Impending "coronation" of Andy Burnham!

Keir Starmer announced on June 22 that he is resigning as Labour Party leader, and hence as Prime Minister. It was reported in the media to try and divert the people's condemnation that this was because of "electoral losses, internal party pressure, and political controversies" and so on. But the cause goes deeper than this. Starmer's premiership and his government over the last two years has been a period of restructuring the state to further serve the hold of narrow private supranational interests over the direction of society and keep the people disempowered, with no role in decision-making, and disillusioned by their alienation from the political process and institutions. It is not simply that Starmer had policies of furthering the attacks on the rights of all in society, especially the criminalisation of protest of those who opposed Britain's support for Israel's genocide of the Palestinians as well as his further escalation of war in Europe with the US, NATO and other European powers and further militarisation of the British economy at the expense of wrecking the social programmes and welfare of the people. The state of the oligarchs, monopolies and warmongers has been asserting its authority through all the factional struggles which represent competing private interests. This is what must be grasped about the impending "coronation" of Andy Burnham. He will step into the shoes that the cartel party system has fashioned for him.

Section of the blockade of Lakenheath, April 7 - Photo: Lakenheath Alliance for Peace

Even after resigning last week, the Prime Minister hosted the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on June 29 at Downing Street [1]. They discussed "the publication of the Defence Investment Plan" that Starmer was to release the next day that plans further militarisation of the economy with a £15 billion investment to "enhance the UK's defence capabilities", especially with drones, autonomous war ships and war planes. They discussed Britain's increase "in annual defence spending from £54 billion to £80 billion by 2029, positioning the UK to meet NATO's defence spending commitment of 3.5% of GDP by 2035". They discussed their increasing military involvement in the war in Ukraine against Russia with "strong international support for Ukraine and looked ahead to the outcomes of the upcoming NATO Summit in Ankara". They also discussed their plans to
The International Conference Against War, Westminster Hall, June 20 2026further interfere militarily in the Strait of Hormuz, against Iran and the Arab states with the Prime Minister and Secretary General claiming the need to "ensure the safe passage of global shipping". And Starmer updated Rutte on the UK's "military assets in the region to support a multi-national mission when the conditions allowed". Reports suggest that this was followed by discussion on the possibility of Starmer's applying for a new role, following his resignation, as future Secretary General of NATO which he is said to be "considering". A further reason for the people to demand that NATO is dismantled immediately!

One of the main themes revealed over these two weeks from when Starmer announced his resignation, was that he has also indicated at every opportunity that nothing would change in the government or Britain's position in the "transition of power" to the new leader. In other words, the change of leadership is looking increasingly like a "coronation" for Andy Burnham which was first stated to take place by the end of September following Burnham's by-election victory at Makerfield on June 18. Now the change of leaders could be as early as this month with Starmer asking Labour's body ruling the nomination process to replace him and to open this process on Thursday, July 9, and close it by the summer recess of Parliament, which begins on Thursday, July 16.

This shows that the political crisis of the cartel party system continues to deepen. The rule it represents is that of the rich, exercised through the police powers wielded by the government Executive. In other words, whatever the personality of the leadership contender, whether warmonger or even a pro-people peacemaker, it is this cartel party system that brooks no change in its anti-people warmongering aims, come the change of party leader, or change in government.

This is why the urgent need for a change in the direction of society and the economy is a must for the whole body politic. This change calls for the democratic renewal of the political process and institutions, to envision and build new forms in this transitional period. The working class and people are inevitably borne up in class struggle as they take up this task. The cutting edge of this work at present is the challenge to bring into being an anti-war government with a modern democratic personality. The old political system is based on "representatives" authorised to speak in the name of the electorate, which is disempowering. The necessity is for worker politicians, for the working class and people to speak in their own name, upholding mass democratic methods and principles.

While the ruling elite may think that with Andy Burnham becoming Prime Minister, they will continue to hold all the cards, the disillusionment with the cartel party system and the sentiment for a new society means that the there is no cause for pessimism or for panic, as the working class and people become receptive to the proposals of the Party and its work, which point the way forward to the creation of a new society and a world of socialised humanity.

Fight for an anti-war government!
Join the work of the Party!

Notes
1. PM speech announcing the Defence Investment Plan: 30 June 2026
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-announcing-the-defence-investment-plan-30-june-2026
2. Press release: PM meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte: 29 June 2026
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-meeting-with-nato-secretary-general-mark-rutte-29-june-2026

The new National Security (State Threats) Bill fast-tracked all its stages in the Commons from its Second to its Third Reading in one day, June 17, 2026. It then proceeded to the House of Lords. Why this haste? It is a hysteria of the government's own making suggesting there is an immediate threat to national security. This is bogus.

