It’s a harsh world out there, and it thinks Andy Burnham’s Britain is a soft touch (Image: Getty)
What took them so long? Britain was so strong that many struggle to believe just how feeble we have become. They can see it now. Since winning the 2024 general election, Labour has done everything it can to project weakness to the world, and the world has taken note. Keir Starmer began the process with his craven surrender of the Chagos Islands, handing sovereignty to Mauritius while agreeing to pay billions to lease our bases back. It’s laughable.
Starmer prioritised international law over the interests of the country he was supposed to be leading. Appointed Lord Hermer as attorney general was insane. This is a man who pursued “a witch hunt” against British veterans, and reportedly didn’t care whether his clients were “a member of al-Qaeda” or not. What soldier would fight for a country like this?
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Starmer has mercifully gone but new PM Andy Burnham looks even weaker on the international stage. He looked like a bag of nerves sitting next to US president Donald Trump in New York, while Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband resembled a startled rabbit. Even Starmer did a better job of withstanding the US president. Trump humiliated Burnham by damning Chagos as “terrible” and “ridiculous”, and Burnham meekly agreed to review it. Rightly so. It is rubbish. But did Burnham really need Trump to point it out?
We’ve all seen Burnham’s fatal political flaw. He wants to be liked. And he is likeable. He’s also a reflection of what this country has become. Mediocre, self-absorbed and in total denial about the extent of our national decline and the threats we face from people who wish us no good. A pushover, in other words.
It’s not a coincidence that Argentinian president Javier Milei is banging on about the Falkland Islands again. He senses weakness too. Hard not to, Britain struggled to muster a lone destroyer to protect our military bases in Cyprus from Iranian-made drones in March. France, Greece, Spain had to chip in.
The French must be laughing at us, taking more than £1billion of British taxpayers’ money to stop migrant crossings, while small boats continue to depart French shores.
The Greeks are making noises about the Elgin Marbles again. Burnham ducked this fight, saying it’s a matter for the British Museum. But you can hardly blame Greece for trying its luck now.
Now the whole nonsense about slavery reparations has sprung up again, with Jamaica demanding legal consideration of compensation for events that happened more than 200 years ago. The government has said it won’t pay up. But again, they sense weakness.
There’s a famous 1898 cartoon showing imperialist Britain, France, Germany and Russia greedily carving up China like a pie. Today, Britain is the country being carved up. When Vladimir Putin realises who weak we are behind the posturing, we’re really in trouble.
Burnham’s big plan is devolution. Spread more power to the regions. He insists this will create growth, when in practice it’s bound to cost us a fortune.
Devolution has been an “expensive disaster” in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which all remain poorer than England despite getting more public spending per head. That hasn’t stopped nationalists pressing for more.
For the first time, nationalist parties lead all three devolved governments. Sensing their moment, they’re joining forces. Earlier this month, the leaders of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, together with Sinn Féin president Mary Lou McDonald, met in Cardiff and declared that “Westminster’s time is coming to an end”. They want constitutional change and independence referendums.
Nationalists gleefully celebrated Burnham’s blunder in suggesting a Scottish referendum could be held if there was sufficient popular support. Burnham did a reverse ferret, but the damage was done. Burnham, like Starmer before him, is also kow-towing to the EU, allowing negotiators to run rings around us again while Brussels chips away at Brexit freedoms. Not that we had the nous to take advantage of them.
The left still idolises the EU, even as the far right tightens its grip across Europe. Basically, the British left is ashamed of their own country, and will take any opportunity to run Britain down. It’s been that way for decades. Even George Orwell derided it.
Now they’ve got what they wanted. Britain is weaker than ever, and everybody is coming for us now. They wouldn’t have tried under Margaret Thatcher. Under Burnham, it risks turning into a free-for-all.
Andy Burnham Just Showed He’s Out of His Depth – Turned Britain Into a Laughing Stock
Andy Burnham’s first major appearance on the international stage as British Prime Minister has triggered a fierce political backlash, with critics accusing him of presenting a gloomy picture of Britain while attempting to explain the country’s recent problems through the legacy of Brexit.
Burnham travelled to New York for his first United Nations General Assembly address on September 22, 2026, promising to deliver an upbeat message about Britain’s future. Before the speech, he insisted that Britain was not “on the slide” and said there was “lots to be proud of” about the country.
