标签： Europe

BRUSSELS – Deep internal divisions among European Union leaders have derailed a plan to open a discreet backchannel of communication with the Kremlin, a proposal designed to protect the bloc’s interests if any breakthrough emerges in ongoing talks aimed at ending Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, multiple senior leaders confirmed Friday.

The initiative was spearheaded by newly appointed European Council President António Costa, who chaired the bloc’s two-day flagship summit in Brussels. Costa had already instructed his personal office to initiate outreach to Moscow and put forward a senior EU official to lead the contact, framing the effort as an complementary step, not an attempt to replace or compete with the stalled U.S.-led negotiation track that has yielded little tangible progress in recent months.

For months, European capitals have debated the merits of appointing a dedicated EU mediator to reanimate talks between Moscow and Kyiv, but the idea has gained little traction among the 27 member states. A large bloc of countries argues that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown no genuine willingness to negotiate a sustainable peace, making any overture premature at best and dangerous at worst. Instead, the EU’s unified position to date has centered on demanding key concessions from Russia as a precondition for any meaningful peace process.

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš told reporters Friday that overnight discussions failed to bridge the gap between competing camps. “Europe is unable to agree even on whether there will be negotiations or who will lead them,” Babiš said, laying bare the depth of the bloc’s disunity on the critical foreign policy issue.

Not all leaders rejected the backchannel proposal, however. Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin voiced support for Costa’s approach, noting that “opening up a channel is not a mistake in our view, and I trust António Costa.” He added that core principles remain intact: any final peace negotiations must be led directly by Ukraine and Russia, and right now there is no sign Russia is prepared to come to the negotiating table in good faith.

The Kremlin, for its part, signaled openness to restarting dialogue with the EU Friday, on the condition that Brussels abandons what it calls a “position of force” toward Moscow. “We are ready for contact, we were not the ones who initiated cutting such contacts, terminating them completely,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters. “If forces emerge that realize the need to resume dialogue with Russia, not to lecturing it or, worse, to issue ultimatums … then President Putin and the Russian side would certainly be open to it.”

Currently, Putin has prioritized direct negotiations with Washington over Ukraine’s future, intentionally sidelining both the EU and Kyiv from those discussions.

As leaders wrapped up their summit late Thursday, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever lightened the tense mood with a tongue-in-cheek joke nominating Costa himself as the EU’s envoy to Moscow. Laughing as he shook Costa’s hand, De Wever said, “I was just talking about you, António. I was full of praise, saying you are the only one who can represent us and that we will send you to Moscow.”

Hardline opposition to the backchannel plan came from Estonia, one of the EU’s most hawkish eastern member states that shares a long border with Russia, has a history of Soviet occupation, and has repeatedly reported cross-border drone incursions linked to the war. Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna said, “Europe must not assume the role of a neutral mediator” and instead should continue strengthening Ukraine’s negotiating position to “force the Kremlin into serious negotiations.”

The Associated Press contributed reporting from Prague, Czech Republic, with contributions from correspondents Karel Janicek and Stanislav Hodin.

Diplomatic tensions between long-standing allies Italy and the United States erupted into public view this Friday, after former (current, 2026 second term) U.S. President Donald Trump made a false and inflammatory claim that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had begged him for a photo during last week’s G7 summit in the French Alpine resort of Evian-les-Bains.

The false allegation first emerged Friday morning during an interview with Trump broadcast by Italian television network La7. While the conversation initially centered on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Trump shifted topics to bring up his one-on-one encounter with Meloni on the sidelines of the G7 gathering, an interaction that was captured on camera by summit photographers. According to La7, which has published a dubbed version of the interview (the original English audio has not been released), Trump claimed Meloni “begged” him for a photo opportunity, saying he agreed only out of pity despite having no obligation to do so.

The Italian government responded with swift, unprecedented pushback, signaling that years of behind-the-scenes friction with the Trump administration had reached a breaking point. In the most dramatic show of disapproval, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani called off a planned working trip to the United States scheduled for this coming weekend, labeling Trump’s remarks “serious and offensive” to both Prime Minister Meloni and the entire Italian nation.

Meloni personally addressed the controversy in a public video address released hours after the interview aired, rejecting the claim in unflinching terms. “Certain things deserve an immediate response,” she opened. “Donald Trump’s statements are completely fabricated. I am frankly stunned. I don’t know why the president of the United States behaves this way toward his own allies. After all, this isn’t the first time this has happened.”