The alleged justification for this Bill put forward by the government is that MI5 has said the threat from foreign state activity in Britain is now as great as the threat from terrorism. The government has introduced new powers to address this, such as a register of foreign lobbying activities for those working for state governments and new offences for espionage and foreign interference.

The National Security (State Threats) Bill would allow the government to designate organisations as being associated with foreign state threat activity, and make it an offence to support or benefit from them. This is based on a similar power to proscribe terrorist groups.

The legislation would make it an offence to "support" a designated body. This would include arranging a meeting to be addressed by a member of such a body, where the support is for a "prohibited purpose" prejudicial to UK interests. It also criminalises obtaining "material benefits" from designated groups defined to include "information". As human rights campaigner Craig Murray pointed out: "It will be illegal to publish true casualty information from Iran, from Hamas run-hospitals in Gaza, or IDF assault details from the resistance in Lebanon."

The Bill amends the National Security Act 2023 to introduce a power for the Home Secretary to designate bodies involved in "foreign power threat activity" by regulation, if the government claims that it is necessary for the safety or interests of Britain.

In May 2025, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism and State Threat Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, reviewed existing counter-terrorism powers to determine if any should be emulated or adapted to deal with state threats. His report highlighted the alleged limitations of the terrorism proscription regime as it applies to state bodies, and how the National Security Act 2023, as drafted is less effective at disrupting proxies than foreign intelligence services. He recommended that the government introduce a new power to issue "Statutory Alert and Liability Threat Notices" against foreign intelligence services, equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. To put Jonathan Hall's antecedents in perspective, his father-in-law, Lord Dyson, is a patron of UK Lawyers for Israel.

As the House of Commons Research Briefing on the Bill says: "The Home Secretary would be able to designate bodies by regulation if they believe it is necessary for the safety or interests of the UK. The bill would create three new offences associated with designation, of supporting, assisting, or receiving material benefit from, a designated body. The offences would carry sentences of up to 14 years' imprisonment. There would be a process for applying to remove a designation and to have any associated convictions quashed. The Bill would come into force on the day it receives Royal Assent, and would extend to the whole of the UK. No legislative consent motions are required as the subject matter of the bill is reserved."

The "threats" singled out in the Bill's justification are those allegedly posed by Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) conducted an inquiry on Iran, taking evidence between 2021 and 2023, and publishing a report in July 2025. The report claimed that although hostile activity by Iran is on a smaller scale than that by Russia or China, it poses a wide-ranging and unpredictable threat to the UK and should not be underestimated.

Jeremy Corbyn, independent MP speaking at the International Conference Against War, June 20 - Photo:WW

According to the Research Briefing: "The National Security Strategy, published on 24 June 2025, reiterated the commitment to take the recommendations forward, and to draw up new powers, modelled on counter-terrorism, to tackle state threats. The 2026 King's Speech announced that the government would introduce legislation 'to tackle the growing threat from foreign state entities and their proxies'. It said the Bill would provide a 'powerful new tool to disrupt and deter the activities of state-linked entities and those acting in concert with them' based on the proscription powers in the Terrorism Act 2000."

Ashok Kumar, Green Party member and lecturer, said on X: "The only purpose of this law is to support more war crimes against the Iranian people and to round up anyone here who opposes those war crimes under the charge of terrorism."

The International Development Committee, chaired by Labour MP Sarah Champion, has formally written to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood expressing "serious concerns" that the Bill could have catastrophic consequences for UK-funded humanitarian aid.

In the debate on the Bill in the House of Commons on June 17, Jeremy Corbyn, Independent MP for Islington North, put forward: "The Bill gives considerably more powers to the Home Secretary and the Government, so it results in greater Executive power. Further to earlier interventions, is she not concerned that the Executive, and this branch of the Executive, are to have much greater power, but there is no commensurate increase in bodies' accountability to Parliament for deciding what organisations and which individuals are to be sanctioned, and what the system will be for making those decisions? We have been through this process many times, going right back to the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in the 1970s. Does she not feel that there is a danger of our moving too far away from parliamentary and public accountability for the very important decision to deny liberty to various individuals, who will have difficulty challenging that legally?"

The Act when passed will constitute a further addition to the state's arsenal to arbitrarily criminalise the people's voice, and must be opposed.

(with material from Canary)