White House Wary as Miliband Takes Foreign Office

Relations between the new Burnham government and the Trump administration have come under immediate scrutiny after Ed Miliband’s appointment as Foreign Secretary reportedly sparked concern inside the White House.

According to reports, officials close to US President Donald Trump are “deeply concerned” by the appointment, citing Miliband’s long history of outspoken criticism of the president stretching back almost a decade.

One ally of President Trump reportedly warned:

“Trump doesn’t forget. He will not forget. Miliband has some serious diplomatic repair to undertake.”

The appointment presents an early foreign policy challenge for Prime Minister Andy Burnham, whose government has pledged to strengthen Britain’s international relationships while pursuing ambitious climate policies.

Miliband has previously been one of Trump’s most vocal British critics. During the 2016 US presidential election, he described Trump as “a racist, misogynistic, self-confessed groper” and later argued that politicians should resist “the worst of Trumpism.”

In subsequent years, the former Labour leader accused Trump of having an “incredibly peculiar relationship with Russia”, criticised his approach to democracy and dismissed the president’s comments on UK energy policy as “irrelevant”.

Those remarks have reportedly not been forgotten in Washington.

A consultant said to work with both the White House and State Department claimed the appointment was “going down like a lead balloon”, adding that Miliband is viewed in some Republican circles as an uncompromising advocate of net-zero policies.

Climate policy is expected to become a major feature of Miliband’s tenure. Burnham is understood to want the Foreign Office to place greater emphasis on international climate cooperation while seeking a path back to spending 0.7 per cent of GDP on overseas aid.

However, critics in the United States have also revisited Miliband’s decision as Labour leader to oppose military action against Syria in 2013 following chemical weapons attacks by Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson argued the parliamentary defeat weakened Western resolve, writing on X:

“The failure to stand up to Bashar al-Assad – for which Miliband bears much guilt – led directly to Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine. An appalling choice for foreign secretary. The Kremlin will be delighted.”

Despite the criticism, some former Labour figures believe the diplomatic relationship can recover.

Former Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell pointed out that previous tensions between British politicians and President Trump have often eased once they entered government, noting that both former Prime Minister Keir Starmer and former Foreign Secretary David Lammy developed constructive working relationships with Trump despite earlier criticism.

He also highlighted that Vice President JD Vance himself had once been a vocal critic of Trump before later becoming one of his closest political allies.

The coming months will determine whether Miliband’s past comments continue to cast a shadow over UK-US relations, or whether both governments choose to prioritise strategic cooperation over political history.

Should Burnham Go Early? Telegraph Says Snap Election May Be Labour’s Best Chance

Britain’s new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, should seriously consider calling a snap general election, according to a major analysis in The Telegraph. Political commentator James Frayne argues that Burnham’s popularity is likely to be at its highest during the first few months of his premiership – and that waiting until 2029 could repeat the mistakes of former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Why call an early election?

Frayne argues that new prime ministers often enjoy a “honeymoon period” with voters. Burnham has already seen Labour rise in opinion polls following his victory in the Labour leadership contest.

“Burnham’s best hope of success is a snap election.”

Recent polling suggests Labour has gained around five points and is now level with Reform UK in some surveys.

Burnham also enters office with stronger personal ratings than many of his rivals. His approachable style, combined with proposals on housing, devolution and public ownership, could appeal to voters before the realities of government begin to bite.

The Gordon Brown warning

The article repeatedly compares Burnham’s position with that of Gordon Brown in 2007.

Brown enjoyed a surge in popularity after replacing Tony Blair and was widely expected to call an early election. Instead, he decided to wait.

“This was a disastrous decision.”

Frayne argues Brown’s reputation never recovered after that hesitation. The financial crisis, the MPs’ expenses scandal and immigration concerns soon overwhelmed his government before Labour eventually lost power in 2010.

The warning for Burnham is clear: today’s favourable conditions may not last.

What could go wrong if he waits?

The Telegraph identifies several major challenges likely to become worse over the next three years:

• Rising inflation
• Weak economic growth
• Continued cost-of-living pressures
• NHS waiting lists
• Illegal migration across the Channel
• International conflicts affecting Britain’s economy

The article argues that many of these problems are largely outside any prime minister’s control.

