LONDON — Andy Burnham pledged to bring back hope when he entered Downing Street. Labour MPs are feeling it — for now.

The British prime minister is approaching 100 days in No. 10 this week with his party believing things are on the up.

Keir Starmer was toppled earlier this year after disastrous local election results precipitated a loss of confidence in his administration.

Disgruntled Labour MPs warned their new leader must show up, listen to them and accept some disagreement to avoid repeating his predecessor’s mistakes.

POLITICO sets out the four reasons Labour MPs are feeling more chipper under Burnham — but they still see potential pitfalls ahead.

Some of the dozen parliamentarians interviewed by POLITICO for this piece were granted anonymity to speak candidly about the internal party matters.

1) Disagreement is tolerated

MPs reckon Burnham’s administration is more willing to recognize different views within the broad church Labour Party.

Burnham himself told a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting that disagreement is fine as long as MPs speak to him about it, according to Simon Opher — a 2024-intake MP and member of Mainstream, the soft-left faction supported by Burnham when he was Greater Manchester mayor.

“It sounds weird, but that is a remarkable difference from what they had before,” Opher said, claiming he felt a “slight climate of fear” early in his political career.

Starmer infuriated MPs when weeks after taking office he suspended the whip from those who voted to scrap a two-child benefit cap — only to U-turn earlier this year.

By contrast, Kim Johnson, a member of Labour’s left-wing Socialist Campaign Group faction, points out she wasn’t sanctioned after abstaining on the government’s Courts and Tribunals Bill earlier this month because she believes it still weakens the right to trial by jury.

“You’re not feeling you can’t do that or risk losing the whip,” she said.

Of course, Burnham’s appetite for disagreement hasn’t been fully put to the test.

He entered No. 10 at the start of the summer recess, when MPs were away from Westminster, and there was a month-long conference recess when they returned to SW1 in September.

And MPs don’t want a totally laissez-faire regime.

“I didn’t get into politics to sit in a room and just agree with each other,” said another 2024-intake Labour MP. “I don’t think you get good policy by just sitting around like nodding dogs.”

But they said they “genuinely believe in collective responsibility,” and are “quite relaxed” about the consequences of voting against the whip.

Another backbench MP warns Burnham’s lax approach can only last so long.

“Andy is riding high still, he is not in [Nigel] Farage or [Zack] Polanski territory, he can afford for people to go ‘I don’t like this.’ It’s when the shit hits the fan, and the public are saying they’re not happy, then you begin to find the political patience wears out,” that backbencher added.

Burnham may yet regret his promise that the whips office will act as an HR department, the MP said, “because you want them to come down like a clonking fist.”

2) Ministers are more visible

Burnham’s team is making itself seen, his MPs report.

Whips have been calling them to check in, and Burnham himself has attended PLP sub-group meetings. Cabinet ministers have also been available for meetings.

Though another Socialist Campaign Group MP admitted “it’s a very low bar” for improvement. “Under Starmer, there was very little in terms of consultations, any discussions about anything at all.”

Mainstream member Alex Sobel said: “I’ve had more meetings with No. 10 — I’ve been to No. 10 North — in these three months than the entire time of the previous administration.”

Bill Esterson, who chairs the Energy Security Committee, said he had “regular conversations with No. 10” and that Burnham’s team had “engaged very fully” with committee chairs and the PLP more broadly.

A second 2024 intake MP said: “There’s definitely more of a concerted attempt for them to be reaching out and listening to us.” The days of being viewed “as the legal necessity to get legislation through” are over.

3) Burnham’s political instincts

MPs reckon they’ve had an upgrade when it comes to raw political instincts.

“There’s a feeling that we’ve got a guy up front who we can get behind,” said Opher.

“He understands how politics works,” he added, citing the decision to delay approval for drilling at the Jackdaw gas field until after the Holborn and St Pancras by-election, where Labour faced a challenge from the Greens. “Andy’s much more savvy on what he’s doing.”

Backbenchers also claim to feel more confident they won’t get caught in the Starmer flip-flop policy trap.

The unnamed Socialist Campaign Group MP quoted above is still smarting over the “absolutely awful” two-child benefit cap vote, where rebels lost the whip only for it later to become government policy.

The first 2024-intake MP reckons Burnham is better able to communicate difficult trade-offs, like altering the triple lock to fund social care.

4) Voters are giving Labour another chance

It is ultimately Burnham’s popularity with the public that has fed into the positive mood.

Many Labour MPs “agreed with the punters on the doorstep” about Starmer’s inadequacies, Opher said. Data showing Labour has retaken the opinion poll lead from Reform UK has boosted their optimism. “It doesn’t feel like a party that is about to be ripped apart,” he added.

The first 2024 intake MP said: “It has given us the right to be heard,” said the first 2024-intake Labour MP quoted above. “People feel warmly towards Andy, which is half the battle. I think they trust his good intentions.”

Some flashpoints ahead…

1) The budget

Burnham can only coast on the good vibes for so long, and the first test of tough political choices comes Wednesday in the budget.

