Growth in every postcode and hope in every heart are Andy Burnham visions left blurry by the White House orange maniac, but the Prime Minister needs fresh answers when the electorate is in no mood for excuses.
Donald Trump’s deranged war secretary Pete Hegseth proclaiming ahead of the PM’s first meeting this week with a President wrecking our economy that Europe must end an Iran war the US started signalled no meeting of minds.
Which is why Burnham either walks the bold talk by raising taxes on the wealthy to improve living standards and public services for the majority or soaring oil prices and inflation will choke household finances and growth.
Nor was Women and Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson touring the TV and radio studios to blame Trump a get-out-of-jail-free card for Burnham or Chancellor John Healey in the Budget on October 28.
Labour MPs tell me Burnham’s earned them doorstep hearings in heartlands and the slamming of doors in faces during the Starmer era is over. To sustain that, never mind win back lost voters, folk must feel the Labour government is on their side.
Half of that is exploding fantasy windfalls of Kemi Badenoch dangling a £9billion gift for the country’s richest 5% should Inheritance Tax be scrapped, the Tory leader intent on something-for-nothing wealthfare. Even the Lib Dems are playing the same game, wealthier households benefiting most from a floated 10p Fuel Duty cut.
Reform policies routinely featherbed moneybags like Farage, rather than working-class voters whom the twisting elite pose as championing but, as ever, migrant-bashing racism is the party’s currency.
The other half is demonstrating Labour remains the best bet for Britain by delivering a shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people.
Nobody believes that will be easy or trigger attacks from the likes of plastic patriot Jim Ratcliffe, a flipper who displayed his true colours by backing Brexit, collecting a knighthood then jumping ship to Monaco to avoid paying his fair dues to Britain.
But the hard choice is to be bold, radical, or risk the country losing faith and lurching to the hard right. Over to you, Andy.
Article continues below
Giving Reform red card for failure over racism
Sunderland are a vibrant, diverse, multicultural team of migrant footballers from around the world playing in Europe for the first time since 1973 so who in the city wouldn’t show racism the red card?
Reform council numbskulls is the dispiriting answer after hard-right tinpot politicians feeding on division and hostility withdrew support for the official Show Racism the Red Card group’s Wear Red Day on Friday, October 16.
Talk about scoring own goals when the club itself so enthusiastically embraces the initiative and the likes of Robin Roefs, left, Nordi Mukiele, Granit Xhaka and Brian Brobbey coming over here to make our saves, put in our tackles, play our passes and (I wish more often) score our goals is fantastic for Mackems and the area.
My worry is these reactionary councillors might next want us out of the Europa League, declaring Sunderland must never be run by an unelected foreign Uefa.
Article continues below
Hounded Piddington chef Rachel Marsh requiring protection from intolerant neighbours and far-right bullies is puncturing the jolly “Passport to Pimlico” vibe.
She too opposes using an old Army camp to process asylum seekers but her crime in their eyes was to voice unease on Newsnight to the wider weaponisation of hostility to people wanting to start a fresh life in Britain.
That New Zealand-born Marsh, who married a son of Windrush parents, was forced to meet police to discuss her safety because she’s worried about racism is shaming. Those villagers embracing masked black shirts should think again or they’ll destroy their own cause.
“Given that their aim is to protect women and children,” she observed, “it is quite ironic that they are using aggression like this towards me for speaking up against racism.”
Article continues below
Ginger Foreign Office heart-throb Stewart Wood loved telling us about being mistaken in Westminster tube station by Japanese tourists for Ed Sheeran and pestered into posing for selfies.
My 20p says the Labour peer will grimace during future retellings of that crazy moment after the superstar singer cowardly failed to stand up for rapper Macklemore axed from a US tour after shouting: “Free Palestine” at a gig. Silence over the Gaza genocide is complicity.
Nobody seriously believes Macklemore would’ve been dropped for speaking against war crimes in Sudan or yelling “Free Ukraine”. Sheeran’s subsequent “my heart is broken” inadequate half-apology smacked of self-pity.
Article continues below
Going up
Joe Fortune is unlikely ever to be a household name but I hear only good things about the organisational finesse of a Labour incoming General Secretary who impressed MPs as head of the allied Co-operative Party.
Going down
Embarrassing dad Ed Davey has his work cut out silencing doubters at the Lib Dem jamboree in Brighton when two years after delivering the party’s most seats since 1923 his critics fear it’s slipping backwards and voters aren’t hearing what they stand for. Dressing up isn’t enough.
