Fundamentally the job of British governments is to help manage capitalism in the interests of the dominant forces within it. Occasionally this doesn’t go to plan as with David Cameron’s fateful decision to hold a referendum on EU membership. This was done with the intention of putting the matter, which had opened deep rifts in the establishment’s political elite, to rest. The country would vote to remain and Eurosceptics would be silenced. That things didn’t go to plan was a measure of Cameron’s incompetence rather than an intent to defy capital.

A more serious threat to the managerial model came from Jeremy Corbyn when, as leader of the Labour Party, he came within an ace of winning a general election and this despite the constant media campaign against him and forces within his own Party who fought to undermine him. This was relentless and eventually took its toll with him being ousted as leader.

Having sacrificed so much in the fight against Nazism during the Second World War, the years following it saw people able to extract concessions from the state to meet their expectations and to counter the example of the socialist world.

Though rare, as the Brexit vote and Corbyn’s success showed it is possible at least in a limited way for the democratic will of the people to prevail over the interests of capital.

Post-Brexit and post-Corbyn capital has sought to restore some stability, though a series of chaotic Tory administrations failed to provide this. Indeed one of Ex-Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s selling points was his dull managerial competence, yet that proved illusory. Dull he certainly was, but he was not a competent manager for capitalism. Control of the government was in the hands of the ruthless right-wing cabal, Labour Together, which was instrumental in bringing down Corbyn through running shadow operations within the Party to fund their own candidates and to promote false allegations of anti-Semitism. The massive extent of this operation has been exposed by Paul Holden in his book, The Fraud, which gives a detailed account Starmer’s promotion by the right to gain the leadership of the Party and thence into Downing St.1

Once elected Starmer and his Chancellor Rachel Reeves pursued strongly pro-capital policies cutting welfare spending and promoting deregulation of financial services. Wes Streeting in the Department of Health was intent on further privatising the NHS in England.

Internationally pouring more arms into propping up Ukraine and pledging to hike the military budget were vigorously pursued. There were purges against the left of the Party and many exited in disgust, especially since Starmer had been elected leader on a platform of carrying on Corbyn’s most popular policies. Yet simply doing capitalism’s bidding without a political strategy to take Labour MPs and the general public along failed to deliver the goods. Despite a massive majority in parliament, U-turn followed U-turn and the elections to local authorities and devolved parliaments in May 2026 proved disastrous for Labour. People had not voted Labour for things to get worse. From the outset Reform UK was identified by Starmer’s backers as the threat to Labour. But instead of challenging its politics, they adopted its false patriotism of flag waving and focused on migration, which only provided a vindication of Reform. It reaped the benefit of Labour’s failures and drove others to vote Green, Lib Dem or not vote at all. The May election results were so bad that it was beginning to look as though Labour, like the Tories, might slip into virtual oblivion.

Again the electorate demonstrated that it could choose – though its choice was not necessarily a welcome one. Although the Greens picked up seats as did the nationalists in Scotland and Wales, the ultra-left position that if Labour were destroyed voters would opt for a real socialist offering was debunked by the success of Reform and the absence of a socialist alternative.

Given the turnover of Prime Ministers and the failure of Starmer to provide a credible alternative, the capitalist commentariat churned out opinion pieces asking whether Britian was ungovernable. Democracy needs to be managed better by political parties if capitalism is to thrive, but can this be achieved?

In that context what should be the assessment of Andy Burnham’s eventual ousting of Starmer and his accession to Prime Minister in his place?

It was Burnham’s second go at re-entering parliament which got him there. The first attempt was blocked by Labour’s National Executive acting on behalf of Starmer. But after the May elections MP’s and many others including on the right of the Party could see the writing on the wall. If Starmer didn’t go then their days were numbered.

Burnham is a political animal in the way that Starmer isn’t. He understands the need to make the Labour Party distinctive (not a Reform clone) and that it must appeal to working people to make their lives better – not worse as Starmer promised. He makes social-democratic sounding statements on things like “public control”. To back up the rhetoric of being “authentically Labour”, and distance himself from the failed premiership of Starmer, Burnham quickly announced measures which are modest and designed to be headline-grabbing. Explicitly acknowledging that there is a cost-of-living crisis, these measures included removing VAT from energy bills and £2 cap of bus fares in England. Pubs, clubs and small music venues will have their business rates cut.

He has recognised the scale of the problem of lack of affordable housing – a major concern for many people in Britain. He has promised to end rough sleeping and to have "the biggest council house building programme since the post-war period". However, when more details were announced the programme sounded less radical, with £10bn to be spent in England, aiming to provide 70,000 new homes. But the cash will not all go to council housing but rather on a mix of social and affordable housing. This is quite a retreat, however, it does at least mark the return of a council house building programme though short of what is needed. A further £6bn will be allocated to London at a later date.

He has also distanced himself from Starmer by announcing that he will donate a portion of his Prime Ministerial salary to homeless charities in contrast to Starmer’s snapping up freebies from millionaires. The Labour whip was restored to Diane Abbott which is a victory for the left.

These are modest gestures, but none the less welcome. The capitalist press question how Burnham will pay for the promises he has made and maintains the pressure to cut public spending. There is of course no similar questioning of his continued commitment to pour money into Ukraine, prolonging the war and suffering there nor to hike up UK military spending in pursuit of an aggressive international posture. These are Starmer’s policies which Burham is continuing and remain a threat to the safety and well-being of the British people.

