作者： admin

LONDON – A decisive landslide win for Andy Burnham in a UK House of Commons by-election has thrown the future of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s premiership into grave doubt, triggering immediate speculation of an internal Labour Party leadership challenge that could end Starmer’s tenure less than two years after he swept the party back into power. The 56-year-old Burnham, a widely popular former mayor of Greater Manchester who held a seat in Makerfield, northwest England, delivered a stunning political upset that defied Labour’s months of plummeting national poll numbers and bruising local election losses.

Against all expectations, Burnham not only fended off a fierce challenge from the right-wing anti-immigration Reform UK, which had won nearly every local seat within the Makerfield constituency last month, but also grew Labour’s vote share to almost 55% – a result that political analysts describe as a clear public mandate for a change in party leadership. After nearly a decade serving outside Parliament as Greater Manchester’s mayor, Burnham’s return to the Commons puts him directly in position to mount a challenge to Starmer, who has seen his approval ratings sink to historic lows amid a string of high-profile policy failures and damaging controversies.

While Burnham has not yet formally declared a leadership bid, his public comments following the win leave little question of his ambitions for 10 Downing Street. Framing his victory as a watershed moment for British politics, Burnham said: “I think we need in this country right now for people to feel a sense of hope that there is something better to work towards on the horizon,” adding that his team aims to “lay out a new path” for the nation. Long nicknamed the “King of the North” for his regional popularity, Burnham is widely viewed as the frontrunner to replace Starmer should a leadership contest be called.

Under UK political rules, a sitting prime minister can be removed by their party mid-term without requiring an early general election, which is not scheduled to take place until 2029. Starmer, who led Labour to a landslide general election victory in July 2024 after 14 years in opposition, has become one of the most unpopular prime ministers in modern British history. His political standing collapsed most recently after the controversial and widely criticized appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington, over Mandelson’s longstanding personal links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Political insiders are now predicting that senior figures within Starmer’s own Cabinet will approach him in the coming days to urge him to step down voluntarily, arguing that his resignation would be in the best interest of both Starmer and the Labour Party. Should Starmer choose to leave office immediately, Labour’s governing body and the Cabinet would install an interim prime minister from the party’s ranks, a role widely tipped to go to current Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, who is not expected to run for the permanent leadership. Another possible outcome is that Starmer would announce his intention to resign ahead of Labour’s annual party conference scheduled for September.

If a leadership contest is called, Burnham has already made clear he will enter the race. Other potential challengers include former Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who resigned from the Cabinet last month and has already signaled he will run; former deputy leader Angela Rayner, who stepped down last year over an unpaid property tax scandal; and former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns, who resigned last week in protest of Starmer’s defense funding cuts. Many Labour lawmakers are already pushing for a unanimous coronation of Burnham, arguing that a unified party could install him in Downing Street as early as this summer before the annual conference.

In an awkward, paradoxical moment on Friday, Starmer was forced to publicly congratulate Burnham on his win even as the result amplifies growing pressure on his own leadership. When asked whether he would fight a challenge to his position, Starmer insisted he would not step down voluntarily. “Yes, I will run, I will stand. I’ve said repeatedly I’m not going to walk away from that,” he told reporters, confirming he would automatically appear on the ballot if a formal challenge is mounted.

Under Labour Party rules, any candidate seeking to challenge the incumbent leader must secure the backing of at least one-fifth of the party’s sitting Members of Parliament – that’s 81 lawmakers. Candidates that clear that parliamentary threshold must then win support from either 5% of local constituency Labour parties, or at least three affiliated groups such as trade unions and cooperative societies. After eligibility is confirmed, party members and affiliate representatives vote via a ranked-choice system, with the first candidate to win a majority of votes declared the new leader. The winner would then be formally invited by King Charles III to form a government and take office as prime minister. A full leadership contest would take between three and four months to complete, including a series of public town hall events for candidates before member voting opens.

BRUSSELS – Just hours after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered a scathing rebuke of NATO’s European members and unveiled a Pentagon-led performance review of the alliance, regional leaders were deep in discussions mapping out ongoing advances toward their core security goals at a recent Brussels summit.

Analysts and alliance insiders note that Hegseth’s criticism centered on long-acknowledged priorities that European leaders have been advancing since Russia’s full-scale 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The agreed-upon agenda items already guiding European defense planning include sustained increases in defense spending, industrial investments to ramp up military hardware production, integration of battlefield lessons from the Ukraine war, and accelerated acquisition or domestic development of drones, air defense systems and long-range strike weapons.

