sexta-feira, 26 de junho de 2026
Mike drop?
Mike
drop?
By Sam
Francis
June 26,
2026 8:05 am CET
https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/mike-drop/
London
Playbook
By SAM
FRANCIS
with NOAH
KEATE
Good
Friday morning. This is Sam Francis.
DRIVING
THE DAY
TAPP
DANCE: Anyone hoping to put this strange, overheated week behind them and ease
into a cooler weekend … well, bad luck. Immigration Minister Mike Tapp, accused
of briefing out Home Office plans as his own, has handed Keir Starmer a neat
little test of his authority — and his political judgment — in the final days
of his premiership. Shabana Mahmood has called for Tapp to be sacked. But
Starmer is keeping one of his more loyal outriders in place — for now.
Mike
drop? Downing Street confirmed last night that Tapp is “still in his job,”
despite an official request from the home secretary to sack him over what she
sees as a breach of the ministerial code’s commitment to collective
responsibility. Mahmood’s allies are accusing Tapp of trailing immigration
changes the department was quietly working on and dressing them up in a Times
op-ed as his own thinking “to try to win a job in the new administration.”
Government officials were quick to point out last night that firing ministers
is ultimately a matter for the PM, who wanted to look into the case and take
advice before deciding Tapp’s fate.
Playing
away from home: Playbook hears Mahmood was unaware Tapp had written in the
Times, only finding out once the op-ed had been published. In the piece, Tapp
said it was his “strong belief” that migrant care workers who have come to the
U.K. and “played by the rules” should not be subject to the proposed reforms to
indefinite leave to remain (ILR) —
meaning they have to wait longer to apply for permanent settlement. By pure
coincidence, the comments rather closely mirror the thinking of Andy Burnham,
who has previously criticized applying the changes retrospectively.
**A
message from Intuit: In the UK, 2.5x as many small and midsize businesses say
AI has increased hiring rather than reduced it—with 43% also reporting that AI
has increased their revenue. Explore the 2026 Intuit QuickBooks AI Impact
Report to learn more about the benefits businesses are seeing when they adopt
AI tools. See the findings.**
Tapp-tapp
— Mike check: Tapp has been approached for comment by virtually every national
outlet and replied to none of them. As of late last night, WhatsApp was
suggesting messages from your Playbook author hadn’t even been opened.
TAPP
OVERFLOWS: The clash is already bubbling out across Westminster. One MP who has
worked with Tapp said passing off “someone else’s homework” as his own to get
ahead “is the kind of thing that Mike Tapp would absolutely” do. The lawmaker
said they had warned Mahmood about Tapp’s “ambition” and “self-promotion,” only
to be ignored — which summed up a central party machine that refused to listen,
in their view. Sky’s Sam Coates, meanwhile, reports disbelief among Starmer
loyalists that Mahmood, who was one of the first ministers to tell Starmer to
quit, wants a minister sacked for breaking with the government line.
License
to Bill: The controversy now threatens to overshadow the Immigration and Asylum
Bill, due to land in parliament on Tuesday. The Home Office has spent the past
week preparing the ground for the legislation, as Mahmood tries to make the
case for it to survive into Burnham’s premiership. (It’s worth noting, however,
that the ILR changes aren’t part of the bill.)
This is
fine: With a furious home secretary and a prime minister unwilling (or unable)
to act, the clash is also a handy snapshot of the chaos in government right
now. How Starmer handles the brewing spat will test how much authority he has
left and whether he can hold together what remains of his government.
And the
Conservatives are loving it: Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said it was
“beneath contempt” that Labour had descended into “chaos and infighting.” All
Labour ministers care about now “is their own personal ambition and jockeying
for government jobs,” he added.
Whip it
good: Spare a thought, then, for the minister dispatched to face the cameras
this morning: Justice Minister Jake Richards — who, as a government whip, is
about as well placed as anyone to talk about party discipline (timings as ever
below). Richards, an ultimate Downing Street insider, would have been hoping to
use the broadcast round to talk up the Home Office’s plan to open up to three
new former MoD sites to house asylum-seekers — as trailed in yesterday’s i
Paper — alongside the closure of 20 more asylum hotels.
BURNHAM
WOULD
A FOREIGN
CONCEPT: While Starmer and Mahmood slug it out, the rest of Westminster is
still trying to read the runes for what the next regime might look like. This
morning, several papers are focusing on the fact there is little out there to
suggest what Burnham’s approach to foreign policy would be. Every senior brief
he has held — culture secretary, health secretary, shadow home secretary, mayor
of Greater Manchester — was domestic-facing. Burnham has also been careful not
to pin himself down too much. During the Makerfield by-election campaign, he
refused to say whether he believed “genocide” was occurring in Gaza and stepped
back from previous comments about wanting to rejoin the EU.