MPs on the left see the economic statement as a “crunch point” that will show if the chancellor will put his money where the PM’s mouth is.

“If there’s an attempt to take money from ordinary people who’ve got nothing and no attempt to get finances from people who have got far too much, then probably there will be some sort of opposition”, said the unnamed Socialist Campaign Group MP previously quoted. They hope to see the already trailed bank tax confirmed, or a wealth tax.

They warned that any decisions on what to cut and where to spend will pose “challenges from both sides of the PLP.”

“The measure of Andy Burnham is how he deals with it,” they added.

2) Welfare

Burnham wants to avoid a repeat of the botched attempt at welfare reform which severely weakened Starmer’s authority.

A long-awaited review by former Cabinet minister Alan Milburn into young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs) will be published shortly with recommendations.

Milburn — alongside Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden — has been trying to ensure communication is better.

“Pat has done an excellent job at building a consensus, rolling the carpet, setting out the argument, setting out the moral case, but he was doing that before the change of administration,” a third 2024-intake Labour MP said.

The second 2024 Labour MP quoted above said most colleagues “feel like it’s a decent stab at it and it’s not come out of the blue.” Reasonable critics “were just getting stonewalled” last year.

Esterson, who’s served in parliament since 2010, said regular engagement means “it’s not surprising that you get the benefit of the doubt far more often than if you don’t.”

3) Europe

Burnham’s admission that a future Labour manifesto could commit to a referendum on EU membership is already opening old Brexit wounds — and not in the way Labour wants.

The Socialist Campaign Group MP previously quoted is uneasy about its potential to spark further division. “It nearly ripped the country apart and I’m not sure if it’s the right thing to do [to] reignite that horribleness in each constituency,” they said.

The third 2024-intake Labour MP quoted above concurred. While people want a closer relationship with Europe, they believe rejoining is a “different kettle of fish” and jars with constituents who want “better public services and more economic growth” rather than continental renegotiations.

4) Energy

Energy policy has already become a flashpoint. The decision to approve the Jackdaw gas field was met with some dissent. A decision about the larger Rosebank oil and gas field is still looming.

Sobel told POLITICO’s London Playbook it “won’t make an impact on global prices and will give mixed messages in terms of investment in terms of both renewables and decarbonisation of home heating.”

Left-wing Labour MPs also signed a letter to Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh urging her to reject the licenses due to climate change. “Every second we continue pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere makes the crisis more severe,” the letter organized by Chris Hinchliff said.

The second 2024-intake MP quoted thought ministers are acting in good faith.

“They’ve got one go at government and they seem to be doing their absolute best to give it a good whack,” they said.

Sam Blewett contributed reporting.

LONDON — Britain’s energy regulator is planning to authorize urgent investment to increase gas pipeline imports from continental Europe this winter, amid fears over the country’s ability to supply all customers in an emergency scenario. 

The plans, outlined in a document published Thursday morning, have been published a day after Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh approved a controversial North Sea gas project, Jackdaw.  

Government documents show that gas security considerations were given “substantial weight” in her decision. 

In a consultation paper, Ofgem said that, without intervention, Britain would have a “negative supply margin” this winter, in the event of a one in 20-year cold day — a day so cold Britain would only be expected to have one every 20 years — coinciding with the loss of key gas infrastructure. 

This unlikely scenario is a key standard followed by Britain’s energy authorities to assess its resilience in maintaining gas supply — also called the “N-1 gas security” standard. 

A shortfall in gas supply would be a national emergency, potentially requiring power plants or factories to shut down, or in extreme cases homes being disconnected from the gas network.  

Britain has never experienced a “network supply emergency,” but diminishing domestic supply and the threat of Russian sabotage of key undersea gas pipelines has raised fears over the country’s energy security. 

Last year the energy system operator, NESO, said long-term declines in domestic North Sea gas supply and global competition for LNG imports could mean the N-1 gas security standard is breached in winter 2030/31. 

However, there are now fears of a crunch point as soon as this winter, after the Belgian operator of the undersea gas pipeline Interconnector said it would cut planned export capacity to the U.K. because of soaring maintenance and operating costs. EU countries are also facing concerns over gas supply this winter. 

Ofgem, the regulator, said it is now planning to amend gas system operator National Gas’s regulatory licence, allowing them to cover the costs of maintaining imports from Belgium at current capacity, in agreement with Interconnector Ltd, majority-owned by Belgian firm Fluxys. 

“Without intervention, Great Britain could potentially face a negative supply margin in winter 2026/27 involving extremely high gas demand on a 1-in-20 cold weather day and the loss of the single largest element of GB gas infrastructure,” Ofgem said. “The position could become more constrained in future winters without intervention. While these are low-probability stress scenarios, their potential consequences are significant.” 

Costs will be recouped through customers’ energy bills. Ofgem said costs of £147 million could be passed on to bills, adding an estimated £1.19 to every domestic energy bill per year over a five-year period.  

