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.
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.
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?
“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.”
Article continues below
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.
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 Says Nigel Farage Is ‘Significantly Responsible’ for Britain’s Miserable Decade
Andy Burnham has launched a sharp criticism of Nigel Farage, arguing that the Reform UK leader bears significant responsibility for what he describes as a lost decade for Britain. His comments have reignited the debate over Brexit, economic growth, immigration and the political divisions that have shaped the country since the 2016 referendum.
Burnham’s remarks represent a direct challenge to Farage’s political legacy. As Britain continues to face difficult questions about living standards, public services and its relationship with Europe, the prime minister has argued that the decisions made over the past ten years have left the country struggling to move forward.
At the centre of his criticism is Brexit, a political project Farage championed for years before and after the referendum. Burnham believes the promises made during the campaign have not delivered the results many voters expected, particularly in relation to economic prosperity and control over immigration.
The dispute also highlights a wider question facing British politics: who should be held responsible for the country’s recent difficulties, and what must happen to put Britain on a different course?
A Direct Challenge to Nigel Farage
Burnham’s comments were unusually personal in their criticism of Farage. He argued that the Reform UK leader had helped create a decade marked by division and political drift, suggesting that Britain had failed to make the progress it needed.
However, Burnham also stopped short of dismissing Farage as a political force. He acknowledged that previous attempts to write off the Reform leader had proved unwise and suggested that his future influence should not be underestimated.
That distinction matters. Farage remains an important figure in debates about immigration, national identity, the economy and the role of government. His political appeal has been built partly on the argument that traditional parties have ignored voters who feel that the country has changed without their consent.
Burnham’s challenge is therefore not simply an attack on one politician. It is an attempt to question the political direction Farage has promoted and to persuade voters that the solutions offered by Reform UK may not address the underlying causes of Britain’s problems.
Farage and his supporters are likely to reject that interpretation. They have long argued that Brexit was intended to restore democratic control, enable Britain to make its own laws and allow the government to pursue policies that reflect national priorities.
For many Leave voters, those objectives remain important regardless of the economic difficulties Britain has experienced since the referendum.
Brexit Returns to the Centre of the Debate
Brexit has become one of the defining issues of Burnham’s political agenda. He has argued that leaving the European Union did not deliver the degree of control promised during the referendum campaign and that the UK needs a more practical relationship with its European neighbours.
His criticism focuses particularly on economic growth. Businesses have faced additional administrative requirements when trading with European partners, while some industries have continued to express concerns about the costs and complexity of cross-border commerce.
The broader economic effects of Brexit remain a subject of political disagreement, although assessments by economic institutions have identified long-term challenges associated with the UK’s departure from the single market and customs union.
Supporters of Brexit argue that the country should be given more time to benefit from its independence. They point to the ability to negotiate separate trade agreements, change regulations and establish policies without having to secure agreement from EU institutions.
Critics counter that these advantages have not yet compensated for the additional barriers facing many businesses. They argue that closer cooperation with Europe could help improve trade, investment and productivity.
Burnham has made clear that he wants an honest discussion about the consequences of the past decade. Rather than treating Brexit as an issue that must never be revisited, he believes politicians should examine the available evidence and consider what arrangements would best serve the country in the years ahead.
That approach is likely to remain controversial. For some voters, reconsidering the UK’s relationship with the EU could represent a sensible response to changing economic circumstances. For others, it risks reopening a political dispute that has already dominated British public life for years.
Immigration and the Question of Border Control
Immigration is another major part of the disagreement between Burnham and Farage.
One of the central arguments of the Brexit campaign was that leaving the EU would allow Britain to regain control over its borders. Farage has repeatedly presented immigration policy as an area where governments must demonstrate that national decisions can be enforced effectively.
Burnham, however, argues that controlling immigration requires cooperation with other countries. He has suggested that leaving the EU weakened certain arrangements that previously helped Britain coordinate with European partners, including mechanisms for returning people who have no legal right to remain.
From this perspective, international agreements are not necessarily a surrender of control. They can be tools that allow governments to manage migration more effectively.
The disagreement reflects two different approaches to sovereignty. One emphasises the freedom to make decisions independently, while the other stresses the practical benefits of cooperation when dealing with problems that cross national borders.
