Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Heppell, Associate Professor of British Politics, University of Leeds

The Labour party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) has voted to block Andy Burnham from seeking selection for the vacant Gorton and Denton parliamentary seat. The move and its fallout have exposed fault lines within the Labour party that go beyond a single byelection.

What might otherwise have been a routine internal procedural matter has instead become a revealing episode about authority, legitimacy and control inside the party – and how Keir Starmer understands both internal democracy and political risk.

The vacancy itself arose from the resignation of the Labour MP, Andrew Gwynne. A byelection must now be held in a constituency long assumed to be safely Labour. The party won 50% of the vote at the last general election with Reform second on 14%. Recent electoral volatility, however, has made even such strongholds less predictable.

This context matters. Byelections are no longer cost-free exercises in party management. They can become national political moments, particularly when they intersect with questions of leadership and direction.

Burnham’s interest in returning to Westminster must be understood against this backdrop. Since leaving parliament and becoming mayor of Greater Manchester in 2017, Burnham has established himself as one of Labour’s most recognisable and electorally successful figures.

His mayoralty has given him a distinct political identity, rooted in devolution, public services and a forthright northern voice. His approach has often contrasted with the more centralised and cautious tone of Starmer’s leadership since 2020.

And with Burnham consistently cited as a contender to replace Starmer, it’s difficult to separate his desire to return to parliament from his desire for the leadership. A return to Westminster could provide Burnham with influence, visibility and long-term options that a regional office, however powerful, cannot fully provide.

It is precisely because Burnham occupies such a prominent executive role that he needed the NEC’s approval to run. Labour’s rules are clear: directly elected mayors must seek permission before becoming parliamentary candidates. This is largely to prevent the disruption and expense of triggering further elections. Burnham would have to be replaced as mayor and a contest would be costly.

On the surface, therefore, the NEC’s involvement was procedurally acceptable. What transformed it into a political controversy was how its decision to block him is being interpreted.

Internal democracy vs central control

Supporters of Burnham argued that the case for allowing him onto the shortlist was strong. At a basic level, they maintained that local party members should have been trusted to decide whether he was the right candidate. This argument drew on long-standing Labour principles about internal democracy and local autonomy.

Burnham’s profile, record of winning elections as mayor and roots in Greater Manchester were seen as assets that could only strengthen Labour’s chances of holding the seat. At a potentially awkward moment in the electoral cycle and with high-profile figures rumoured to be thinking of running for other parties, this is by no means a given.

Beyond electoral calculation, there was also a symbolic dimension. Allowing a figure of his stature to compete would have signalled confidence within the party. It would have shown a willingness to tolerate pluralism and ambition rather than to manage it out of existence.

For some senior figures, including the deputy leader, Lucy Powell (no ally of Starmer) the issue was not whether Burnham should automatically be selected, but whether it was right for the national party to remove him from the contest before it began.

The arguments against Burnham’s candidacy focused on the costs and risks associated with triggering a mayoral election. There was also a concern about distraction. The leadership has been keen to project stability and discipline, and the return of a high-profile figure with an independent political base could complicate this.

Yet it is difficult to ignore the political subtext. Burnham’s record of public disagreement with elements of the leadership’s strategy marked him out as a potential alternative focus of authority within the party.

Blocking his return to parliament therefore carries the appearance, whether intended or not, of pre-emptive containment. For critics, this reinforces a perception that the NEC is being used not simply as a guardian of rules, but as an instrument of political management.

The committee’s eight-to-one vote against Burnham intensified these concerns. Powell was the only member to vote in Burnham’s favour and the chair, home secretary Shabana Mahmood, abstained.

On one reading, this demonstrated that the leadership’s position commanded overwhelming institutional support. On another, it underlined the marginalisation of dissenting voices, even at the highest levels of the party.

That the only explicit supporter of Burnham was also one of Labour’s most senior elected figures lends the episode a particular symbolic weight. Powell won her position via a membership vote rather than being appointed by Starmer.