Speaker’s corner
“I have been physically assaulted going home from work, and followed and verbally abused right outside Parliament.” London Black MP Dawn Butler’s chilling account of political abuse is why a Nigel Farage forever claiming he’s the most endangered politician should discipline sidekicks like Zia Yusuf forever inciting hatred.
KEVIN MAGUIRE: Andy Burnham Must Be Bold in His First Meeting With Donald Trump
Andy Burnham’s first face-to-face meeting with Donald Trump was always going to be about more than diplomatic smiles, carefully chosen words and photographs designed to project a strong relationship between Britain and the United States. For the new British prime minister, the encounter represented an early test of how he intends to defend British interests while dealing with one of the most unpredictable figures in modern American politics.
Writing ahead of the meeting, political commentator Kevin Maguire argued that Burnham needed to be bold and radical rather than simply following the cautious approach associated with his predecessor. The challenge was straightforward to describe but considerably harder to manage: Britain needs its relationship with Washington, yet that relationship cannot come at the expense of the country’s own priorities, values and independence.
The meeting took place on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 22, 2026. Its outcome offered both governments an opportunity to establish a working relationship, although the difficult questions facing the two leaders were far from resolved.
A different approach to the White House
The relationship between a British prime minister and an American president has traditionally been one of the most important partnerships in British foreign policy. Cooperation between the two countries covers defence, intelligence, trade, technology and international security. Any serious deterioration in that relationship could have consequences far beyond the personalities involved.
But the so-called special relationship has never meant that the two countries agree on everything. British leaders have frequently had to navigate disagreements over military action, trade policy, international law and the direction of American foreign policy.
Burnham entered his first meeting with Trump under pressure to demonstrate that Britain could maintain close ties with the United States without automatically accepting every demand coming from the White House. His position was complicated by the president’s reputation for unpredictable public statements, his willingness to criticise allies and his preference for negotiations built around personal relationships.
Maguire’s argument that Burnham should be bold reflected a wider debate about how British leaders should deal with Trump. One approach emphasises personal diplomacy, avoiding public confrontation and securing practical agreements behind closed doors. Another argues that excessive caution risks making Britain appear unwilling to defend its own interests when disagreements arise.
Neither approach is without risks. A confrontational strategy can damage cooperation on issues where Britain and the United States have shared interests. Excessive accommodation, meanwhile, can create domestic criticism if the public believes the government is sacrificing important principles simply to maintain a friendly atmosphere.
The difficult task for Burnham was therefore not to choose between friendship and hostility. It was to establish that cooperation could coexist with clear boundaries.
The importance of standing up for British interests
Trump’s approach to international relations frequently places emphasis on what the United States receives from its partners. His administration has pressed allies on defence contributions, trade arrangements and security commitments, while questioning agreements that he considers unfavourable to American interests.
For Britain, these issues carry particular importance. The United States remains a major economic and security partner, but British governments must also respond to domestic concerns about living standards, industrial investment, energy prices and public services.
A prime minister who wishes to demonstrate leadership must explain how international agreements will benefit people at home. Diplomatic photographs and warm statements can help establish goodwill, but they do not automatically produce lower household bills, stronger investment or better employment opportunities.
Burnham therefore faced the question of how to turn a constructive personal relationship into measurable progress. Trade arrangements, investment in British industry, energy cooperation and technological development were all areas in which the two countries could seek practical benefits.
The danger would be to allow the meeting’s positive atmosphere to obscure unresolved disagreements. A successful diplomatic encounter is not necessarily one in which both leaders agree on every issue. It can also be one in which disagreements are acknowledged clearly and managed without undermining broader cooperation.
Trade, industry and economic security
Economic cooperation was an important part of the discussions between Burnham and Trump. The American market offers opportunities for British businesses, while investment and industrial partnerships can support jobs and innovation across the UK.
However, a close trading relationship does not eliminate the possibility of disputes. Tariffs, domestic subsidies, regulatory differences and competition for strategic industries can all create friction between allies.
Burnham’s emphasis on reindustrialisation made these questions especially significant. If the government wants to expand Britain’s manufacturing base and strengthen economic resilience, it must consider how international agreements affect domestic producers and workers.
The challenge is to secure arrangements that encourage investment without leaving British businesses exposed to sudden changes in American policy. Companies need predictable rules and confidence that access to important markets will not be disrupted by political disagreements.
There is also a broader question about the balance between cooperation and dependence. Britain benefits from working with the United States in areas such as advanced technology, defence production and energy. Yet it must retain sufficient flexibility to respond when American priorities differ from British ones.
A bold negotiating position would not necessarily involve rejecting American proposals. It would involve assessing each proposal on its merits, explaining the benefits and costs, and refusing to treat a close relationship as a substitute for careful scrutiny.