President Voldomyr Zelensky was his first international visitor when Burnham became Prime Minister, meeting him after only a month in office. Burnham used the opportunity to say, "I am personally with you 100%, Mr President, and I will honour every commitment this country has made to Ukraine in full." Sentiments he echoed on his trip to Kyiv in August, which was his first foreign visit promising Ukraine more support, including sharing intellectual property, like the plans for long range SCALP missiles with which to hit Russia. A collaboration on military AI was announced in a further demonstration of the centrality of the military to British economic development. The £25bn the UK has committed to Ukraine could clearly be spent on better things. This unequivocal support for Ukraine and supplying more military support and arms is also drawing the UK further into the conflict and presents the very real risk that this country becomes a target in the war.

Despite slightly distancing himself from Trump, Burnham has also continued Keir Starmer’s policy of allowing the US to use bases in Britian to bomb Iran – putting the country in the frontline of a second conflict.

John Healey resigned as Starmer’s defence secretary over his failure to commit to raising military spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. Like others whose resignations paved the way for Burnham he has been rewarded by his appointment to the key role of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although refusing himself to be drawn on the 2030 deadline when he appeared on the Laura Kuenssberg show, Burnham did say that, "I appointed my new chancellor very aware of what he had said about the critical importance of defence spending and the position that he had taken about that.” This is an acknowledgement that the warmonger-in-chief from Starmer’s days will continue his plan to prioritise military spending over the many urgent needs of the British people.

On Gaza Burnham has apologised for the previous government’s stance and has been more critical of the Israeli government, promising action to ban imports from illegal settlements and enact sanctions against some individuals. However, he has stopped far short of vital steps like banning arms sales to Israel and calling out the genocide. There continues to be a huge battle within the Labour Party on this with most members wanting a stronger stance.

Burnham’s appointments also give some indication of the political complexion of his government. Gone are the ineffectual Starmer loyalists like Reeves and former Foreign Secretary David Lammy. Rewarded are those who, like Healey, began the trickle effect of criticism and resignation making Starmer’s position untenable. Wes Streeting formerly Health Secretary is now Defence Secretary. Anas Sarwar who, as Scottish Labour leader called for Starmer to go, has now been punted into the House of Lords to take up a role as trade minister. Some of those exiled by Starmer are back, like Angela Rayner and Louise Haigh. Shabana Mahmood stays at the Home Office to continue her campaign against asylum seekers and refugees and Ed Miliband is Foreign Secretary, which provoked some ire from Donald Trump.

The Labour Together faction was clearly leading Labour to disaster and has had to retrench - it has rebranded as ThinkLabour. In its new guise it will continue in its objective to rid Labour of any semblance of left, pro-working class politics and, having degutted it of any distinctive purpose, create the conditions for its demise.

It is notable that it was Josh Simons, former Director of Labour Together who stood down to allow Burnham to stand in Makerfield, paving the way for him to re-enter parliament. He appointed James Purnell as his Chief of Staff. Purnell is a former New Labour Minister and former chair of Labour Friends of Israel.

Although there is some greater diversity in the government, it remains firmly right wing.

As the UK struggles with the enormity of a transition to a green economy to meet climate targets and save the plant from global warming, Burnham has said he will take a “pragmatic” approach to drilling for oil in the North Sea, indicating that untapped reserves may be up for grabs.

Another concern about Burnham’s policy agenda to date is his commitment to “devolving power” further to regions. There a few problems with this. Firstly, devolution of power only works if the cash and resources are there to actually make a difference. Will local authorities be properly funded to develop local economies, infrastructure and provide services? Second, the political will, backed by strong trade union and community campaigns, needs to be there to make a difference – we are a bit short on these just now. The Scottish Parliament in its nearly 30 years of existence has made no fundamental change to the distribution of power in the country nor significantly improved the conditions of the Scottish working class. The third problem with “devolving power” is that it can foster parochialism and competition between regions for scarce resources, which militate against united working-class action. And finally major structural change will take up masses of valuable time and resources in government. It is not clear that this agenda will produce anything useful.

Then there are other questions which remain to be addressed, like Britian’s relationship to the EU. Again we can expect Burnham to continue to draw closer to the bloc. And will he consider introducing proportional representation for Westminster elections?

Despite some grumbling about Burnham’s announced spending plans and attacks form the usual suspects in the Tory press, Burnham has had a relatively easy ride from the establishment. Maybe they will seek to derail his socially oriented spending plans or maybe they will allow some democratic interference and accept them as the price for keeping the electorate on board and having stable government which functions overall in their interests.

The continuity on international issues and military spending is unsurprising and are critical issues for the establishment. These policies put us all in peril by making Britian a target through involvement in the Ukraine and Iran wars. They also suck up the resources needed to transform the country. It is therefore important that the campaign for peace and to divert spending to constructive uses is developed and supported. However, it may be even more difficult to win trade unions and others away from pro-arms spending polices if they see some progress, however limited, on domestic policy.

So far so good for British capitalism, but the desire of the electorate for Labour to be better than what Starmer offered provides pressure through which some gains might be made. What gestures Burnham has made towards recognising the cost-of-living crisis and the tone of his announcements is a welcome departure from Starmer.

Aside from this there are three important things which Burnham’s leadership might achieve.

Firstly, there is the defeat of Reform UK. Despite it sweeping the board in local elections just prior to the Makerfield by election, Burnham won comfortably and the Labour candidate also won comfortably in the subsequent mayoral election in Greater Manchester. To sustain this, however, Burnham will need to turn more of his promises to improve the lot of ordinary people into action.

Secondly these policies and rolling back Reform will mean the survival of the Labour Party, which is important for the labour movement as a whole.

Thirdly although still a right-wing government, the change in tone may mean an opening up in the Labour Party to re-establish it as a “broad church”, not just the purview of a right wing clique, to improve relations with the trade unions and allow the left space.