Yet when he began speaking to the UN, Brexit appeared almost immediately.
The Prime Minister told world leaders that it was now ten years since Brexit and that Britain had experienced the “disruption” it brought. He then argued that the experience had given Britain a unique perspective and declared that “Britain is back.”
For Burnham’s critics, that opening was revealing.
They argued that a speech intended to showcase Britain to the world should have concentrated on the country’s strengths rather than beginning with an account of the disruption associated with Brexit. Some commentators went considerably further, portraying the speech as evidence that the new Prime Minister was struggling to present a convincing vision of Britain’s international role.
However, the speech itself covered a much broader range of issues than Brexit.
A first appearance under intense scrutiny
Burnham’s UN appearance came at a particularly important moment for his government.
He had only recently become Prime Minister and was attempting to establish his international reputation. His trip also included his first face-to-face meeting with US President Donald Trump.
The meeting was closely watched because Burnham and Trump had previously exchanged sharp criticism. Nevertheless, their New York meeting was described as constructive, with both sides emphasizing the importance of the US-UK relationship.
That meant Burnham was facing two different challenges.
At home, he needed to convince British voters that his government could address living costs, economic problems and political divisions.
Abroad, he needed to demonstrate that Britain remained an influential country capable of working with major powers.
His UN speech was therefore an opportunity to establish the tone of his premiership.
The Brexit reference that dominated the headlines
The most controversial part of the speech came almost immediately.
Burnham said Britain had lived through the disruption caused by Brexit and suggested that the experience had provided lessons for the future.
The government presented this not simply as an attack on Brexit but as an attempt to learn from the previous decade.
The Prime Minister’s argument was that Britain should now move beyond the turbulence of recent years and focus on the decade ahead.
He said Britain was restoring stability, building a more dynamic economy and seeking to trade with the world while working with other countries to solve shared problems.
That message has two distinct elements.
The first is a political assessment of the past.
The second is an argument about Britain’s future.
Critics concentrated heavily on the first.
Is Burnham trying to reopen Brexit?
The controversy became even more intense because Burnham had declined to rule out the possibility of Labour eventually supporting British re-entry into the European Union.
Before his UN appearance, journalists asked whether Labour could eventually include a commitment to rejoin the EU in a future election manifesto.
Burnham did not rule it out, instead saying that such questions were for another day and that his immediate focus was rebuilding Britain’s relationship with European allies.
That distinction is politically important.
Burnham’s immediate policy is not to reverse Brexit. His government is instead seeking closer practical cooperation with the EU.
He has described Britain as a potential “trusted partner” and has argued that closer cooperation could benefit British industry and supply chains.
Reuters reported that Burnham was particularly concerned about the impact of the EU’s “Made in Europe” initiative on British manufacturers, given the close integration between British and European supply chains.
A broader vision for Britain
Despite the controversy over Brexit, the majority of Burnham’s UN speech focused on international security and technological change.
He argued that Britain should play a role as a bridge between countries at a time of increasing geopolitical tension.
The Prime Minister presented the UK as a country capable of working with the United States, European countries, China, India and Brazil.
He also emphasized Britain’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council and its wider international relationships.
His message was that Britain’s influence should not be measured solely by its economic size or military strength.
Diplomacy, technology, alliances and international cooperation could also give Britain significant influence.
Russia and information warfare
One of the strongest themes of the speech was the threat posed by hostile information campaigns.
Burnham argued that modern conflicts are no longer fought exclusively through conventional military forces.
Governments can also attempt to influence democratic societies through misinformation, fake websites, manipulated content and social-media operations.
Russia was a central focus of this section.
Burnham argued that Britain had experienced attempts to interfere with democratic debate and said the country needed to become more resilient against such activity.
He announced plans for a new National Centre for Information Defence designed to help detect, attribute and disrupt hostile information attacks.
This proposal was part of a wider argument that national security must include the protection of democratic institutions and public trust.
Artificial intelligence becomes a strategic issue
Artificial intelligence also occupied a significant part of Burnham’s speech.
The Prime Minister wants Britain to play a leading role in international discussions about AI.
He has argued that governments need to work together to ensure that rapidly developing technology is used safely while still allowing innovation.
Burnham plans to place AI high on the agenda when Britain takes the G20 presidency.
The objective is to position Britain between competing technological and geopolitical powers.
That is a difficult diplomatic balancing act.