The Chagos Islands dispute
One issue that illustrated the difficulties facing the two leaders was the UK’s agreement concerning the Chagos Islands and the strategic military base at Diego Garcia.
Trump publicly criticised the arrangement, describing it as a bad deal and questioning the decision to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius while retaining a long-term arrangement for the military base. His comments highlighted how an agreement reached by Britain could become a source of tension with Washington.
The issue matters because Diego Garcia has strategic significance for British and American military operations. Both countries have an interest in maintaining the base’s operational value, but they may disagree over the legal and diplomatic arrangements required to secure its future.
For Burnham, the challenge was to explain Britain’s position without dismissing American concerns. Simply accepting Trump’s criticism would risk undermining the government’s own diplomatic position. Responding with unnecessary hostility, however, could make practical cooperation more difficult.
The issue demonstrates why diplomatic confidence matters. Britain must be able to explain the reasoning behind its decisions, listen to the concerns of its closest partners and seek workable solutions where interests overlap.
It also shows that disagreements can emerge even when the two leaders have a cordial personal relationship. Friendship between politicians cannot eliminate the competing interests of their countries.
Security and international conflicts
The meeting also took place against a backdrop of international instability, including tensions surrounding Iran, the conflict in the Middle East and the continuing need for cooperation over Ukraine.
These questions place considerable pressure on the British government. The UK has longstanding security ties with Washington, but decisions about military involvement can carry serious consequences for British personnel, public finances and international stability.
Burnham indicated that Britain remained willing to contribute to efforts aimed at addressing international security challenges. Such cooperation can strengthen the relationship between the two countries, particularly when they share objectives.
Nevertheless, a responsible government must distinguish between supporting a common objective and automatically endorsing every proposed method of achieving it. Questions about the legality, proportionality and likely consequences of military action cannot be settled by diplomatic goodwill alone.
The same principle applies to defence spending. Britain needs credible security capabilities and reliable partnerships, but it must also explain how defence commitments fit within its wider financial and industrial priorities.
A firm negotiating approach would allow Burnham to support cooperation where it serves British interests while retaining the freedom to express disagreement when necessary.
The domestic political stakes
The relationship with Trump also has consequences for Burnham at home. British voters may disagree about the president, but many will judge the prime minister according to whether he appears capable of protecting the country’s interests.
Some voters favour close alignment with Washington, viewing the United States as an indispensable ally. Others are concerned about Trump’s positions on immigration, international institutions, climate policy and military conflicts. The government must navigate those competing expectations while maintaining a coherent foreign policy.
For Burnham, the central challenge is to show that diplomacy produces results rather than simply reassuring the public that relations remain friendly.
That means explaining what Britain hopes to gain from cooperation, what disagreements remain unresolved and how the government intends to protect its negotiating position. Transparency can also help prevent individual disputes from being transformed into exaggerated claims about the entire relationship.
Maguire’s call for boldness can therefore be understood as an argument for political clarity. A prime minister should not confuse politeness with passivity, nor should he assume that a forceful public performance is automatically evidence of effective leadership.
The real measure is whether Britain can advance its objectives while preserving a relationship that remains important to its economy and security.
A meeting, not a final verdict
The first encounter between Burnham and Trump produced encouraging public signals. Trump praised the British prime minister, calling him a natural businessperson, and spoke positively about the relationship between the two countries. Burnham, in turn, said the leaders had established a good connection and had discussed a range of issues.
Those comments suggested that both sides wanted to maintain a constructive relationship. They did not, however, resolve the underlying policy differences over issues such as the Chagos Islands, trade, energy and international security.
Diplomacy should ultimately be judged by what follows the initial meeting. Agreements must be implemented, disagreements managed and commitments translated into results. A warm reception at the White House or a positive press conference can create opportunities, but it cannot guarantee success.
For Burnham, the next stage is to demonstrate that his government can work with Washington while maintaining a clear understanding of Britain’s interests. That requires preparation, consistency and the willingness to explain difficult decisions to the public.
Maguire’s warning about the need for boldness captures a genuine dilemma facing any British prime minister dealing with Trump. Too much confrontation could weaken cooperation, while too much accommodation could undermine confidence in the government’s independence.
The most sustainable approach lies between those extremes: engage seriously, negotiate firmly, and make decisions according to their consequences for Britain rather than the personalities involved.
Burnham’s first meeting was an opening chapter in a relationship that will be tested repeatedly by events beyond either leader’s control. Its long-term significance will depend not on the language used in New York, but on whether the two governments can convert diplomatic goodwill into practical cooperation while dealing honestly with their differences.