Andy Burnham has said he holds Nigel Farage “very significantly responsible” for Britain’s failure to move forward in the last decade.
In a rare personal attack on the Reform UK chief, he tore into Brexit “lies” and questioned whether Mr Farage still has the appetite to lead. The Prime Minister accused him of giving Britain “a decade of division and drift” – and accused Russia of interfering with the 2016 referendum.
Article continues below
In an interview with The Rest is Politics podcast, Mr Burnham signalled he is open to joining a migration pact with the European Union, saying the UK’s ability to control its borders was weakened when it left the bloc.
Mr Burnham said: “I don’t know whether Nigel Farage has got the appetite that he once had. We will see. I certainly wouldn’t be one of those who would write him off. I think people have done that before at their peril.”
But he added: “He’s (Nigel Farage) given Britain a decade of division and drift. I would hold him very significantly responsible for our failure to move forward in the last decade.”
Later this year the PM will hold a crunch summit with European leaders about ways of bringing Britain closer to its neighbours.
He said: “I’m going to go into that process very clear with people that Brexit has done more harm than good to UK growth, particularly, but to other things as well. And I’m going to argue for closer integration, because that will enable us to improve the growth prospects of the country.”
And he said that control over Britain’s borders was one of the biggest lies of the Brexit campaign as he left the door open to a new returns deal. This month Keir Starmer’s one-in-one-out migrant deal with France came to an end, but he faces pressure to strike a similar agreement with the EU as a whole.
Article continues below
He said: “There’s also a discussion looming at the summit about collaboration on immigration. One of the big, big lies of the campaign back in 2016 is that we would ‘take back control’ of all of that, and it would all be much easier.
“The reality is you need collaboration to control immigration, and that’s got weaker.” The UK lost legal powers to return failed asylum seekers to Europe when it left.
Mr Burnham accused Russia of influencing the 2016 referendum, telling hosts Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart: “I asked the question coming to Downing Street, was there interference in the 2016 referendum from Russia?
Article continues below
“And I’ve had the clear answer that yes, there was. I mean, these things are important now to put clearly on the record, and I believe, help voters in Germany and France understand that some of this politics is instigated via our enemies, namely Russia.
“And, I think we’ve been too much on the back foot on that, actually. And we haven’t informed people sufficiently about the extent to which people are seeking to disrupt the political process from overseas.”
Since becoming Prime Minister, Mr Burnham has said he is taking a fresh view of the UK’s relationship with the EU – and last month said Britain could “go all the way” and rejoin.
Article continues below
In an interview with the BBC following his keynote speech at the Labour Party conference, he said: “We could stay as we are. That’s definitely an option, if people think this is the right place to stay. We could look at what George Osborne has said about a customs union, we could look at what the Liberal Democrats said at their conference about the single market or we could go all the way.”
Andy Burnham Blames Nigel Farage for Britain’s ‘Miserable Decade’ as Brexit Row Intensifies
Andy Burnham has launched a pointed criticism of Nigel Farage, holding the Reform UK leader “very significantly responsible” for what he describes as Britain’s failure to move forward over the past decade. His remarks have intensified the political debate surrounding Brexit, immigration, economic growth and the direction of the country since the 2016 referendum.
In a striking intervention, Burnham accused Farage of contributing to a decade marked by division and political drift. The Prime Minister questioned whether the Reform UK leader still possessed the appetite he once had for political campaigning, while warning against underestimating a figure who has repeatedly influenced the national conversation.
The comments represent a direct challenge to Farage’s political legacy. For his supporters, the referendum campaign was an attempt to restore national sovereignty and give voters greater control over Britain’s future. For critics such as Burnham, however, the years following the vote have exposed a gap between the promises made during the Brexit campaign and the results experienced by the country.
The dispute is about more than the personalities of two prominent politicians. It reflects a continuing argument over why Britain has struggled with weak economic growth, strained public services and persistent disagreements about immigration and its relationship with Europe.
Burnham delivers a direct challenge to Farage
Speaking on The Rest Is Politics podcast, Burnham argued that Farage had played a significant role in preventing Britain from moving forward during the previous ten years.
“I don’t think it’s a politics of the kind that Nigel provides,” Burnham said, before describing Farage’s influence as having given Britain “a decade of division and drift”.
He also made clear that he was not writing Farage off politically. Burnham acknowledged that previous attempts to dismiss the Reform UK leader had proved unwise, suggesting that his continued influence should not be underestimated.
That qualification is important. Despite Burnham’s criticism, Farage remains a prominent voice in British politics, with Reform UK campaigning on immigration, national sovereignty, public spending and dissatisfaction with the established parties.
Burnham’s attack therefore has two dimensions. He is challenging the consequences of Farage’s political influence while recognising that the issues which helped the Reform UK leader build his following remain significant.