Her reference pointed to a previous incident in April, when Trump used an interview with Italian daily newspaper Corriere della Sera to publicly criticize Meloni’s refusal to back the U.S.-led military campaign in Iran. Meloni declined to issue a public response at that time, but on Friday she made clear she would not back down this time, adding a sharp rebuke of Trump’s approach to global diplomacy: “I can only say that it’s a shame he doesn’t show the same resolve toward the enemies of the West, toward the enemies of the United States — toward leaders with whom he, on the other hand, is much more accommodating. But there’s one thing he must remember: Italy and I do not beg.”

The latest public row has laid bare the growing rift between Rome and Washington, despite Meloni’s early efforts to cement warm ties with the Trump administration after he won a second presidential term in 2024. Meloni, a right-wing leader who positioned herself as a key bridge between the U.S. and the European Union, was the only head of state from the EU to attend Trump’s inauguration. But relations have steadily frayed over a string of policy disagreements: Meloni has publicly labeled the U.S. military action in Iran illegal, Italy remains a staunch supporter of Ukraine’s territorial integrity in contrast to Trump’s softer stance toward Russia, and Trump’s trade tariffs on European goods and unwavering support for Israel’s campaign in Gaza have further strained bilateral ties.

Other senior Italian officials joined the condemnation of Trump’s claim this Friday, underscoring the unified front from Rome. Defense Minister Guido Crosetto took to social media platform X to reject the allegation outright, saying he could not imagine Meloni begging anyone for a photo “not even under threat.” He added: “I can, however, imagine how much it cost her to set aside what Trump had said weeks ago, to serve the interests of Italy, of Europe, and of the West. Jokes of this kind do no good to anyone: neither to the USA, nor to Italy, nor to the alliance.”

As of Friday evening, the White House had not issued an official response to Italy’s public rebuke, leaving the diplomatic rift unresolved ahead of any planned future bilateral talks.

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.

LONDON — After a decades-long political career that has taken him from junior Parliament member to the widely popular mayor of Britain’s northern industrial powerhouse, Andy Burnham has cleared the final hurdle to mount a challenge for leadership of the Labour Party and the office of British prime minister, positioning himself as a populist alternative to incumbent Keir Starmer.

Just 48 hours after world powers and Tehran signed a groundbreaking 60-day negotiating framework for a permanent Iran nuclear deal and a commitment to restore pre-war oil transit through the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz, a high-stakes U.S. plan to launch immediate technical talks has been derailed.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance, tapped by President Donald Trump to lead the American negotiating delegation, had been scheduled to depart on an overnight flight Friday for a secretive mountainside resort in the tiny Swiss village of Obbürgen, where the opening round of talks was set to be held. By Thursday afternoon, Vance’s staff, a pool of traveling reporters, had already assembled at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington D.C. ahead of departure, while dozens of White House advance personnel and additional press had already arrived in Switzerland to prepare for the vice president’s visit. But in a sudden announcement Thursday evening, the trip was postponed indefinitely.

In an official statement, the White House confirmed that while Vance and his full delegation were fully prepared to begin negotiations, last-minute logistics hurdles prevented the plans from being finalized, forcing the vice president to remain in Washington. “The logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable,” the statement read.

The cancellation came shortly after Pan-Arab satellite network Al-Mayadeen, which has close political ties to Iran-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, reported that Iran was delaying its own delegation’s travel to Switzerland in response to Israel’s ongoing military offensive in Lebanon. Earlier the same day, Vance had already signaled the uncertain state of plans during a White House press briefing, telling reporters he could not guarantee talks would kick off as scheduled this weekend. “Our plan is to go to Switzerland, I don’t know exactly when,” Vance said. “We think these technical negotiations start sometime this weekend. That’s still the plan. But that could change.”

Despite the last-minute delay, Iran’s top leadership had signaled tentative approval for direct talks just hours before the cancellation. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei issued a brief, formal statement carried by state media endorsing the first round of direct negotiations with the U.S., clearing a key domestic political hurdle for the process to move forward. “It is obvious that the face-to-face negotiations that will be held in the future will not mean accepting the enemy’s opinion,” Khamenei emphasized in the statement. The endorsement grants Khamenei, who assumed the supreme leadership role after his father Ali Khamenei was killed in a U.S. airstrike on February 28, critical domestic political maneuvering room. Hardline factions within the Iranian government have long opposed direct bilateral talks with the U.S., a position hardened after Trump withdrew from the 2015 multilateral Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during his first term.

