A Week in Politics #4

In my fourth instalment of "A Week in Politics" I will be focusing on Andy Burnham, the Green Party and the "Board of Peace".  I would like to write a weekly update without mentioning Donald Trump at all. Sadly, that still isn’t an option so long as the potential consequences of his actions remain impossible to ignore.

This week’s stories point to a wider pattern: parties tying themselves in knots, voters refusing to behave as expected and international norms being undermined by personality over principle.More importantly, this week's events highlight the need for fewer strongmen and more seriousness, pluralism and cooperation.

Andy Burnham and the Gorton & Denton By‑Election

The decision to block Andy Burnham from standing in the Gorton and Denton by‑election is more than a local candidate selection decision; it is a revealing moment for Labour and, by extension, for UK politics. It exposes a party increasingly nervous about internal challenge and uncertain about how to respond to a volatile electorate.

Firstly, Burnham has now unmistakably signalled his intention to return to Westminster politics. After years as Mayor of Greater Manchester, he has rebuilt a public profile that cuts across traditional Labour factions and resonates well beyond the party base. For Labour, this should be an asset. Instead, the blocking of his candidacy suggests a leadership more concerned with control than with winning. For UK politics more broadly, Burnham’s return would have introduced a figure comfortable talking about devolution, localism, and public service reform – themes that ought to enrich parliamentary debate. Shutting that out looks short‑sighted, whatever the letter of Labour's internal procedural rules.

Secondly, there is the cold electoral calculation. Burnham is one of the few Labour figures with genuine name recognition outside Westminster and a reputation that still plays well with disillusioned Labour supporters. In a contest where Reform UK posed a serious threat, he may well have been Labour’s strongest possible candidate. From the outside, it looks like Labour has sacrificed its best chance of stopping Reform in order to avoid an awkward internal dynamic. If Reform performs strongly as a result, Labour’s leadership will struggle to explain why ideological gatekeeping mattered more than defeating a populist right‑wing challenger.

This matters because Reform’s appeal is not primarily ideological; it is emotional and anti‑establishment. Burnham, with his plain‑spoken style and local credibility, is one of the few Labour politicians capable of puncturing that appeal. Blocking him risks reinforcing the impression that Labour is run by a distant central machine that prioritises loyalty over effectiveness – precisely the sort of image that drives voters towards protest parties.

Thirdly, the question of what happens next for Burnham raises uncomfortable possibilities for Labour. Is a civil war imminent? Probably not in the dramatic sense, but the tension between Starmer’s inner circle and Labour’s broader coalition is becoming increasingly visible. Those closest to the leadership may believe that excluding potential rivals shores up Starmer’s position. Yet every week that passes with Labour appearing cautious, managerial and uninspiring makes the party less electable, not more.

This looks like a familiar mistake. Parties that confuse discipline with strength often end up hollowing themselves out. Burnham is not a fringe rebel; he is a mainstream social democrat with proven electoral appeal. Blocking him does not neutralise a challenge – it merely postpones it, while signalling insecurity to voters. The real question Labour must answer is not how to avoid a leadership contest, but whether keeping the current leadership unchallenged is actually compatible with winning power. Right now, the evidence suggests otherwise.

The “Board of Peace”: Ego, Power and the Illusion of Diplomacy

The so‑called “Board of Peace” has been presented by the US President as a bold new initiative for global stability. In reality, it feels less like a serious peace‑building mechanism and more like a vanity project orbiting one man’s ego. Its Trump‑centric framing alone raises immediate doubts about whether this is intended to resolve conflicts or simply to project influence.

The make‑up of the board is perhaps the clearest warning sign. A genuine peace organisation would prioritise legitimacy, inclusivity and moral authority. Instead, this board features a collection of deeply divisive figures, including leaders who are themselves central to ongoing conflicts. Inviting individuals such as Netanyahu – a crucial part of the problem in Israel and Gaza – fundamentally undermines the credibility of the enterprise. The same is true of authoritarian leaders with appalling human rights records. Peace cannot be built by those who routinely suppress dissent and fuel violence at home.

Equally revealing are those who have refused to participate. Their absence highlights a lack of confidence among serious international actors that this body offers anything constructive. Rather than complementing existing global institutions, the Board of Peace appears to sideline them. Most concerning is the way it implicitly undermines the United Nations, an imperfect but essential forum grounded in international law and multilateral legitimacy. Creating a rival structure dominated by strongmen and political has‑beens weakens the very norms that make lasting peace possible.

There are also glaring practical questions. Each member is reportedly expected to contribute £1 billion, yet there is no transparency about how this money would be used, who would control it or what accountability mechanisms exist. Is this a peace fund, a slush fund, or a geopolitical investment vehicle? The lack of clarity should alarm anyone who cares about democratic oversight.

The issue of continuity is equally troubling. What happens if a member ceases to be a leader, or loses power through democratic or undemocratic means? Does their influence vanish overnight, or do they remain as unelected power‑brokers? Either option is deeply problematic. Peace processes require stability and institutional memory, not arrangements tied to the personal fortunes of individual leaders.

Far from facilitating peace, this board risks becoming a serious barrier to it. By concentrating authority in the hands of self‑interested leaders and “yesterday’s men” with dubious records, it marginalises civil society, international law, and those directly affected by conflict. The future of Israel and Gaza, in particular, is far too important to be left to a club of egos and autocrats. Peace requires humility, accountability and multilateral cooperation – precisely the qualities this "Board of Peace" appears to lack.