This
could all be about to change … The Observer’s Rachel Sylvester reports that a
Burnham speech on foreign policy is in the works. She has also spoken to allies
who claim Burnham, a true remainer at heart, is “much warmer to the Europeans
and they’ll be much warmer to him” and will not “try and be a Trump whisperer”
like Starmer.
May or
May-or not: On this week’s Westminster Insider, Sascha O’Sullivan looks into
whether being a good mayor makes a good prime minister. She speaks to fellow
Labour mayor Helen Godwin who reckons Burnham’s leadership of Greater
Manchester will give him little help on the world stage because mayors are used
to “reacting to macroeconomics” not “geopolitics.”
Major
intervention: John Major has a similar message in an interview with Independent
editor-in-chief Geordie Greig. The former PM warns Burnham that he needs to get
his foreign policy game in gear as “Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz” are a very
different “sort of problem than dealing with buses in Manchester.”
Oliver’s
twist? It’s not just Burnham keeping his agenda at home; his incoming chief of
staff James Purnell has always had a pretty domestic focus too. But allies
insist help is at hand. As covered by Tim Shipman (and in Playbook PM), former
head of the Foreign Office Olly Robbins has been in touch with Burnham’s
transition team about a potential role in No. 10.
Right on
cue: David Miliband, touted as a potential foreign secretary under Burnham,
appears on Brussels Playbook’s Week Ender podcast advising Burnham to push
harder for closer alignment with the EU. He argues Starmer’s reset lacked the
“momentum and heft,” as well as the “coherence or the ambition,” to make a
meaningful difference.
Getting
the Mili-band back together: Miliband demurred when asked at the Institute for
Government on Thursday whether he would accept an offer to return as foreign
secretary under Burnham, a fellow Brown-era Cabinet minister. ”Let him make his
choices,” he said. Watch the clip 38 minutes into this video. If that weren’t
enough D. Miliband for one day, he will be doing a fireside chat at the Centre
for Global Development at 3.30 p.m. Attendance is by invitation only but plebs
like us can listen in here.
Cooper
trooper: While the presumptive PM is being urged to consider his world view,
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper flies to NATO’s eastern flank near Russia’s
Kaliningrad enclave this morning — ahead of the second day of the Ukraine
Recovery Conference — to meet British troops stationed there. ITV’s Robert
Peston is along for the ride, with an interview on foreign policy to follow
later in the day.
MILIFANDOM:
Who becomes Burnham’s chancellor remains the big question in Westminster — and
Ed Miliband has picked up two useful endorsements. Andrea Egan, the general
secretary of Unison, told the Guardian’s Kiran Stacey that “only Ed Miliband
could enact the kinds of policies trade unions and our members urgently need.”
More unexpectedly, the Daily Mail’s City Editor Alex Brummer — in defiance of
his own paper’s front page on Wednesday — argues Miliband’s “single-mindedness
and refusal to be bullied into U-turns shows just the kind of willpower
urgently needed at the Treasury.”
Streets
away: Despite Team Burnham insisting that the conversation is still live, one
person close to the incoming PM tells my colleague Dan Bloom the idea of Wes
Streeting as chancellor is for the birds. “He is trying to brief himself into
existence,” they add.
Continuity
candidate: Rachel Reeves, who yesterday made her pitch to remain as chancellor,
is helping Burnham prepare for government in the name of economic stability and
continuity, the i Paper’s Jane Merrick and Kitty Donaldson report.
Even
Greater Manchester: Whoever gets the keys to No. 11 may find a few bits missing
when they move in. The FT’s George Parker, Sam Fleming and Jennifer Williams
report Team Burnham is considering breaking up the Treasury and creating a
separate growth department. The piece also has new details on Burnham’s plans
to move more of the machinery of government to his Manchester power base, where
he plans to set up a “devolution department.” Meanwhile, Caroline Wheeler in
the i Paper hears Burnham is considering giving England’s regional mayors the
power to raise and retain their own taxes, including business rates.
The
doctor will see you now: In what would be one of the more surprising moves, the
Spectator is reporting that trained surgeon Zubir Ahmed has been in talks with
Burnham’s team about the possibility of taking up the role of health secretary.
Last night Team Burnham was playing down the speculation, claiming there was no
formal meeting.
DOUBLE
ACT: My colleague Dan has a nugget-packed profile of James Purnell — who shared
the same age, flat, job, office, football team and ambitions with Burnham
before one became the trendy London media exec and the other headed north.
Allies are hoping the incoming chief of staff will be the Goldilocks chief —
part bureaucrat, part strategist — and know Burnham’s mind enough to actually
get stuff done. And centrist Labour types now reckon they have one of their own
in the Burnham camp.
