Replace the prime minister. Change direction after 40 years of failure. Bring back hope. 

That's Andy Burnham’s vision for both party and country in the early days of his premiership. A discernibly more distinguished orator than his predecessor, this appears to be resonating with the public. And for good reason: it’s the right message.   

But rhetoric is not reality, and Burnham must be judged not merely by what he says, but by what he does. What his government does will be carried out by the people he has put in positions of power within it to do things. 

Over three weeks into his tenure, Burnham’s personnel decisions remain a core tension at the heart of this government. How are we to square the prime minister's declarations of radical policy change with his insistence on staff and cabinet continuity with Keir Starmer’s government? Are we really meant to think that the people who broke Britain – and profited from it in the process – are the ones to “rewire” the state and its place in the world? Are we truly to believe that their ideological commitments, millionaire donors, and lobby ties all magically disappeared with a change in No 10? 

Nowhere is this contradiction more apparent than when it comes to Israel.

We’ve seen this before

Two weeks before Burnham apologised on camera for “Labour’s initial response to the treatment of Gaza”, he convinced James Purnell, an old friend from his New Labour days, to leave his role at the head of advisory firm representing arms companies, private water investors, and tech giants and become the then-incoming prime minister’s chief of staff. 

Purnell and Burnham were both first elected as MPs in 2001 and served as good soldiers in Blair’s government. The two supported the invasion of Iraq, voted against an independent inquiry into the war, and were appointed as cabinet ministers. From 2002-2004, Purnell also served as the chair of the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) lobby group.

According to an investigation by The National, 39% of Burnham’s cabinet – that is, in addition to Purnell – have connections to LFI. Angela Rayner, Pat McFadden, Yvette Cooper are all regular guests at LFI’s receptions and events. Wes Streeting meanwhile, was Keir Starmer’s first shadow minister to visit Israel in 2022, a trip paid for by LFI. He's now the defence secretary.

Let’s be clear: this is not good. 

An anonymous former UK minister called LFI's "opaque funding and underhand conduct" a "national disgrace and humiliation" that "must be stamped out." Electoral Commission records show the group has spent more than £150,000 funding "fact-finding" trips to Israel for Labour MPs since 2002, with over 60 delegations organised in the last ten years alone. The trips serve a clear purpose, forging relationships between senior Labour figures and Israeli politicians and business leaders, and building concrete sympathy for Israel within the party.

LFI’s presence in the cabinet carries serious practical implications for policy. By cultivating consensus among Britain's political elite, LFI narrows the space for any response that actually confronts reality on the ground. As it showed in its recent report on the West Bank, the organisation champions a two-state solution while offering nothing that seriously challenges the illegal settlements, holds Israel accountable, or pushes for the wholesale change needed to dismantle the underlying structures of occupation. 

Burnham himself is not an affiliated member of LFI, nor is his foreign secretary, Ed Miliband. Burnham is, however, named in a 2015 article by the lobby group as one of its new supporters in parliament. His inner circle is nevertheless clearly saturated with the lobby’s influence. And while Miliband has been criticised in the press – and particularly in the right-wing Jewish press – as a traitor to Israel, his record on Palestine looks positive only when compared with that of the most eliminationist war criminals. 

The bar remains incredibly low, though, and so far Miliband’s contributions in his new post include a few mealy-mouthed statements regurgitating the customary robotic recitations about the difficult “conflict” and the “suffering” which needs to be overcome in order to ensure peace and security for both sides. In other words, clinging to pre-determined conclusions, failing to reckon with the facts and what is required to turn the reality around. 

An actual reset on Palestine requires an active effort to dislodge both the individual beneficiaries of the Israel lobby, and, more foundationally, the lobby’s ability to influence the default logic guiding the British state. 

Reports have emerged that a raft of measures may be introduced by the new government, including a ban on goods from illegal Israeli settlements. At face value, this would mark a welcome and much needed shift. 