The preliminary framework signed this week was the product of a last-minute change of plans: Vance was initially scheduled to travel to Switzerland for a formal public signing ceremony, but instead President Trump signed the document during a high-profile dinner at the Palace of Versailles alongside French President Emmanuel Macron, with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signing the agreement separately. Under the terms of the 60-day framework, Iran must dilute its existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium — much of which remains buried under rubble from U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites last year — under international supervision, and reaffirm its longstanding commitment not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. All other core details of a permanent agreement remain to be negotiated in the coming weeks.

Regional policy analysts note that Tehran enters the upcoming talks with a heightened sense of leverage, after its temporary shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz sent shockwaves through global energy markets. “Iran believes it’s in a strong negotiating position,” explained Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East Program at Washington-based think tank Defense Priorities. After Tehran effectively closed the strategic waterway, triggering global economic disruption, Kelanic said the U.S. is now “essentially trying to negotiate our way back to the prewar status quo.”

Neil Quilliam, associate fellow with the Middle East and North Africa Program at London-based Chatham House, added that Khamenei’s public endorsement of talks is designed to reinforce domestic messaging that the regime holds equal standing with the global superpower. From the Iranian leadership’s perspective, Quilliam argued, “Trump has gone from calling for regime change on Feb. 28 to this: Now they’re going to sit down with us directly and talk about these big issues.” The endorsement, he said, is largely for domestic consumption, sending a message that “We are firmly in control of this. There can be no protests, no revolution: We are a new regime and we’re staying put.”

President Trump has also made a notable shift in public tone in recent weeks. For months, Trump insisted that the financial cost of the conflict with Iran was secondary to eliminating Tehran’s nuclear program, and he angered some members of his own party by saying he was unconcerned about any economic impact on upcoming November midterm elections. But speaking at this week’s G7 summit in Evian-Les-Bains, France, Trump acknowledged for the first time that a prolonged conflict would have triggered “economic catastrophe” for the U.S., noting that domestic oil reserves would have been depleted in roughly four weeks. “And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover,” Trump said, referencing the 31st U.S. president whose tenure was defined by the Great Depression.

For Vance, who is widely viewed as a potential 2028 Republican presidential contender, the outcome of these negotiations will have major implications for his political future. Vance built his early political brand around public skepticism of foreign intervention, but now he is tasked with defending a negotiated end to a conflict that congressional Democrats have universally dismissed as reckless. Even within the Republican Party, hawkish lawmakers have openly criticized the framework, arguing it concedes too much to Tehran and would unlock massive economic benefits for Iran.

Senator Roger Wicker, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Thursday he is deeply concerned that the draft agreement “negotiates away the victories” won by the U.S. air campaign against Iran, adding that key provisions are “completely out of step” with Trump’s stated original goals. Wicker specifically targeted a proposed $300 billion fund for Iranian reconstruction and economic development included in the 14-point framework, arguing it “would make Iran’s payoff under Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison.” Trump and Vance have pushed back on these criticisms, stressing that no U.S. taxpayer funds would contribute to the fund, and any economic relief would only be released in exchange for concrete concessions and nuclear reforms from Tehran.

Trump has long attacked the 2015 JCPOA, the original multilateral nuclear agreement negotiated by the Obama administration, arguing it failed to curb Iran’s nuclear progress and handed unfettered access to billions of dollars in sanctions relief to Tehran. He withdrew the U.S. from the pact in 2018. Today, Trump rejects comparisons between his new framework and the 2015 deal, arguing he negotiated from a position of strength after a year of military pressure on Iran, while Obama merely paid off Tehran to secure weak, unenforceable commitments.

LONDON – In a political upset that has reshaped the UK’s domestic political landscape, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has secured a decisive win in the Makerfield constituency special election, cementing his position as the leading challenger to embattled incumbent Prime Minister and Labour Party leader Keir Starmer.