Times
change: Former Gordon Brown SpAd John Woodcock recalls the night in 2009 that
Purnell tried to topple the PM … and one minister who was particularly loyal in
rowing in behind Brown. Andy Burnham was the Cabinet minister “most keen to
come out with a pledge of loyalty to Gordon as quickly as possible,” Woodcock
told Dan.
TAKING A
STEP BACK: It’s worth taking a beat and considering what has happened since
Monday. A prime minister resigned, even before his heir apparent was sworn in
as an MP. Since then every barrier between him and Downing Street has simply
given way. Streeting, his likeliest challenger, endorsed Burnham on the same
day the bulk of the Parliamentary Labour Party did the same while beaming
beside him for a selfie in Westminster Hall. Then on Wednesday morning, when
Darren Jones confirmed he would not stand, the last flicker of rebellion
appeared to die.
This is
not normal: The speed and smoothness of Burnham’s path to power is even more
remarkable when you consider he has not made a single public appearance this
week to explain what he would actually do or answer questions from the press. A
party in government is changing leader midterm, with no contest and no program,
around a man working largely behind the scenes. While it has felt inevitable
for some time, that has not made it any less startling to watch it unfold this
fast.
Early
election? For those nervous about their summer holidays, my colleagues Tim Ross
and Andrew McDonald have looked at the case for Burnham to call a snap general
election and found a … mixed picture. Leaders tend to be the most popular at
the start of their terms, but Reform is leading in the polls. Meanwhile polling
indicates voters are not desperate for Burnham to secure a fresh mandate, but
do not much like the way Labour is choosing a leader either.
Finally,
some scrutiny: Yesterday’s NEC meeting, which set the timetable for appointing
a new leader, was not all rosy for Andy Burnham according to NEC member Abdi
Duale. He was one of “many members” dissatisfied that CLPs will not be able to
make their feelings known if there is no contest. If Burnham is coronated, as
expected, Duale has proposed a members’ Q&A on July 16 to let constituent
parties have their say on the new leader.
Burnham’s dilemma: A free ride on Starmer’s majority, or risk an election to seek his own
.jpg)
News
Burnham’s
dilemma: A free ride on Starmer’s majority, or risk an election to seek his own
Polling
indicates voters aren’t desperate for Andy Burnham to secure a fresh mandate,
but don’t much like the way Labour are choosing a leader either.
Analysis
June 26,
2026 4:01 am CET
By Tim
Ross and Andrew McDonald
LONDON —
It is an unwritten rule in British politics that a new prime minister who takes
over mid-term will soon want a general election to win a majority they can call
their own.
That is
the position Andy Burnham will find himself in, if, as expected, he succeeds
Keir Starmer in three weeks’ time.
The
calculation is never straightforward — and for Burnham, the dilemma is
particularly acute. If he sticks with what he’s got, he will leave himself
vulnerable to accusations that he is illegitimately squatting in No. 10 on a
majority he played no part in winning.
And the
alternative — calling an early general election to secure his own mandate —
would be a massive gamble that seems certain to cost Labour scores of seats,
with the party lagging far behind Nigel Farage’s populist right Reform UK.
Yet, if
polls show a “Burnham bounce” — and analysis suggests voters do prefer him to
Farage for the role of PM — an early contest might give Labour its best chance
against Reform UK. The popularity of new leaders tends to wane with time.
It’s a
quandary many previous leaders will recognize and remember, often with a
shudder. As they have shown repeatedly in recent years, British voters have a
habit of upending prime ministers who fancy the odds of a casual dalliance with
democracy.
Theresa
May triggered a snap election in 2017 after nine months in the job, expecting
her 25-point poll lead at the beginning of the campaign would give her a
massive landslide. But a disastrous few weeks on the stump saw her lose the
small majority she had inherited.
Ten years
before that, Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair and flirted with calling an
election only to pull out after polling indicated it would be too difficult,
earning him the nickname “Bottler Brown.” He lost anyway, three years later.
And even
before he won the Tory leadership to replace May in 2019, Boris Johnson and his
team had their eye on a popularity bounce that would give him the chance to
call an early election and secure a majority to do what he wanted. For Johnson,
the bet paid off, and he won a big majority of 80.
Missing
in action
May,
Brown and Johnson had all been cabinet ministers and leading figures in their
parties for years before they took over as PM mid-term.
Burnham,
by contrast, is on the verge of walking into Downing Street without even having
been a candidate at the election that gave Labour the massive majority he is
set to command in the House of Commons.
The
nature of Labour’s majority doesn’t help him either. Starmer’s victory was the
most disproportionate in history: He won almost two-thirds of the seats in the
Commons with just one-third of the votes in the country. Even before Burnham
arrived at Westminster, there were questions over the fairness of Labour’s
dominant position in parliament.
Opposition
parties on the right, like Reform UK and some Conservatives, are now demanding
an immediate election if Burnham takes over. It is in Farage’s interests, of
course — his party currently leads opinion polls and is on track to be by far
the biggest after the next election.
