Burnham urged to ditch Mahmood’s migrant settlement plans to stop Labour being ‘imitation’ of Reform – UK politics live

Burnham set to be next PM with strong support from all wings of the party as 322 Labour MPs back him

Good morning. Even the BBC has (almost) given up describing Andy Burnham as the person who is likely, or almost certain, to become the next PM. As of last night, it is now, barring something so unexpected it would be in the act of God category, a done deal. Labour published the names of the MPs who have already nominated Burnham, and he has got 322 nominations. There are only 81 Labour MPs left who have not nominated anyone. By coincidence (or not?), 81 is exactly the number of names a rival candidate would need to stand. But in Labour politics the outgoing leader does not nominate a successor, and so in practice Burnham has already cleared the threshold. It’s wrapped up; he is the next leader and PM.

Currently, Burnham has strong support from all wings of the party. Leftwingers and Blairites seem equally enthusiastic. Unfortunately for Burnham, that is unlikely to last.

After Reform’s “Boris wave” rhetoric, we decided to fight on Reform’s territory. Targeting a group of migrants that followed the rules, and applying this retrospectively, does not pass the fairness test for a compassionate but firm system. We do not recall being asked on the doorstep to make it harder for migrant workers to settle in the UK. Yet we are expending political capital, huge Home Office resource, and losing progressive voters on an indefinite leave to remain reform which few really understand or want. People in Makerfield talked about irregular migration, not making it harder for nurses and care workers to settle here. With a 10-20 year settlement period, the UK would be an international outlier - weakening our soft power and our appeal as a place to study, invest, build a life and form relationships.

It would weaken our communities and undermine our own strategies on child poverty, violence against women and girls, and homelessness. And the proposals would cost the state billions. This kind of reactive policy making is anathema to who we are, what we stand for, and how we should do politics.
Continue reading...