As former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan famously said:

“Events, dear boy, events.”

Burnham’s policies

Burnham has promised:

• Greater devolution away from Westminster
• Large-scale council house building
• More public control of water and energy
• Moving taxation towards wealth rather than income

Polling suggests many of these ideas are initially popular.

However, Frayne argues that most are long-term reforms whose benefits may not be visible before the next scheduled election.

“Voters are unlikely to see any meaningful change on the ground for years.”

Are Labour’s opponents weak?

One reason Frayne believes an early election could succeed is the current weakness of Labour’s rivals.

He argues:

• Reform UK remains organisationally weak despite strong polling.
• The Conservatives are still rebuilding after defeat.
• The Green Party continues to face internal divisions.

Although Labour might lose seats, Frayne believes it could still emerge as the largest party, allowing it to form a government.

The risks

Calling a snap election would also carry significant dangers.

Many Labour MPs could lose their seats, and opinion polls remain volatile. Voters may also be tired of political instability after years of leadership changes.

Polling cited in the article suggests:

• 57% believe Burnham should call an election soon.
• 32% would rather Parliament runs until 2029.

The conclusion

Frayne believes Burnham should act quickly.

“Things are simply not going to improve for him in the remaining three years of this parliament.”

He argues that Britain faces too many economic and political uncertainties for Labour to expect conditions to improve before 2029.

However, he predicts Burnham is likely to resist an early election and instead follow Gordon Brown’s example by waiting.

“I suspect that Burnham is destined to repeat Brown’s mistake of 2007.”

Votes

👍 Arguments for a snap election

• Burnham currently enjoys a popularity boost.
• Labour’s opponents remain divided.
• A fresh electoral mandate would strengthen his authority.
• Five full years would allow time to implement long-term reforms.

👎 Arguments against a snap election

• Labour could lose many MPs.
• Economic conditions remain unpredictable.
• Voters may be tired of repeated elections.
• Poll leads remain small and uncertain.

Quotes

“Burnham’s best hope of success is a snap election.”

“This was a disastrous decision.” (on Gordon Brown’s refusal to call an election in 2007)

“Events, dear boy, events.” — Harold Macmillan

“Things are simply not going to improve for him in the remaining three years of this parliament.”

“I suspect that Burnham is destined to repeat Brown’s mistake of 2007.”

Classroom discussion

Do you agree that a popular new prime minister should seek a fresh mandate from voters immediately, or should they first prove themselves in government?

Sent from Outlook for iOS

Seventh Prime Minister in a Decade

Andy Burnham has been elected leader of the Labour Party, clearing the way for him to become Britain’s next Prime Minister on Monday. The former Mayor of Greater Manchester, widely known as the “King of the North”, inherits a government under intense pressure, with Labour seeking to halt the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

Addressing Labour members after his unopposed election, Burnham declared that his leadership would restore hope to communities which felt ignored by Westminster.

“We are united… at the service of people and places who have been waiting too long for politics to let them hope again.”

He argued that Britain needed “the biggest rebalancing of power” in modern times, promising to shift decision-making away from Whitehall and into the hands of regional governments. Burnham insisted Labour would defeat Reform UK not by copying its policies, but by remaining true to its own principles.

“We’re not going to out-Green the Greens or out-Reform Reform. We’re going to be boldly, confidently, authentically us – Labour.”

Burnham also praised outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer, promising continuity while signalling that his government would begin implementing change immediately.

“The government I lead will confidently lay that path out, starting next week.”

His speech was welcomed by trade union leaders. TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak argued that the new administration must focus on raising living standards for working people and deliver improvements quickly.

Not everyone was convinced. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage dismissed Burnham’s address as “utterly vacuous”, arguing that the incoming Prime Minister lacked a democratic mandate after assuming office through a party leadership contest rather than a general election.

Meanwhile, The Telegraph published a strongly critical analysis, arguing that Burnham’s enthusiasm for greater state ownership risks repeating mistakes made during the industrial unrest of the 1970s. The newspaper claimed that nationalisation, stronger trade unions and greater government control previously coincided with widespread strikes, high inflation and economic disruption.