What happens next

The broader political ramifications of this situation are complex. In the short term, the decision may suit Starmer. Preventing Burnham from re-entering parliament reduces the likelihood of an alternative leadership figure emerging on the backbenches. It also allows the leadership to maintain tight control over messaging and candidate selection at a moment when it believes discipline is electorally advantageous.

However, the longer-term risks should not be underestimated. The episode feeds into an existing narrative that Labour under Starmer is highly centralised and wary of internal competition. For party members and supporters who value participation and openness, this risks alienation.

There is also an electoral gamble in blocking Burnham. Should Labour struggle in or even lose the Gorton and Denton byelection, the decision to exclude Burnham will be retrospectively scrutinised as a missed opportunity. Conversely, even a comfortable victory will not entirely erase the impression that the party prioritised internal control over open debate.

Ultimately, the Burnham affair illuminates a central tension within Labour: the balance between authority and legitimacy. The NEC may have acted within its formal powers, but legitimacy in politics is never solely procedural. It is also relational, shaped by how decisions are perceived by members, voters and the wider public.

Tim Heppell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Labour blocks Andy Burnham from standing for parliament: how it happened and why – https://theconversation.com/labour-blocks-andy-burnham-from-standing-for-parliament-how-it-happened-and-why-274309

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has said a security agreement with the United States has been finalised following his most recent meeting with Donald Trump. Taken at face value, Zelensky’s repeated assertions that the document is ready to sign looks like major win for Kyiv. The reality is very different.

The meeting came after a particularly turbulent period for the transatlantic alliance. The disagreement over Greenland has further undermined western unity and cast yet more doubt on the trustworthiness and dependability of the current incumbent of the White House.

If there was even a hint of Trump being capable of self-reflection, one could add that it was a rather embarrassing week for him – on at least three counts.

First Trump seemed to perform a climb-down in his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21 when he ruled out the use of force to acquire Greenland for the US. He also dropped the threat of imposing tariffs on European Nato members which had dispatched military personnel to Greenland in a highly symbolic show of support.

Second, he insisted that the US would always be there for its Nato allies, in contrast to earlier pronouncements that the American security guarantee for Europe was conditional on allies’ financial contributions to Nato. But, as is usually the case with Trump, it was one step forward, two steps back, as he went on to cast doubt on the allies reciprocating in an American hour of need.

Worse still, in a subsequent interview with Fox News, he denigrated the sacrifices of allied servicemen and women in Afghanistan, prompting a chorus of justified outrage from across the alliance.

After a phone call with the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, on Saturday and an expression of concern in a message conveyed “through backchannels” from King Charles III, Trump changed his tune. He did not exactly apologise, but he used his TruthSocial platform to praise the bravery and sacrifices of British soldiers in Afghanistan. No other Nato ally has received even that acknowledgement yet.

Third, by the end of the week we were also reminded that progress on one of Trump’s flagship projects – making peace between Russia and Ukraine – is as elusive as ever. The US president appeared to have had a constructive meeting with Zelensky in Davos.

But the much-touted agreement on US security guarantees has not been officially signed yet. And there’s been no progress on a deal for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction.

Contrary to how swiftly the US president threatened the imposition of tariffs on supposed allies for sending a few dozen soldiers to Greenland, Trump failed – yet again – to get tough on Putin. There is still no sign of a vote on a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill which Trump allegedly greenlit in early January.

The bill, in the making since the spring, aims to cripple Russia’s ability to finance its war against Ukraine and “to provide sustainable levels of security assistance to Ukraine to provide a credible defensive and deterrent capability”.

Ominous signs from Washington

One could, therefore, argue that it was a bad week for Trump and a much better week for the rest of the western alliance. After all, Nato is still intact. Europe seems to have discovered more of a backbone. Perhaps more importantly, they are realising that pushing back against Trump is not futile.