Burnham, a 56-year-old centrist politician widely nicknamed the “King of the North” for his enduring popularity across northern England, crushed his closest competitor, Rob Kenyon from the right-wing anti-immigration Reform UK, by a margin of more than 9,000 votes. Final vote counts released early Friday show Burnham captured nearly 55% of the 45,510 ballots cast, a clear mandate that sets the stage for an imminent leadership showdown within the ruling Labour Party.

The special election was deliberately triggered when sitting Labour MP Josh Simons resigned from his seat, clearing a path for Burnham – who had served outside Parliament as metro mayor since 2017 – to return to Westminster. Since taking office as Greater Manchester’s mayor in 2017, Burnham has overseen a sweeping urban regeneration transformation of the region, the historic birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, building a broad popular base around his pragmatic, region-focused policy brand he calls “Manchesterism.” He has now pledged to scale this model nationwide if he takes the top job.

In his victory address, Burnham left no ambiguity about his political ambitions, rejecting the idea that he would settle for a backbench role in the 650-seat House of Commons. “Everyone knows that politics isn’t working,” he told supporters. “Everyone can feel that the country isn’t where it should be. Tonight could, just could, be the turning point.” He emphasized that the Labour Party now holds a final opportunity to rebuild public trust, calling for a new, unifying political project rooted in hope that rejects the divisive, polarizing politics that has come to define U.S. political discourse. “The name Makerfield will forever be synonymous with bringing about the change this country needs,” he added.

The leadership challenge comes amid a historic collapse in Starmer’s approval ratings, just months after he led the centre-left Labour Party to a landslide general election victory in July 2024. Since taking office, Starmer has failed to deliver on key campaign pledges: he has been unable to jumpstart promised economic growth, repair overstretched and underfunded public services, or ease the ongoing UK cost of living crisis. His position has been further weakened by a string of high-profile missteps, most recently the controversial appointment of scandal-tarnished former minister Peter Mandelson – a known associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein – as UK Ambassador to the United States. A dismal performance in May 2025 local elections already prompted dozens of Labour MPs to publicly call for Starmer’s resignation, and while he has refused to step down, senior party figures have openly pushed for a leadership change. Already, former Health Secretary Wes Streeting resigned from Cabinet in May, criticizing the government for a “vacuum of vision,” and has announced he will run for leader if a contest is called.

Under UK parliamentary rules, the governing party can replace its leader and prime minister mid-term without holding a snap national election. Current Labour Party rules stipulate that a leadership challenge can be triggered if a challenger secures backing from at least one-fifth of the party’s sitting Commons MPs – a threshold of 81 signatures in the current parliament.

Senior party figures have already begun openly calling for an orderly transition. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy acknowledged that Burnham and Starmer would hold urgent talks “about what comes next” in the coming days. Louise Haigh, a senior Labour MP and close Burnham ally, urged Starmer to “do what’s best for both the country and the Labour Party” and “consider an orderly and managed transition.” Haigh told Sky News that “Andy won’t be doing anything rash or hasty. I’m really hopeful the prime minister and Andy can come to an agreement.”

Starmer has thus far dug in, insisting he has no intention of resigning. Speaking from the G7 summit in France this week, he said, “I will fight if there’s a challenge. We won a significant general election result in 2024, with a mandate to bring about change. I’m not going to walk away from that.” Ahead of the election, Starmer suggested he would be open to giving Burnham a senior Cabinet post to keep him within the government, but allies of Burnham have made clear he has no interest in a secondary role.

Political analysts agree that the pressure on Starmer is now nearly impossible to ignore. Rob Ford, a professor of political science at the University of Manchester, noted that “the pressure on Starmer will be very hard to resist” now that Burnham holds a seat in Parliament. Burnham is set to be sworn in as an MP as early as next Monday, and is expected to request a formal meeting with Starmer to push for a graceful exit and a clear timetable for a leadership transition.

While Starmer remains defiant, his position could collapse rapidly if multiple Cabinet members resign or threaten to resign in unison to force his hand. Depending on the level of support for Burnham among the parliamentary party, the race could either become a contested leadership election or Burnham could take the position unopposed in a quick “coronation.” Ford added that Burnham’s defeat of Reform UK in a seat the right-wing party targeted heavily strengthens his argument that he is Labour’s strongest electoral asset. “The narrative he can bring is, ‘No one else could have won that seat. I won that. I bring something unique. I bring an ability to renew our appeal,’” Ford explained.