The article contrasted Burnham’s criticism of the Thatcher era with statistics showing falling strike levels, lower inflation and higher employment rates following the economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. It warned that expanding union influence and increasing public ownership could lead to renewed industrial action and greater pressure on taxpayers.

Burnham rejects that interpretation. He argues that four decades of privatisation and centralised government have left many regions behind and that devolving power, alongside greater public control over essential services such as energy, transport and water, is necessary to rebuild trust in politics.

The contrasting reactions underline the political divide Burnham now faces. Supporters see him as a leader capable of reconnecting Labour with neglected communities, while critics fear his programme represents a return to policies they associate with Britain’s economic difficulties of the 1970s.

With Reform UK continuing to poll strongly, Burnham’s premiership will be judged not simply on his promises but on whether he can deliver tangible improvements before the next general election.

Starmer burns £4.7bn hole in Burnham's defence budget

Sir Keir Starmer has left his likely successor, Andy Burnham, facing a £4.7 billion funding gap after unveiling a £298 billion defence investment plan without identifying all of the money needed to pay for defending the country against a possible Russian attack in 2030, if you're gullible enough to believe NATO.

The outgoing Prime Minister insisted the package would modernise Britain's armed forces and strengthen national security, but Treasury officials confirmed that almost £5 billion will still have to be found in the next Budget.

Sources close to Burnham said he would not seek to renegotiate the plan despite privately acknowledging the financial challenge it creates.

A Burnham ally described the missing funding as:

Burnham ally: "An unexploded bomb."

A defence source was equally critical of the way the spending package had been prepared.

Defence insider: "Madness after all that wrangling to have left a £4.7bn black hole for someone else to fix."

The Conservatives accused Starmer of deliberately creating problems for the incoming administration.

Conservative Party: "A delayed-action poison pill."

---

Modernising Britain's military

Starmer defended the package, arguing it would reverse years of underinvestment and prepare Britain for future threats.

Sir Keir Starmer: "It focuses our resources squarely on the readiness of our armed forces."

Sir Keir Starmer: "Reversing the cuts of recent years... rebuilding ammunition stockpiles... ensuring we are ready to fight and defend our nation."

The investment plan includes:

• £47bn for Britain's next generation of nuclear submarines.
• £13bn for a new nuclear warhead.
• £8.6bn for the GCAP sixth-generation fighter programme with Japan and Italy.
• £5bn for military drones operating across land, sea and air.
• Continued investment in Typhoon aircraft and nuclear capabilities.

Defence spending is expected to rise to 2.7% of GDP by 2030, with Starmer saying Britain remains "on a trajectory" towards spending 3% during the following Parliament.

---

Where will the money come from?

Part of the package will be funded through:

• Civil service reductions within the Ministry of Defence.
• Lower consultancy spending.
• Cuts to road and energy projects.
• Sales of government assets.

However, the Treasury confirmed that £4.7 billion remains unfunded, meaning Burnham's first Budget will almost certainly have to identify new savings, higher borrowing or additional revenue.

Some of Burnham's allies believe the full scale of the funding gap was not disclosed during briefings.

---

Borrowing warning

Starmer cautioned against proposals to issue "defence bonds" to help finance the additional spending.

Sir Keir Starmer: "Defence bonds are just borrowing by another name."

Sir Keir Starmer: "Doing this through borrowing will push interest rates higher."

Treasury officials argued that the next government could instead make use of existing fiscal headroom, although economists have warned additional borrowing could unsettle financial markets.

---

Critics say the plans still fall short

Despite the huge spending package, some defence figures argued Britain is still not investing enough.

Former Defence Secretary John Healey, who resigned during negotiations over the plan, said:

John Healey: "Britain will still be spending just 2.7% of GDP in 2030."

John Healey: "A clear target date to hit 3% is necessary."

Labour Defence Committee chairman Tan Dhesi welcomed the investment but questioned whether enough detail had been provided.

Tan Dhesi: "Good we now have a funded and scalable defence investment plan."

Tan Dhesi: "But it's lacking in detail and doesn't outline operational risks for areas being cut."

With Burnham expected to become Prime Minister within weeks, one of his first major tests could now be finding billions of pounds to fund a defence programme he did not design, while balancing Labour's commitment to sound public finances.