But this is familiar territory, and policy suggestions that offer more promise than substance are never in short supply. Even Starmer’s government – steeped in complicity, collaboration, and collusion – launched a “peace fund” to support a so-called peace-building effort for Palestinians. 

Predictably, it offered generic framings, recycled narratives detached from reality and offered no credible, robust roadmap. Burnham and his top team must avoid the same trap. Doing so would, in itself, mark a break with prime ministerial precedent.

They will meet resistance. Already, foreign office diplomats have privately admitted that they expect little will actually change. 

Someone has to drive this through. Burnham’s openness to the lobby makes this task even harder to accomplish, and reflects a larger issue of continuity – one rooted in the persistent influence of his own political origins.

The past is present

“I am absolutely determined that we must not go into the next election financially dependent on the trade unions,” proclaimed Tony Blair ahead of his 1997 campaign. 

As far back as 1996, Britain’s oligarchs were pumping money into Blair’s party, with the leader insisting he was “proud” of these large donations from businessmen. 

Trevor Chinn, Emmanuel Kaye, and David Abrahams all generously donated while Blair was in office. All of them were major figures closely linked to the extensive pro-Israel lobby network in the UK. 

Lord Michael Levy, a close ally to the then-leader, once jokingly remarked that Israel was second in conversation behind fundraising. 

Of course, Blair's unapologetic remoulding of the party did not end with his tenure. The culture he installed in the party, suffused with disaffected Conservatives, lobby groups, and pro-Israel donors – the culture that Burnham cut his teeth in – continues to define the Labour party to this day.   

The principal exception came during Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. Corbyn showed disdain for those looking to buy influence in the party, and Blair loyalists like Abrahams, publicly announced that they couldn’t support the party anymore. This was a lesson that Andy Burnham’s predecessor Keir Starmer duly noted. Several appointments were made that effectively restored the Blair apparatus. 

In November 2024, just a few months after Starmer became prime minister, Tony Blair’s former chief of staff Jonathan Powell was appointed as national security adviser. Wes Streeting, widely regarded as the face of the modern Blairite wing of the Labour party, served as health secretary. Working closely with him as his top health adviser was Alan Milburn, who served in Tony Blair's government between 1999 and 2003 and has since become known for his connections to the private healthcare sector, having worked as a consultant to several firms after leaving public office. And most controversially, Peter Mandelson was also brought back into the fold as US ambassador after he failed the security vetting. 

On all fronts, Keir Starmer understood the assignment. Soon after winning the Labour leadership election, he reportedly sent personalised letters to attract the donors who had felt disillusioned by the previous regime. Sure enough, they returned. 

In this sense, Starmer achieved exactly what he set out to do while in Whitehall. And now, Burnham has inherited the product of Starmer’s hard work. 

Rather than challenge Starmer’s restorationist project, Burnham has sustained it, and even added his own legacy hires to the mix. Is a corporate lobbyist like Purnell, who is ideologically wedded to the existing order, really committed to a radical overhaul, let alone best placed to oversee it? 

“It seems it’s out with the old and in with the old,” remarked Green party leader Zack Polanski.

Purnell’s assessment of Burnham – that he's a “Blunkettite” MP – does little to repudiate such sentiments. In fact, Burnham himself recently singled out Lord Blunkett as “the truest mentor to me.” Blunkett served in a number of cabinet positions under Blair, though most notably as home secretary from 2001 to 2004 and his record was considered “the most authoritarian in recent memory.”

This, of course, feels at odds with the Burnham we see on our screens. The one calling for a National Care Service, discussing public control of utilities, and seriously thinking about ways to devolve power out of Westminster. 

But all of that requires upsetting the Blairite and Starmerite modus operandi of fiscal orthodoxy, a favourable environment for business and donors, and a pliant attitude towards Britain’s allies so as not to fundamentally disrupt the foreign policy status quo. 

Which path will Burnham actually choose? Or has the choice already been made? ▼