For what
it’s worth, Labour MPs hate the idea of an early polling day, fearing they will
be all-but wiped out in places like Scotland. One said a snap vote would
definitely amount to “throwing seats away.”
“If he
gets a big, big bounce and the other parties decline, it will be very tempting
for him, for example, if we’re 15 points ahead in October,” said this MP, who,
like others in this article, was granted anonymity to speak frankly. “I can
tell you though the mood among Labour MPs is that we very much do not want him
to go for an early election.”
Not
another one
Burnham’s
backers are well aware he will face an onslaught of demands to give voters a
say and criticism for having no mandate as soon as he walks into No. 10 Downing
Street. That’s partly because he made the same argument, calling for an
election, when Johnson announced his resignation in July 2022.
“It’s
what we’re going to be hit with and we need to be prepared for that and able to
counter it,” said one Burnham ally of the call they expect to face to go to the
country. “But I seem to remember it working out well for the Tories when they
replaced [Margaret] Thatcher with [John] Major mid term.” Against expectations,
Major won the subsequent election in 1992.
The
Burnham ally insisted the public tends to be more understanding of leadership
changes than they are given credit for. That may turn out to be true, though
the reason might not be sympathy so much as weariness.
Any PM
calling a snap vote would do well to keep in mind the words of one voter, who
nine years ago summed up the mood of a nation already tired of endless
political drama. The country had seen a referendum on Scottish independence in
2014, a general election in 2015, a Brexit referendum in 2016 and May had just
called a snap election in 2017.
The
voter, who was identified only as “Brenda from Bristol” in a television
interview, became a viral hit when she gave her reaction to May’s announcement
of a snap vote: “You’re joking,” said Brenda. “Not another one. Oh, for God’s
sake, honestly, I can’t stand this. There’s too much politics going on at the
moment.”
A YouGov
poll this week found 48 percent of respondents thought there should be an
election when Starmer’s replacement is in post, compared to 35 percent who said
there should not be one.
But
another poll by More in Common this month suggested there was no clear desire
from the public for the next PM to call an election: 43 percent thought the new
leader would have a mandate and should just “get on with the job,” compared to
37 percent who disagreed and wanted an election.
“I think
people balance just absolute exhaustion with seemingly endless political chaos
with the idea that a new prime minister needs a new mandate,” said Luke Tryl,
Executive Director of More in Common UK. “It’s like Brenda from Bristol is the
voice of the nation now.”
If
there’s one thing jaded British voters dislike more than not getting a vote on
who becomes their prime minister, it might just be voting.
No, the United Kingdom is not currently rejoining the European Union.
Is the UK
rejoining the EU?
No, the
United Kingdom is not currently rejoining the European Union.
While public
sentiment has notably shifted a decade after the 2016 referendum, both the
political realities in London and the accession rules in Brussels prevent any
immediate return. Instead of full membership, the UK and EU are pursuing a
careful economic and regulatory "reset".
The
Domestic Political Stance
- Government Policy: The ruling Labour government
under Prime Minister Keir Starmer has firmly ruled out rejoining the EU,
the Single Market, or the Customs Union, stating they are upholding the
original Brexit mandate.
- The "Reset" Strategy: Instead of rejoining, the UK
has passed legislation for "dynamic alignment" with certain EU
rules. This lowers trading barriers for food and agricultural products,
links carbon emissions trading systems, and returns the UK to the Erasmus+
scheme.
- Divided Views: While figures like London
Mayor Sadiq Khan have urged the government to pledge to rejoin, other
senior politicians caution that rejoining tomorrow would not magically fix
the UK's core economic issues.
Public
Opinion Shifts
- Polled Majorities: Ten years post-referendum,
current polling from YouGov and Ipsos shows that roughly 55% to 58% of Britons support
rejoining the EU.
- The Opt-Out Catch: This support evaporates if the
UK cannot keep its previous special terms (like keeping the Pound Sterling
and skipping the Schengen border-free zone). Support for rejoining drops
to just 35% if the UK is forced to adopt the Euro currency.
The View
From Brussels
- European Openness: Prominent EU leaders,
including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and former
Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, have expressed openness to the UK
returning to the European fold eventually.
- Strict Accession Rules: If the UK ever applied, it
would have to go through the standard Article 49 application process like any other nation.
This requires unanimous approval from all 27 EU member states.
- Fear of Instability: European diplomats remain
highly cautious. With the UK having seen multiple prime ministers since
Brexit, the EU wants to see a durable, permanent British consensus before
entering years of complex negotiations.
Political
analysts and former leaders note that while a return is possible in the long
term—driven primarily by younger generations—any realistic timeline for the UK
to actually rejoin the EU would take at least a decade
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)
.jpeg)
