Keir Starmer’s Brutal Treatment of Andy Burnham Has Destroyed All Illusions About His Premiership

Read our Monthly Magazine

And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

“The enemy has only images and illusions… behind which he hides his true motives. Destroy the image and you will break the enemy.”
— Shaolin Master to Bruce Lee, Enter the Dragon

That line appears at the very start of Enter the Dragon, delivered before a punch is thrown. It frames the entire film. The struggle it describes is not one of brute force, but of credibility. Power, Bruce Lee’s Shaolin master suggests, rarely confronts you directly. It shelters behind images. Strip those away, and what remains is exposed.

It is difficult for me not to think about that line when looking at what has just happened inside the Labour Party.

For years, the Labour right under Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership has carefully cultivated an image. The staging is familiar: the Union Jack backdrop, the language of seriousness, duty, restraint and responsibility. Even the careful emphasis on titles and institutional roles plays its part. The claim is not merely of competence, but of public duty. That power is exercised reluctantly. That decisions are taken in the national interest, not out of factional advantage. That this is public service, not politics as usual.

That image has mattered because it has functioned as legitimacy. It reassured voters, quietened dissent and disarmed critics. It suggested that whatever internal disagreements existed, those in charge were acting from a higher sense of responsibility.

But images only work if behaviour sustains them.

Freebiegate and repeated policy U-turns have already eroded that credibility. But the decision to block Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham from the Gorton and Denton by-election did something more profound. It did not simply remove a political obstacle. It punctured the image itself, publicly and unmistakably.

Keir Starmer’s Labour Government Is Much Better Than the Media Admits

There is a deep disconnect between the Government’s actions to improve the country and its standing in the polls, argues Professor Chris Painter

Professor Chris Painter

This was not persuasion. It was not democratic judgement. It was not even subtle strategy. It was the open deployment of bureaucratic power to neutralise a figure whose authority rests on precisely the things the leadership claims to value: electoral success, public trust and a strong local mandate.

In that moment, the illusion failed.

When power reaches for administrative force rather than argument or consent, it reveals its true priorities. What was exposed here was not country before party, but self-preservation. Not public service, but control. Not national interest, but institutional self-interest.

Once that becomes visible, the language no longer works. The symbolism no longer covers the act. Claims of seriousness and duty ring hollow when set against naked factional enforcement.

This is not simply about Andy Burnham as an individual. It is about what happens when a political leadership becomes more invested in managing threats to itself than in advancing a project rooted in democratic confidence. When maintaining control becomes an end in itself, rather than a means to serve a wider purpose.

MPs may spend much of their lives inside the Westminster bubble, but we are never fully enclosed by it. We return each week to our constituencies. We sit in surgeries. We hear frustration, anger and disillusionment unfiltered. We see how political decisions land beyond the chamber and the lobby briefings.

What Keir Starmer Should Have Done With Andy Burnham

The PM’s decision to block Burnham from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election risks handing the seat to Nigel Farage, and ultimately triggering his own downfall. It didn’t have to be this way, argues Adam Bienkov

Adam Bienkov

It is in that space, between Westminster and the country, that legitimacy is tested.

When MPs themselves begin to conclude, alongside the public, that the rituals of public service have become just that – rituals detached from lived reality – authority weakens from within. What drains away is belief: the sense that power is being exercised for something larger than its own survival.

This is where Number 10 now finds itself.

Parliamentary business continues. Bills are tabled. Whips issue instructions. Divisions are managed. The machinery still turns.

But something essential has eroded, and it is not coming back any time soon. Not for this administration.

As the film’s antagonist Han, who betrays his own Shaolin temple, ultimately discovers, control is not the same as authority. You can manage dissent. You can police the perimeter. But if your power rests on an illusion, and you shatter it yourself, you cannot bluff your way back.