Andy Burnham could replace Sir Keir Starmer as the next Prime Minister, but it won’t be easy (Image: Getty)
Following Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to step down as Prime Minister, Andy Burnham has emerged as Labour’s frontrunner. But, as Aubrey Allegretti attests, Burnham’s path to 10 Downing Street is not going to be a “shoo-in”. Appearing on GB News on Monday, Allegretti, Chief Political Correspondent at The Times, had bad news for Burnham as he declared he has a bumpy road ahead.
“He obviously made a series of small backtracks during the Makerfield campaign – if he’s the PM apparent in waiting, then there is lots of room for him to slip up and for him to be scrutinised on welfare policy, defence policy [and] his closer relationship with the EU that he said he wants,” Allegretti explained.
Emily Carver asked: “Is it possible that over the next three and a half to four weeks, somebody steps forward who can muster 81 names from across the party, who doesn’t want Burnham to be the ultimate shoo-in?”
“Someone like Al Carns, for example? Would he be able to get support?”, she pushed.
“It could be Al Carns,” Allegretti replied. “But don’t forget, as well, there are a lot of Keir Starmer‘s allies are feeling incredibly bitter today. I spoke to one earlier who texted, they said, ‘I just can’t talk to you right now, I’m crying’.”
Revealing that many of Starmer’s allies have been referring to Burnham as “some mug in a bucket hat who wants to run the country for a while,” the political correspondent noted that there was still “deep animosity” within the Labour party. “I wouldn’t say it’s ultimately a shoo-in,” Allegretti concluded.
Starmer announced his resignation in a speech on Monday morning (Image: Getty)
On Monday morning, Starmer shocked the nation by confirming his resignation. Speaking outside 10 Downing Street, he said, “Walking up this street two years ago was the proudest moment of my life”.
“The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election. I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer with good grace,” Starmer continued. “Every decision I have taken has been about putting the country I love first. That is why I will resign as leader of the Labour Party.”
Before concluding his address, Starmer clarified that he had spoken to His Majesty the King and had agreed to remain in his post as PM until a new leader is in place by September.
Andy Burnham Dealt Huge Blow Just Hours After Keir Starmer Resigns
Andy Burnham’s path to the top of British politics appeared to open dramatically when Keir Starmer announced his resignation as Labour leader on 22 June 2026. After months of political pressure, internal divisions and growing questions about the government’s direction, Starmer’s decision triggered an immediate contest over who would lead the Labour Party into its next chapter. Burnham, who had recently returned to Parliament through the Makerfield by-election, quickly emerged as a leading contender. However, the prospect of taking control of the party brought a fresh set of challenges that threatened to complicate his ambitions.
The immediate difficulty was that Starmer’s departure did not automatically make Burnham the next Labour leader or Prime Minister. Other politicians could enter the contest, party members would have a role in selecting the winner under the applicable rules, and the eventual leader would inherit a government facing difficult economic and political circumstances.
For Burnham, the resignation was therefore both an opportunity and a test. His supporters could argue that Labour needed a new direction, but he would have to demonstrate that he could unite a divided party, restore public confidence and provide convincing answers to Britain’s most pressing problems.
Starmer’s Resignation Changes the Political Landscape
Starmer’s decision to step down followed mounting pressure after Labour’s poor performances in the May 2026 local elections. The results intensified criticism within the party and raised concerns about whether the Prime Minister remained the right person to lead Labour towards the next general election.
His resignation marked a major turning point for a government that had entered office following Labour’s victory in the 2024 general election. The political circumstances had changed considerably, and the party now faced the challenge of selecting a new leader while maintaining the functioning of government.
In announcing his departure, Starmer sought to establish an orderly transition. He said he had listened to his parliamentary colleagues and accepted their judgment about his future leadership. The decision created an opening for potential successors, with Burnham attracting particular attention because of his experience as Greater Manchester mayor and his return to the House of Commons.
However, a change in leadership does not erase a government’s existing difficulties. The incoming leader would still have to confront public dissatisfaction, questions about economic growth and concerns about the delivery of public services.
The resignation also raised expectations. Labour supporters looking for a fresh start would want to see meaningful changes rather than a simple change of personnel at the top.
Why Burnham Emerged as a Leading Contender
Burnham had spent years building a political identity that combined Labour’s traditional commitments to public services with an emphasis on regional investment and greater powers for local communities.
As mayor of Greater Manchester, he became associated with efforts to improve public transport, strengthen local decision-making and attract investment to the region. His experience gave him a profile beyond Westminster and allowed him to present himself as a politician familiar with the practical consequences of government decisions.
His return to Parliament through the Makerfield by-election in June 2026 was a significant step. It enabled him to participate directly in the Labour leadership contest and removed a major practical obstacle to becoming Prime Minister.
When Starmer announced his resignation, Burnham confirmed that he intended to put himself forward for the leadership. He called for an orderly transition and emphasised the importance of economic growth, the cost of living, public services, housing and opportunities for younger generations.
These priorities offered a broad indication of the direction he wanted Labour to take.
Yet Burnham’s political experience could not guarantee victory. Leadership elections involve parliamentary support, party organisation and the ability to persuade members that a candidate offers the strongest future for the movement.
His immediate challenge was to convert his public profile into a convincing coalition within the party.
The Huge Blow: A Leadership Contest Was Not a Guaranteed Coronation
One of the biggest complications for Burnham was that Starmer’s resignation did not guarantee an uncontested succession.