During the two-day summit concluding Friday, leaders also debated strategies to maximize joint European Union funding for defense, streamline bureaucratic red tape to speed up military procurement, enhance cross-border “military mobility” for faster troop and equipment deployment, and upgrade critical port and airport infrastructure across the continent. Participants reaffirmed their binding target of decisively strengthening European defense readiness by 2030, a goal that predates Hegseth’s latest intervention.

Intelligence assessments across Western capitals have long warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin could launch offensive military action against other European states before 2030, particularly if his forces achieve a decisive victory in Ukraine. European governments have already documented multiple instances of Russian sabotage and disinformation campaigns targeting the continent, adding urgency to defense modernization efforts.

With roughly two-thirds of EU member states also holding NATO membership, the growing unpredictability of U.S. policy under the second Trump administration has pushed European leaders to accelerate independent defense integration efforts. Hegseth’s surprise announcement of the Pentagon review is just the latest in a series of shifts that have altered transatlantic defense dynamics.

Hegseth, who rarely participates in regular NATO defense ministerial gatherings, departed Thursday’s ministerial meeting early, but his public comments have already left a lasting mark on alliance discussions. In his high-profile address to allies this week, following a major February 2025 speech, he labeled NATO a “paper tiger”, accused European members of “shameful” underperformance, and claimed too many allies failed a Trump administration test by refusing access to their European bases for U.S. strikes targeting Iran. He also criticized alliance focus on gender equity and climate action, and slammed European migration policies.

Following his broadside, Hegseth gave allies a six-month deadline to implement reforms ahead of the performance review, which will tie the continued forward deployment of U.S. troops in Europe and American defense investment in NATO to whether the U.S. deems allies are contributing their fair share. He also announced that U.S. contributions to NATO’s joint operating budget, which funds alliance headquarters and core facilities, will be reduced for members that do not accelerate defense spending.

“It is a protection racket framing that undermines NATO solidarity, erodes trust in U.S. commitment to the alliance, and ultimately harms U.S. own security interests,” explained Rachel Ellehuus, Director-General of the Royal United Services Institute and a former senior U.S. advisor to NATO. Ellehuus added that decisions on U.S. force positioning “should be driven by detailed threat assessments, operational requirements, and military planning – not used as a form of reward, punishment or revenge.” Such an approach, she noted, undermines allies already working to address defense gaps and signals to adversaries that U.S. security commitments come with conditional, negotiable terms.

Notably, the full scope and specific terms of Hegseth’s review remain undisclosed. Hegseth framed the review as a mechanism to push NATO toward an irreversible shift to European-led primary responsibility for the continent’s defense, saying “Some countries will fail and others will pass with flying colors.” The review is expected to take up to six months, with participation from U.S. military commanders, members of Congress and allied representatives. Speaking to reporters at Brussels Airport before departing, Hegseth added that the review will also evaluate U.S. basing arrangements across Europe to ensure Washington has guaranteed access and overflight rights when needed for its military operations.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte acknowledged that alliance leadership has no clear insight into the review’s expected outcomes, telling reporters “There’s still no clarity on exactly what the outcome will be, because that will depend on the review. So, we’ll see what happens. Wherever we can be helpful, we will be helpful.” Rutte is scheduled to travel to Washington next week for further discussions, where he expects to gain more clarity on the U.S. plan.

Rutte pushed back on the harshest of Hegseth’s criticism, noting that European allies and Canada have already made substantial progress on defense spending. “What we are seeing is staggering amounts of money coming in,” he said, adding that “Europe and Canada are spending in 2025 more than $90 billion extra compared to 2024, which is almost a 20% increase in defense spending.” Rutte acknowledged that allies still need to convert this increased spending into operational military equipment, weapons and ammunition, but emphasized that progress is already well underway.

At the 2024 NATO summit, allies agreed to raise their defense budget targets to align with U.S. spending as a share of GDP, an outcome that left then-President Trump satisfied after the meeting. Even so, Hegseth’s new performance review has cast uncertainty over the upcoming NATO summit scheduled for July 7-8 in Turkey.

In recent months, senior European military officers have taken on more command roles within NATO’s command structure, and U.S. allies have taken lead responsibility for coordinating arms and funding transfers to Ukraine after the Trump administration drew back from its leading role in the campaign. Many European countries and Canada have also spent billions of dollars to purchase U.S.-made air defense systems that they have subsequently donated to Ukraine, which European leaders view as fighting an existential war for European security.

Many alliance analysts argue that European allies have already moved as quickly as possible to address defense gaps, with the only unmet demand from the Trump administration being full, unrestricted access to European airspace and bases for U.S. military operations in other regions such as the Middle East.