The US president has neither abandoned Zelensky nor walked away from mediating between Russia and Ukraine. And Trump might soon get distracted by plans for regime change in Cuba or Iran, preventing him from wreaking any more havoc in Europe.

But such a view underestimates both the damage already done to relations between Europe and the US and the potential for things to get worse. Consider the issue of Greenland. Trump’s concession to renounce the use of force was, at best, only a partial climb-down. Throughout his speech, Trump reiterated several times that he still wants “right, title and ownership” of Greenland.

And, as it’s not at all clear what his framework deal actually entails, his closing comments on Greenland included an unambiguous warning to other Nato members that they can “say ‘yes‘ and we will be very appreciative, or … ‘no’ and we will remember”.

There is already, it seems, some advance remembering happening in Trump’s renamed Department of War, which released its new national defence strategy on Friday night. According to the document, the Pentagon will provide Trump “with credible options to guarantee US military and commercial access to key terrain from the Arctic to South America, especially Greenland, the Gulf of America, and the Panama Canal”.

On Nato, Trump’s ambivalence towards the alliance goes deeper than his most recent comments. Critically, it is the casual nature with which Trump treats this core pillar of international security that has fundamentally undermined the trustworthiness of the US as a dependable partner.

Combined with the efforts to set up his board of peace as an alternative to the UN, there can be little doubt left that the US president has his sights trained on the very institutions that Washington spent decades building.

Fools’ gold?

When it comes to Ukraine, meanwhile, Trump may well just be dangling the prospect of an agreement to try to get Zelensky to make territorial concessions that will please Putin. If past encounters are any guideline, the Russian president will accept the concessions but baulk at the prospect of the US (or anyone) offering security guarantees.

Trump, going on what we have seen over the past year, is then likely to water down what he apparently agreed in order not to jeopardise a deal with Putin. I think it most likely that Zelensky and Ukraine will, yet again, be left out in the cold.

For Trump, ending the war more and more seems primarily as a way to enable future business deals with Russia, even it means sacrificing 20% of Ukrainian territory and the long-term security of European allies in the process.

The conclusion to draw for European capitals from London to Kyiv from a week of high drama should not be that Trump and the relationship with the US can be managed with a new approach that adds a dose of pushback to the usual flattery and supplication.

After one year of Trump 2.0, America-first has become America-only. Europe and its few scattered allies elsewhere need to start acting as if they were alone in a hostile world. Because they are.

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. Ukraine: Zelensky upbeat on US deal – but Davos showed the US president to be an unreliable ally – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-zelensky-upbeat-on-us-deal-but-davos-showed-the-us-president-to-be-an-unreliable-ally-274223

Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Wyver, Professor of the Arts on Screen, University of Westminster

On the evening of January 26 1926, members of the Royal Institution and other guests climbed three flights of draughty stairs to a tiny workshop in Soho’s Frith Street. They were there to witness the first public presentation of what inventor John Logie Baird called “true television”. A hundred years later, we are now marking the centenary of British television.

Throughout the following 13 years, until the second world war imposed a seven-year hiatus, television developed rapidly. From November 1936 onwards, a regular “high definition” service was transmitted from the BBC’s television station at Alexandra Palace. Alongside countless variety performances and outside broadcasts of pageantry and sports, television established a productively rich relationship with the arts of 1930s Britain.

More than 300 plays were broadcast in these years, including productions of William Shakespeare, George Bernard Shaw and Noel Coward, with appearances by Laurence Olivier, Ralph Richardson, Valerie Hobson and Sybil Thorndike among many others. West End productions were restaged in the studio and outside broadcast cameras relayed shows such as J.B. Priestley’s When We Are Married, and the Lupino Lane musical comedy Me and My Girl, to tens of thousands of viewers across London.

This article is part of our State of the Arts series. These articles tackle the challenges of the arts and heritage industry – and celebrate the wins, too.