Neither approach removes the difficult choices involved in immigration policy. Governments must consider border security, the processing of asylum applications, labour-market needs, international obligations and the pressures placed on local communities.
Burnham’s argument is that Britain should judge policies by their results rather than by the political slogans attached to them.
Farage, by contrast, has built much of his political identity around the claim that successive governments have failed to deliver the level of control voters were promised.
That difference is likely to remain a defining feature of the debate.
A Decade of Economic Frustration
Burnham’s criticism also reflects widespread frustration over the cost of living, stagnant productivity and the uneven distribution of economic opportunities across Britain.
Many households have faced difficult decisions about housing, energy bills, food and transport. Public services have also experienced significant pressure, while some communities continue to struggle with declining local industries and limited investment.
These problems cannot be attributed to a single political decision or individual. Britain’s economic difficulties have been shaped by a combination of domestic policy choices, international economic shocks, the pandemic, energy-market disruption and long-standing structural weaknesses.
Nevertheless, the past decade has become a powerful political symbol. For critics of Brexit, it represents a period in which political arguments about sovereignty consumed attention while economic problems remained unresolved.
For Brexit supporters, the same period demonstrates the failure of established parties to use the freedom created by leaving the EU to improve living standards.
Burnham is seeking to challenge the second interpretation by arguing that Brexit itself contributed to the country’s difficulties.
His wider political programme has included proposals concerning housing, energy, public services and the distribution of power between central government and local communities. The underlying argument is that Britain needs a different approach to economic development rather than simply another change of political leadership.
The difficult question is whether these proposals can deliver measurable improvements while public finances remain under pressure.
Promises to improve services or reduce household costs will ultimately be judged by their implementation, funding and effects on people’s everyday lives.
Can Labour Offer a Different Direction?
Burnham’s attack on Farage also creates a challenge for Labour. Criticising the past is easier than demonstrating that a new course will produce better results.
Voters who are concerned about the economy may want to know whether closer relations with Europe would lead to more investment, better wages and lower costs. Those worried about immigration may demand evidence that international cooperation can improve border management without weakening the government’s ability to enforce its rules.
Other voters may be more concerned about public services, housing availability or the cost of retirement. For them, arguments about Brexit will matter only if they translate into practical improvements.
Burnham must therefore connect his historical assessment with a credible programme for the future.
He also faces a political balancing act. Some Labour supporters favour closer European integration, while others represent communities where Brexit remains an important expression of political identity. Moving too quickly could create divisions within his own party, but refusing to reconsider existing arrangements could limit the options available to his government.
Farage, meanwhile, can use the debate to reinforce his claim that established political figures are attempting to reverse a democratic decision.
The two men are offering different explanations for Britain’s recent difficulties, and their competing arguments will be tested against economic performance and public experience.
The Political Battle Ahead
Burnham’s remarks underline how strongly Brexit continues to influence British politics a decade after the referendum.
Although the country has formally left the European Union, questions about trade, immigration, sovereignty and economic growth remain unresolved. Political leaders continue to disagree about whether the answer lies in defending the existing settlement, making limited adjustments or pursuing a substantially closer relationship with Europe.
Farage remains central to that debate because of his long association with the campaign to leave the EU. Burnham’s decision to hold him significantly responsible for Britain’s lack of progress is an attempt to challenge not only his record but also the wider political narrative that helped make Brexit possible.
Yet responsibility for the past decade is complicated. Governments of different political parties have made decisions that shaped the economy, public services and Britain’s international position. Brexit has been an important factor, but it is not the only explanation for every difficulty facing the country.
The most important test will be whether political leaders can move beyond competing accounts of the past and present convincing plans for the future.
For Burnham, that means showing that closer European cooperation and domestic reform can deliver tangible benefits. For Farage, it means demonstrating that the independence secured through Brexit can still produce the improvements promised to voters.
Ultimately, Britain’s future will depend less on which politician wins the argument over the past and more on whether the policies they propose can improve economic security, restore confidence in public institutions and create opportunities across the country.
Burnham has made his position clear: he believes Farage bears substantial responsibility for a decade in which Britain failed to move forward. Whether voters accept that judgment will depend on how they assess the evidence, their own experiences and the alternatives offered by the country’s political leaders.