The Importance of Mark Carney’s Davos Speech

Mark Carney’s speech at Davos 2026 deserves attention not because it offered easy answers, but because it articulated a framework for economic and political seriousness that is largely missing from UK debate. At a time when politics is increasingly dominated by short‑termism and performative outrage, the Canadian Prime Minister spoke about credibility, institutions and long‑term stewardship – themes that resonate strongly with liberal democratic values.

One of the most important aspects of the speech was its emphasis on trust. Carney argued, implicitly and explicitly, that economic success depends not just on growth figures but on the public’s confidence in the rules of the game. This is a vital corrective to the populist narrative, which suggests that prosperity can be conjured through willpower alone. By stressing institutional integrity – independent regulators, credible fiscal frameworks and predictable policymaking – Carney reminded listeners that stability is not technocratic pedantry, but a public good.

For the UK, this matters deeply. Years of constitutional vandalism and economic recklessness have eroded trust at home and abroad. Carney’s intervention underscored how difficult that trust is to rebuild once lost. From a Lib Dem perspective, this aligns closely with long‑held arguments about the importance of evidence‑based policy, respect for expertise and international cooperation.

Carney also highlighted the global dimension of today’s challenges. Climate change, financial instability and geopolitical shocks do not respect national borders. His insistence that countries must work together rather than retreat into economic nationalism was a timely rebuke to those who see isolation as strength. In doing so, he implicitly challenged both right‑wing populists and cautious centrists who prefer to manage decline rather than confront systemic risks.

Perhaps most striking was what the speech revealed by contrast. In a political environment where many leaders avoid difficult truths, Carney was willing to talk openly about trade‑offs and constraints. That honesty is refreshing( although politically risky) but it is also essential if democracies are to function effectively. Voters are not stupid; they know that there are no painless solutions.

There is an appetite for a politics that treats citizens as adults and focuses on long‑term outcomes rather than daily headlines. Carney’s speech does not offer a manifesto, but it offers something just as valuable: a reminder that seriousness, competence and internationalism are not liabilities. They are, in fact, the foundations on which any credible alternative to populism must be built.

Greens, Lib Dems and the Myth of Reform’s Inevitable Rise

The Green Party’s victory in a Derbyshire council by‑election, where Lian Pizzey defeated Reform UK’s Juliette Stevens by 1,341 votes to 1,091, punctures a convenient media narrative. We are repeatedly told that Reform is marching inexorably forward. Yet on the ground, the picture is far more complex.

This result matters because it illustrates a pattern increasingly visible in by‑elections. Despite the media narrative, the evidence shows that voters are willing to organise tactically to stop Reform. The success of both the Liberal Democrats and a revitalised Green Party comes largely at the expense of Labour and the Conservatives, whose support is fragmenting. Far from being unstoppable, Reform can be beaten when progressive and liberal voters coalesce around a credible alternative.

The continued erosion of the old two‑party dominance is plain to see, but Reform are not the only beneficiaries. Voters are less loyal, more strategic and more willing to back parties that align with their values. The claim that Reform has all the momentum everywhere is simply false; it survives on selective storytelling rather than comprehensive evidence.

However, this also raises important questions about the relationship between the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. Under a proportional system such as STV, the growth of both parties would be an unambiguous positive, reflecting a pluralist electorate. Under first‑past‑the‑post, the dynamic is more complicated. Tactical voting often leads people to back the candidate they believe is best placed to defeat Reform, creating a risk of splitting the anti‑Reform vote in some areas, particularly where both Greens and Lib Dems are competitive. Results like that in Derbyshire suggests that voters are capable of navigating this, but they also highlight the need for (at the very least) some kind of informal localised understandings to maximise the chances of defeating Reform.  

I don't want to diminish the obvious differences between the Lib Dems and the Greens (most obviously on the economy) but we also have to accept the reality that these differences don't matter to many voters, especially those inclined to vote tactically for one or the other.

Ultimately, this situation also reinforces the case for electoral reform. The fact that so much political energy is spent on tactical calculation is itself an indictment of the system. The rise of the Greens alongside continued Lib Dem strength shows that voters want alternatives. How can we ensure that the electoral system reflects that reality, rather than distorts it?

Scottish Greens, Re‑Alignment and Opportunities for the Lib Dems

The decision by the Scottish Greens to re‑establish formal ties with the Green Party of England and Wales marks a significant strategic shift. It reflects a recognition that fragmentation within the Green movement has limits, particularly as debates over identity, rights and constitutional futures become more polarised. 

One of the key drivers of this rapprochement is the issue of trans rights. By aligning more closely with the party south of the border, the Scottish Greens are signalling a desire for a clearer, unified stance. This may strengthen internal coherence, but it also carries risks. Trans rights are a deeply important issue, yet the way they are communicated can shape broader perceptions of the party’s priorities. A more centralised messaging approach may reduce the Scottish party’s ability to tailor its language in a distinctly Scottish political context.

For the Scottish Greens, closer ties may bring organisational support and ideological clarity, but they could also narrow the party’s appeal. Scottish voters have historically responded well to parties that emphasise local autonomy and distinctiveness. Any sense that policy is being imported risks undermining this.

This realignment could create potential opportunities for the Liberal Democrats in Scotland. There is a substantial constituency of socially liberal, environmentally conscious voters who are uncomfortable with culture‑war politics or wary of excessive centralisation and the kind of "socialism" Zack Polanski is keen to identify himself with. Will the Scottish Lib Dems be able to articulate a credible and confident alternative that champions individual rights, environmental responsibility and decentralised power?