Artists and architects made frequent appearances, as did a regular selection of classical and contemporary works from London galleries. Other visual artists who featured included Paul Nash, Laura Knight and Wyndham Lewis, along with architects Frank Lloyd Wright, Berthold Lubetkin and Serge Chermayeff. There were numerous performances of opera, including excerpts of contemporary work like Albert Coates’ Pickwick and an ambitious staging of Act 2 of Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde.

Once the transmissions could present a full-length figure on the tiny portrait-format screens of the first receiving sets, ballet enjoyed a central presence in TV schedules. Prima ballerinas who performed in the studios included Alicia Markova, Lydia Sokolova and the young Margot Fonteyn.

Touring companies like the Ballets Russes de Monte Carlo and the Ballets Jooss made appearances. The troupes benefited from modest fees, exposure and association with modernity’s latest marvel, while television gained cheap access to the best classical dancers of the day as well as cultural credibility.

In so many ways the end of television as we have known it – when YouTube has topped the BBC in viewing share for the first time – could hardly be more different from its pre-war beginnings. But there are also clear continuities across more than half a century, even if early ballroom dancing lessons have morphed into Strictly, and EastEnders is the soap du jour rather than the sedate five-part romance Ann and Harold. One of television’s left behinds, however, is a close relationship with the arts.

The arts on the BBC today

Writing in The Stage in January 2026, critic Lyn Gardner lamented the limitations of television’s coverage of theatre, arguing that “the BBC remains more interested in Glastonbury than the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, the world’s biggest arts festival” and that the corporation is “more interested in sport rather than culture”.

She also recalled director general Tim Davie’s words from a speech at the Royal Academy in autumn 2024: “The arts remain utterly central to the BBC’s mission. We want to send out a strong signal, that arts and culture matter, they matter for everyone, and they matter even more when times are tough.”

Yet there is no sense that Davie’s words are borne out by the current television schedules. There is no regular slot for imaginative and creative arts documentaries, such as Omnibus which lasted from 1967 to 2003, nor space for reviews and debate, like The Late Show, a nightly arts magazine show that ran throughout the early 1990s. Today’s and tomorrow’s visual artists and performers have only the most minimal presence.

The vanishingly rare presentations of stage work, whether dance, opera or theatre, are invariably acquisitions from cultural organisations that provided most of the funding and all of the production expertise. Complexity and challenging contemporary creativity are almost entirely absent. Far from being “utterly central”, the arts are today utterly marginal to BBC television.

Times are tough, of course, and the BBC faces numerous problems, many of which are the result of a precipitous fall in available funds. Streamers are cannibalising audiences and the licence fee is threatened. The BBC’s response has been to funnel what monies there are to news and current affairs and to high-end drama, which increasingly has to rely on co-production deals.

Television in the pre-war years faced a comparable funding crisis, and yet its producers and executives had confidence and belief in the arts, and were prepared to work collaboratively in partnerships with the cultural institutions of the day. Today, that vision is absent, with little sense of a deep commitment to, or passion for, the arts.

Last year, the BBC sought the views of its audiences with an online questionnaire, and in October a collated report of responses was released as Our BBC, Our Future. In neither the questionnaire nor the report was discussion of the arts “utterly central”.

The arts had next-to-no presence, and as I noted at the time only deep into the report was it acknowledged that: “Among the bigger areas [for which respondents asked] for ‘more’ were: educational content, films and then science and technology, arts and culture and history.”

Fortunately, there is currently a much more substantive and less biased consultation underway. In December, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport published Britain’s Story: The Next Chapter – BBC Royal Charter Review, Green Paper and public consultation, which invites us all to “begin the conversation about how to ensure [the BBC] remains the beating heart of our nation for decades to come”.

In this centenary year for television, this is an important opportunity to express a desire to see the arts returned to the “utterly central” place they occupied in the early years of BBC television.

John Wyver has received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. The BBC once made the arts ‘utterly central’ to television – 100 years later they’re almost invisible – https://theconversation.com/the-bbc-once-made-the-arts-utterly-central-to-television-100-years-later-theyre-almost-invisible-274162