For Labour, the challenge is to demonstrate that a different approach can address the concerns that have driven voters towards Reform without deepening the divisions already present in British society.
For Farage, the criticism provides an opportunity to argue that the political establishment is attempting to blame Brexit campaigners for problems that existed before the referendum and have persisted under successive governments.
The argument is likely to remain central to the debate about Britain’s future direction.
Brexit returns to the centre of the political argument
Burnham’s criticism comes as the government seeks to reconsider aspects of Britain’s relationship with the European Union.
The 2016 referendum resulted in a 52 per cent vote to leave the EU and a 48 per cent vote to remain. Britain subsequently left the bloc, ending decades of membership and requiring extensive changes to trade, immigration, regulation and international cooperation.
The decision was presented by Leave campaigners as an opportunity to regain control over national laws, borders and public policy. Farage became one of the most recognisable advocates of that argument, campaigning for years against EU membership before the referendum.
However, the practical consequences of Brexit have remained contested. Critics point to additional trade barriers, reduced economic opportunities in some sectors and difficulties affecting businesses that previously operated within the EU’s single market.
Supporters argue that leaving the bloc gave Britain greater freedom to set its own policies, negotiate trade agreements and determine its approach to immigration. They also contend that the economic difficulties experienced since 2016 cannot be attributed to Brexit alone.
The pandemic, the energy crisis, changes in global trade and domestic policy decisions have all affected Britain’s economic performance.
Burnham’s position is that Brexit compounded existing problems and contributed to a period of low growth and stalled regeneration. He has argued that the country must be honest about the consequences of previous political decisions if it is to develop a more successful economic strategy.
That does not necessarily mean reversing every aspect of Brexit immediately. The government has indicated an interest in closer cooperation with European partners, particularly in areas where improved arrangements could benefit trade, security and economic activity.
The question is whether such cooperation can deliver meaningful improvements while respecting the result of the referendum and the continuing divisions over European integration.
The dispute over immigration promises
Immigration is another major point of disagreement between Burnham and Farage.
One of the central promises of the Brexit campaign was that leaving the EU would allow Britain to regain control over its borders. The end of free movement between Britain and the EU was presented as a major change that would give the government greater authority over who could enter and work in the country.
Yet immigration has continued to dominate British politics since departure from the bloc. Migration levels have been affected by work and study visas, family migration, humanitarian routes and the arrival of people seeking asylum.
Farage and Reform UK argue that successive governments have failed to deliver the level of control promised to voters. The party has called for tougher border enforcement and substantial restrictions on immigration, presenting the issue as a question of national sovereignty and pressure on public services.
Burnham takes a different view. He has argued that leaving the EU weakened Britain’s ability to cooperate with European partners on certain aspects of migration management, including information-sharing and coordinated action against criminal networks.
He has also signalled openness to closer cooperation with the EU on migration, including discussions about a possible migration pact.
Such a proposal would need to address practical questions about asylum responsibilities, returns arrangements, border enforcement and the legal obligations of participating countries.
The debate demonstrates that immigration policy is not determined by a single decision about EU membership. It depends on domestic legislation, international agreements, administrative capacity and the government’s ability to enforce the rules it establishes.
Burnham’s argument is that closer European cooperation could improve Britain’s position. Farage’s position is that the country should prioritise national control and avoid arrangements that could limit its freedom of action.
Both approaches raise questions that voters will expect politicians to answer with concrete policies rather than campaign slogans.
The economic cost of a decade of uncertainty
Burnham’s description of the past decade as one of division and drift also reflects broader concerns about Britain’s economic performance.
For many households, the years since the referendum have brought a series of financial shocks. The pandemic disrupted employment and supply chains, the energy crisis increased household bills, and higher borrowing costs placed pressure on mortgages and business investment.
These developments have contributed to public frustration, particularly in communities where economic opportunities have remained limited and local services have struggled to meet demand.
Burnham has previously argued that Brexit compounded Britain’s economic difficulties and contributed to weak growth. He has also criticised longer-term trends, including the centralisation of political power, deindustrialisation and austerity.
His diagnosis is that Britain needs a more ambitious approach to regional development, public investment and economic renewal.
However, determining how much responsibility belongs to Brexit, individual political leaders or other economic shocks is complicated. The referendum was one major event within a much broader period of change, and its effects have varied across industries and regions.
Some businesses have adapted to the new arrangements, while others have faced additional costs and administrative burdens. Some sectors have benefited from greater regulatory independence, while others have argued that closer alignment with European standards would make cross-border trade easier.
A serious assessment must consider those differences rather than treating Brexit as the sole explanation for every economic problem.
Nevertheless, Burnham’s remarks underline the political importance of delivering measurable improvements in living standards. Voters who feel that their communities have been left behind are unlikely to be satisfied by arguments about constitutional sovereignty alone.
