even violent disorder they should not have their visas renewed.
I think we need to distinguish very clearly between those who came here and work really hard and add to the economy (not just care workers) and those who come here to sell illegal vapes, drugs, traffic etc and are just a burden. I think it is really important because of the Boris wave. At the moment, we are deterring a whole lot of honest hard workers back to their home countries whilst sitting on those who add nothing but annoyance.

Shabana Mahmood’s one-in, one-out deal has been thrown into chaos after migrants successfully argued deporting them was unlawful.

Britain’s High Court today backed the appeal of five Channel migrants who argued the Government was breaking the law in stripping them of a key right to appeal their deportations.

The individuals bringing the case - four from Eritrea and one from Sudan - had been targeted by the Home Office for deportation, or had already been deported.

Immigration being one of the pressing items which Burnham will need to get a handle on.

Going to prove interesting.

You are, wilfully or not, missing the point that the migrants involved were part of a subset claiming to be victims of trafficking. Theresa May put in place processes so that people who may have been, or were, trafficked were treated differently to others.

Mahmood attempted to bypass that process.

Why is the post you’re quoting missing the point?

By omitting the fact the ruling applied to a subset of those selected for 'one in one out' and allowing the inference it applied to all.

It must still be an issue for the home office though as Mahmood immediately said she’d be appealing the decision.

Confirming the appeal, a Home Office spokesman said: “Last-minute modern slavery claims must not be used to frustrate the removal of illegal migrants.

“We are reforming our laws to stop dubious last-minute claims, while strengthening protections for those who need them. The Home Secretary will fight this in the courts and appeal this judgment.”

I merely cut and paste the media concerned - there was nothing wilful about it.

Heres another piece from same outlet:

The incoming Prime Minister is said by allies to understand the importance of the issue and to remain committed to the Home Secretary’s tough stance.
He is already under pressure to abandon Shabana Mahmood’s proposal to make migrants wait twice as long before they can settle permanently in Britain, after nearly 80 backbenchers sent him a letter demanding he change course.
And he will witness another show of strength from the rebels on Monday when dozens are expected to refuse to vote for her Immigration Bill.
It has echoes of the revolt a year ago that forced Sir Keir Starmer into abandoning proposed welfare cuts, fatally damaging his authority.

It is pp's MO to cut and paste snippets of articles, deliberately leaving out important details/context.

"The outlet" is the Daily Mail. Why are you so shy about naming it? 🤔

Was talking to someone in London. They've started taking the kids to women's football games. The whole family are enjoying football so much. The atmosphere is completely different to mens football. He recommends it to everyone.

Here is another outlet, I have highlighted a few phrases

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/10/home-office-policy-protections-trafficking-victims-ruled-unlawful

The home secretary’s decision to reduce protections for potential trafficking victims being considered for removal under the “one in, one out” asylum deal was unlawful, a high court judge has ruled.

Other elements relating to individual decisions taken by the home secretary concerning the five cases were found to be lawful.

I suspect you know why.

On here so much press is now behind pay walls it's the only way to attach articles.

Firewalls don’t mean sources shouldn’t be identified or links provided.