Although Burnham was widely regarded as a leading contender, other Labour figures could seek the leadership. A contested election would force candidates to explain how they intended to govern, how they would distinguish themselves from Starmer and what changes they would introduce.
That could create opportunities for Burnham, but it would also expose weaknesses in his political programme and require him to defend his record under sustained scrutiny.
The leadership process was governed by Labour’s rules, including requirements for nominations and support from MPs and the wider party structure. The precise timetable and the number of candidates would influence how quickly the transition could take place.
A contested election could also create divisions within Labour at a moment when the party needed to demonstrate stability. Candidates might disagree over taxation, welfare, immigration, public spending and the relationship between the national government and local authorities.
For Burnham, the difficulty was therefore not simply winning the leadership. He would also have to ensure that the contest did not leave lasting divisions that weakened the party afterwards.
The leadership process would test whether Labour could organise a credible transition while maintaining its focus on governing the country.
The Economy Would Be Waiting for the New Leader
Whoever succeeded Starmer would inherit substantial economic responsibilities.
Households were concerned about the cost of living, housing affordability and the future of public services. Businesses wanted greater certainty about taxation, regulation and investment, while the government faced pressure to support growth without compromising the sustainability of public finances.
Burnham would need to explain how his priorities could be translated into practical policies.
His experience in Greater Manchester could help him argue for regional investment and a stronger role for local government. However, running a city-region and running the national government involve different financial responsibilities, competing demands and political constraints.
Any proposal to increase public investment would need to address how the money would be raised and how its benefits would be measured. Similarly, commitments to improve services would require sufficient staff, effective management and a realistic timetable.
The new Labour leader would also have to decide how to handle difficult choices inherited from the previous administration.
If Burnham won, voters would expect him to demonstrate that a change in leadership could produce improvements in their everyday lives. If those improvements failed to materialise, the initial enthusiasm surrounding his appointment could quickly fade.
Nigel Farage and the Opposition Would Apply Pressure
Labour’s leadership transition would take place against the backdrop of a changing political landscape, with Nigel Farage and Reform UK challenging the established parties.
Reform had attracted voters concerned about immigration, taxation and dissatisfaction with traditional political leadership. Its growing presence presented a challenge for Labour, particularly in constituencies where economic insecurity and frustration with Westminster influenced voting decisions.
Burnham would have to establish how Labour intended to respond.
A strategy focused entirely on criticising Farage would risk overlooking the reasons some voters had become dissatisfied with the government. Burnham would need to explain his approach to border enforcement, public spending, wages, housing and the quality of public services.
At the same time, the Conservatives would seek to use Labour’s leadership change to question the party’s record and present their own policies as an alternative.
A new leader might receive an initial period of public attention, but that would not necessarily translate into lasting electoral support. The government would still be judged on its decisions and the results they produced.
Burnham would therefore face pressure from several directions, including political opponents and Labour supporters who expected a clear break with the previous leadership.
Could Labour Unite Behind a New Prime Minister?
Leadership transitions can provide parties with an opportunity to renew their message, but they can also expose disagreements that had previously remained in the background.
Labour contains different traditions and competing views about economic policy, public ownership, welfare, immigration and the role of the state. A successful leader must manage those differences without preventing the party from developing a coherent programme.
Burnham’s emphasis on regional development and public services could appeal to members who wanted Labour to reconnect with communities that felt overlooked. However, other members might prefer different priorities or question whether his proposals offered sufficient economic discipline.
Building unity would require more than appealing speeches. Burnham would need to assemble a capable ministerial team, establish clear priorities and demonstrate that different parts of the party could work together.
He would also need to reassure the country that the leadership change would not distract the government from its responsibilities.
The transition would be particularly important because a new Prime Minister would inherit the same institutions, financial constraints and international commitments that had confronted Starmer.
Political renewal could create new opportunities, but it would not remove the practical demands of governing.
A New Beginning With No Guarantee of Success
Starmer’s resignation created an extraordinary moment for Labour, but the consequences depended on what happened next.
For Burnham, the opportunity to become party leader and Prime Minister represented the culmination of a long political career. His experience in local government, his parliamentary background and his emphasis on public services gave him a distinct profile within Labour.
Nevertheless, he would have to prove that his approach could work at national level. His ability to win support inside the party would be only the first stage of a much larger challenge.
The government would need to demonstrate progress on the economy, housing, healthcare and public confidence. It would also need to respond to the concerns driving support for opposition parties without relying on promises that could not realistically be delivered.
The leadership contest would therefore be about more than personalities. It would force Labour to decide what kind of government it wanted to offer Britain and how it intended to regain the confidence of voters.
Conclusion
Keir Starmer’s resignation on 22 June 2026 transformed Labour’s political situation and placed Andy Burnham at the centre of the struggle over the party’s future. Burnham’s return to Parliament and his decision to seek the leadership made him a prominent contender, but the transition was never guaranteed to be straightforward.
The prospect of a contested leadership election, disagreements over policy and the enormous responsibilities awaiting the next Prime Minister all presented significant challenges.
Burnham would have to unite Labour, restore confidence in its programme and demonstrate that his experience in Greater Manchester could translate into effective national leadership.
The wider political stakes were equally important. Reform UK and the Conservatives would continue challenging Labour, while voters would expect the new leadership to deliver improvements in living standards and public services.
Starmer’s departure created an opening for change, but it did not provide an automatic solution to Britain’s problems. For Burnham, the decisive test would be whether he could turn a moment of political opportunity into a government capable of delivering lasting results.