The United States and China dominate much of the global AI race, while European countries are developing their own regulatory frameworks.
Britain wants to remain closely connected to American technology companies while also maintaining strong relationships with European partners.
Ukraine and international security
Burnham also used his speech to reinforce Britain’s support for Ukraine.
He called for Russia to accept a ceasefire and return to negotiations while emphasizing Britain’s commitment to NATO and European security.
He also said Britain would continue investing in defence.
The government is attempting to combine a stronger European security role with continued close cooperation with Washington.
That strategy was also evident in Burnham’s meeting with Trump.
The two leaders discussed Ukraine and broader security issues, despite differences over subjects including the Middle East and the Chagos Islands.
The Chagos Islands controversy
The Chagos Islands were another sensitive issue surrounding Burnham’s trip.
The UK government’s agreement concerning the future sovereignty of the Chagos Islands and the long-term lease of Diego Garcia has attracted criticism, including from Trump.
During their meeting, Trump described the agreement as problematic and questioned aspects of the arrangement.
For Burnham, the issue represented one of several complicated foreign-policy challenges confronting the new government.
His response has been to emphasize Britain’s strategic relationships and the importance of maintaining cooperation with the United States.
Britain as a “bridge builder”
Burnham’s supporters have interpreted the UN speech differently from his critics.
Rather than seeing it as an admission of British weakness, they argue that the Prime Minister was attempting to present Britain as a country capable of rebuilding relationships after years of political turbulence.
UNA-UK described the speech as an attempt to portray Britain as a “bridge builder” and “honest broker” in a divided world.
This interpretation is important because Burnham’s speech repeatedly emphasized cooperation.
He did not argue that Britain should retreat from international affairs.
Quite the opposite.
His message was that Britain should become more active in diplomacy, defence, technology and international problem-solving.
Why critics remain unconvinced
The criticism nevertheless reflects a broader political disagreement about Burnham’s approach.
Opponents argue that repeatedly discussing Brexit risks keeping Britain trapped in arguments about the past.
They point to the Prime Minister’s willingness to discuss closer EU relations and his refusal to rule out eventual re-entry as evidence that the government could be moving towards a fundamental reassessment of Brexit.
Supporters of Brexit, however, may view closer cooperation differently.
For them, practical cooperation does not necessarily require reversing Britain’s decision to leave the EU.
The disagreement therefore revolves around what Brexit should mean ten years after the referendum.
Did Burnham really make Britain a “laughing stock”?
That phrase is a political judgment rather than an objective description.
There is no single international measure showing that Britain became a “laughing stock” because of Burnham’s UN speech.
The available evidence shows something more complicated.
International coverage focused on Burnham’s attempts to rebuild ties with Europe, his meeting with Trump, his position on Ukraine, his proposals concerning AI and his broader attempt to redefine Britain’s international role.
Some commentators strongly criticised his approach.
Others viewed the speech as an attempt to establish a new direction for British foreign policy.
The difference largely reflects political interpretation.
A difficult test for the new Prime Minister
What is undeniable is that Burnham’s first UN appearance placed him under enormous scrutiny.
He needed to demonstrate that Britain remained globally relevant while also acknowledging the political and economic consequences of the previous decade.
His decision to mention Brexit within the opening moments ensured that the issue would dominate much of the subsequent discussion.
But the rest of his speech demonstrated that his agenda is considerably broader.
He wants Britain to strengthen defence, cooperate with European allies, maintain the US relationship, confront Russian information operations, become a major player in artificial intelligence and contribute to efforts to resolve conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.
The central question is whether those ambitions can be converted into effective policy.
A speech can establish priorities, but it cannot by itself change Britain’s economic performance, rebuild international relationships or resolve geopolitical conflicts.
That will require years of decisions.
For Burnham, the immediate challenge is therefore not simply defending what he said at the United Nations.
It is demonstrating that his government’s vision can produce tangible results.
His declaration that “Britain is back” was deliberately optimistic.
The political debate that follows will determine how convincing that message becomes.
For supporters, the speech may represent an attempt to move Britain beyond a decade of political division and establish a more cooperative international role.
For critics, the repeated focus on Brexit and the government’s evolving European strategy raise questions about the direction Britain is taking.
Either way, Burnham’s UN appearance has made one thing clear: the argument over Britain’s post-Brexit identity is far from finished.