Equally, those who supported Brexit will expect the government to respect their decision and explain how Britain can prosper outside the EU.
Farage’s response and Reform UK’s strategy
Farage has built much of his political reputation by presenting himself as an outsider willing to challenge the established political parties.
His supporters often argue that the Conservatives and Labour failed to address public concerns about immigration, national sovereignty and the distribution of economic opportunities. In that account, the rise of Reform UK is a consequence of dissatisfaction with the political establishment rather than the cause of Britain’s difficulties.
Farage can therefore use Burnham’s criticism to reinforce the argument that Labour is attempting to shift responsibility for the country’s problems onto those who challenged the existing political consensus.
Reform UK is also likely to emphasise that Labour has held power during the period in which many of the problems highlighted by Burnham have continued. The party can argue that voters will judge the government on its own decisions rather than on its explanations of the past.
At the same time, Burnham’s criticism challenges Farage to explain how his own political programme would improve the country’s economic position.
Opposing existing policies is not the same as demonstrating that alternative proposals would deliver better results. Reform UK would need to explain how its approach to trade, immigration, taxation and public services would address the concerns of voters while maintaining economic stability.
The debate will therefore depend not only on competing accounts of the past but also on the credibility of the parties’ plans for the future.
The controversy over alleged Russian interference
The Brexit debate has been further complicated by Burnham’s recent comments about Russian interference in the 2016 referendum.
Burnham said he had received a clear answer after entering Downing Street that Russia had interfered in the referendum. He argued that attempts by hostile states to influence democratic politics should be acknowledged openly, particularly as European countries face concerns about disinformation and foreign political influence.
However, he has not publicly detailed the evidence behind the assessment he described. The distinction between attempts to influence a political debate and successfully changing an election or referendum result is crucial.
A parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee report published in 2020 criticised the government’s failure to conduct a full assessment of potential Russian interference in the Brexit referendum. It did not establish that Russian activity had determined the outcome.
Burnham has maintained that acknowledging interference does not mean claiming that Russia changed the result. His broader argument is that democratic societies should be transparent about attempts by foreign powers to influence political discussion.
Farage has rejected Burnham’s allegations, adding another contentious issue to their wider dispute over Brexit.
The controversy illustrates how arguments about the referendum now extend beyond economic policy and national sovereignty to questions about the integrity of democratic processes.
Any new claims about foreign interference will need to be supported by clear evidence and carefully distinguished from speculation about the motives of individual campaigners.
Can Britain move beyond the Brexit divide?
Burnham’s criticism raises a broader question about whether Britain can move beyond the political divisions that have shaped much of the past decade.
The referendum created a clear democratic mandate to leave the EU, but it did not resolve every question about the country’s future relationship with Europe. Nor did it eliminate disagreements about immigration, trade, public spending or national identity.
Those divisions have continued to influence party politics, with Farage arguing that the political establishment has failed to deliver the changes voters were promised and Burnham arguing that the country must acknowledge the costs of the path it has taken.
Moving forward will require more than assigning blame. The government must demonstrate that its policies can improve productivity, strengthen public services, support regional economies and manage immigration effectively.
At the same time, politicians will need to recognise that the public holds different views about Brexit. Some voters want a closer relationship with the EU, while others regard leaving the bloc as a necessary assertion of democratic control.
A sustainable approach must address practical problems without assuming that everyone who voted for one side of the referendum was motivated by the same concerns.
For Burnham, the central challenge is to show that Britain can achieve better economic and social outcomes through a different political approach. For Farage, it is to demonstrate that the promises associated with Brexit and his wider programme can be translated into workable policies.
A political battle over Britain’s future
Burnham’s statement that Farage is “very significantly responsible” for Britain’s failure to move forward over the past decade is one of his clearest personal criticisms of the Reform UK leader.
It reflects a broader disagreement about whether Brexit offered Britain an opportunity that successive governments failed to exploit or whether leaving the EU created additional obstacles to economic growth and international cooperation.
The argument is unlikely to be settled by political rhetoric alone. Assessing the past decade requires examining economic data, public policy decisions, international developments and the different experiences of households and businesses.
Yet the political consequences are immediate. As the government considers closer relations with Europe, Farage and Reform UK are likely to challenge any proposal that they believe undermines the referendum result or weakens national control.
Burnham, meanwhile, faces pressure to show that a different approach can deliver practical benefits without reopening divisions for their own sake.
Ultimately, Britain’s next chapter will be judged less by which politician wins the argument over the past and more by whether the country can deliver stronger growth, better opportunities and greater confidence in public institutions.
The clash between Burnham and Farage has made the disagreement explicit. What remains unresolved is whether their competing visions can offer convincing answers to the problems that have left so many Britons dissatisfied with the direction of their country.