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

Especially when the article isn't behind paywall

Bull is getting upset over 5 people.

If an article is quoted, there is nothing to stop the source being acknowledged.

In fact the poster in question often puts FT or DT at the end of their cut and paste jobs. They seemed shy about putting DM at the end of this one.

Obviously it’s not that otherwise Mahmood wouldn’t appeal straight away and issue the statement below.

Did you mean to attach something, I can't see anything below?

It is her right to appeal ofcourse.

I read somewhere that the Home office was appealing for people to volunteer like magistrates to move migrants out more swiftly. Perhaps @Bullandbear can sign up and apply the law and hear the individual cases. In fact, I suggest all educated Reform voters get involved to address the bottlenecks in the system that they are so concerned about.
The migrants with translators each have individual stories. A lot claim to be gay/persecuted/victims of trafficking and our laws demand their individual stories are given an airing.

In a post below. They’ll do that as it’s not about five people but the precedent set.

Without real evidence it’s very difficult to tell who is lying and many have been briefed on what to say or have read about what to say. I don’t think there is a short cut to getting to the bottom of their individual stories. Personally no matter how bad their backstory I don’t think we should allow violent criminals to stay. I think there needs to be a threshold and Parliament needs to legislate for the judges and magistrates to follow it.

The majority of migrants and asylum seekers are not crimials, but they make an easy target.

And the UK already deports foreign criminals.

Maybe there could be an exchange scheme? One foreign criminal for a British one?

An example how easy it is to manipulate people

https://fullfact.org/immigration/ai-generated-video-small-boat-machete/

No, I do not think people are that manipulated.

Migrants on high skilled visas and contributing with well brought up kids who are pushed educationally are good for the country. Migrants contributing to shortage sectors like care and NHS are also good and we need them.

The rest throwing away their passports to come here etc unskilled but not refugee status are a burden on society. If you enter illegally your mindset is already criminal if you threw away your passport, as far as I am concerned.

We need to be very careful because we need the former group and the population here is upset about the latter group not being addressed properly or managed.

There is a narrative that high skilled immigrants are good and low skilled are bad.

(often promoted by people residing in another country)

I do think people are easily manipulated when it feeds into their perceived grievances.

It’ll be Labour and Mahmood who are concerned over the high court ruling cited below. It will be a spanner in the one in one out scheme if it doesn’t go their way.

@hedgeknight - it’s not a narrative. It’s completely normal for a country to only want migrants who benefit the country financially or in another very tangible way (eg NHS, care work etc). If it costs hundreds of thousands to subsidise unskilled migrants long term it’s just not affordable.
Equally, I do also think the Boris wave was like Windrush and many came to kickstart the economy again and save the NHS/care and other shortage industries. I don’t want to deter those people, it’s wrong. But the uber eats barber shops illegal vapes car washes etc need to go. We all know deep down what the difference is.
And it’s not just about this generation it’s also about their kids and if they are likely to be workers and contributors. My DC‘s grammar school is full of migrants children who are an asset to the country and their parents are working hard and contributing.

Recent OBR analysis suggests low-wage migrants are net fiscal recipients over their lifetimes once healthcare, education, pensions, and housing benefit are counted.

The composition of recent inflows — heavily weighted toward dependants and lower-paid care and student visa routes rather than high earners — means the average new arrival likely costs the exchequer more than they contribute.

It’s really that simple.

The narrative is very much 'low skilled' immigrants are here to take your jobs and 'high skilled' immigrants contribute.

If your grammar school had been a comp in a town with 'low skilled' immigrants, the reaction would have been completely different.

Low skilled immigrants work hard too and contribute to the UK economy.

Uber Eat and vape shops etc should be tackled, that can be done without blaming immigration.

@hedgeknight - most people do not have a problem with low skilled immigrants who work full time and have 2 full time workers. They only have an issue with those low skilled immigrants who get the council houses and UC top ups and all sorts of benefits. If they are genuinely full time working and contributing and not claiming any extras, they are usually most welcome.

And really I think it is a principle point. If you emigrate to most other countries as a British citizen, you are expected to be self sustaining for a pretty long time in most countries and it usually also means you are treated as a second class citizen until you have proved yourself and learnt the language skills, adapted, did some citizenship test and proved yourself as a good one they would actually want in their society.

But you are aware that council house and benefits is very much a right wing rhetoric?

I have no problem with selective immigration just with the narrative that low skilled is bad and high skilled is good.

We need a mix of both.

It is the same in the UK

In many areas we don't need low skill immigrants - we need low skilled Brits to get off their arses and go to work.

It was not just a right wing rhetoric - there was a plan to build council housing to house asylum seekers instead of in hotels and it was abandoned due to cost.

If a lot of them are stuck in camps in Calais, but here you give hotel or a proper house etc - then you are literally incentivising them to make a perilous journey. That is just common sense. So the only thing you can do is stick them in similar military camps and process it far faster. There are just shy of 100k asylum seekers stuck in the system. That is a huge amount.

As regards migrants and their visas, again I think it is fair enough for it to take a long time to claim benefits but what I do not want is to deter people with very good intentions by racist rhetoric.
As those in charge keep flip flopping around - it is toxic for all. Their job is to reach cross party consensus based on common sense and in the best interests of the country economically and morally and in a long term manner. The judges just have to follow the law. If they fail to legislate clearly, then we have a toxic status quo that the media will manipulate.

Asylum seekers are different to migrants.

They need to live somewhere.

The government is looking at different possibilities as did the previous one.

The scaremongering about council houses and benefits is right wing rhetoric

As is the 'low skilled Brits getting off their arse' argument.

The UK needs controlled immigration, both high and low skilled.

• 39% (36,711) of asylum seekers had previously entered the UK on a visa or other leave with relevant documentation, including those who entered on an electronic travel authorisation (ETA)

As per Government statistics.

42 per cent small boats.

There is overlap I am afraid.

I see that yet another MP has taken to the air to “warn” AB. Reeves this time, who I hope they sweep away.