Interconnector Ltd said it would restore British import capacity to 27.8GW this winter, an additional 11.3GW of capacity above the previously announced level. 

National Gas welcomed the plans but insisted that the warning over gas security “should not be interpreted as an indication that gas shortages are expected.” 

The Conservatives’ Shadow Energy Secretary Andew Bowie called the situation “utterly outrageous.” 

Britain is “going cap in hand to Europe and paying vast sums to import foreign gas,” he said, criticizing the Labour government for what he characterized as a failure to fully exploit domestic gas supplies. 

“Britain has one of the most secure and resilient energy systems in the world– and gas interconnectors form part of our diverse energy mix,” Energy Minister Michael Shanks said in a statement. 

“We are working with industry to build a gas system fit for the future, ensuring value for money for consumers while giving investors’ confidence to back Britain’s energy sector.” 

LONDON — Labour swept to power with a big, expensive promise: to create a government-owned energy company, hand it billions to invest in British renewables, and watch it grow, eventually, to rival other state-owned energy giants. 

Two years on from the foundation of Great British Energy, that isn’t what has happened. 

Analysis from POLITICO shows billions of pounds from its budget have been redirected to schemes not included in GBE’s initial remit, stripping away some of the cash earmarked for costly, large-scale renewable energy projects like wind and solar. Those funds are being used instead for very different purposes, like planning new nuclear schemes and reviving Britain’s creaking electricity grid. 

Set up by then Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, the government backed GBE with £8.3 billion of fresh funding. Its purpose at the time seemed clear. “Great British Energy will own, manage and operate clean power projects,” Miliband pledged, “and generate energy in its own right.” 

Labour officials familiar with GBE plans told POLITICO in 2024 local projects would get around £3 billion of its total budget, while the rest would go on helping the company establish itself in the market, including by taking stakes in wind and solar projects. 

Yet now experts can’t agree on what, exactly, GBE is for. 

How to spend it

Miliband’s GBE pitch to the public was ambitious.  

The company would allow Britain to become a bigger player in its own clean energy market in Labour’s dash to hit green goals, he said. Referencing huge state-owned companies in Denmark and France, he told Channel 4 News weeks after the election that GBE was “not going to become Ørsted or the generation arm of EDF overnight. But that is the long-term vision.” 

Soon after GBE passed into law, though, former Chancellor Rachel Reeves reassigned £2.5 billion of its budget to help developers design small-scale nuclear power plants and prep sites where those mini-nukes will eventually go.

The government also scaled back its funding for those local, smaller-scale projects, which include getting solar panels onto school and hospital roofs. The mooted £3 billion for GBE’s Local Power Plan became just £1 billion when more details were announced this February. 

GBE has set aside another £1 billion to build up clean energy supply chains.  

And that’s all before Prime Minister Andy Burnham used Labour’s annual conference to pledge another whack of GBE’s budget to a totally new venture: Great British Grid. 

Enter GB Grid  

In a bid to put his own stamp on Miliband’s pet project, Burnham announced that the new unit would sit within GBE, using some of its budget to speed the build out of Britain’s creaking grid network.  

GB Grid will invest alongside existing grid operators in a bid to cut costs, Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh said last week, at a time when the grid regularly struggles to handle the levels of power being generated by developers. 

Energy experts are torn over whether GB Grid, in particular, is a smart pivot for the government — but acknowledge it is not the same thing Miliband promised to deliver.  

“I think the focus has shifted, but I don’t think that should be seen as a problem,” said Joshua Emden, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank. 

GB Grid would have access to £4 billion of GBE funding, according to media reports published at the time of Burnham’s announcement, although officials from the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero insist they “don’t recognize” that figure. 

It is still enough for Kemi Badenoch’s Conservatives to pile the pressure on ministers to explain why their plans have changed. 

“Taking half the GB Energy budget and putting it into a venture that was only announced a few weeks ago leads to the obvious question of: What actually is GB Energy for? And does the GB Energy of today bear any resemblance to what the government envisaged in July 2024?” asked Shadow Energy Minister Harriet Cross. 

Doubters and defenders  

Some energy industry officials are doubtful that setting money aside for grid investment is the best use of public cash.  

“If it does that last mile [of grid] to a data center, if it helps where there isn’t actually any program or plan, [then] fine. We’re not going to say: ‘No, don’t spend it on making the grid better,’” Dhara Vyas, chief executive of the industry group Energy UK, told a panel at Conservative Party Conference earlier this month. 

But transmission operators — who run the network — are already spending tens of billions on the grid, she said. “The energy transition will be paid for by the private sector.”  

GBE “made a slow start and has focused on low-impact activities, important though they are,” said Bill Esterson, a Labour MP and chair of parliament’s Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. Creating GB Grid, he argued, “suggests a shift in emphasis to build what the country needs where the network companies are not delivering.” 

The pivot “makes sense as an efficient use of government money,” argued IPPR’s Emden, if there’s a choice between investing in power generation — where there’s competition between providers — and in the grid where private networks have a “total monopoly.” 

GB Energy has “the foundations now to create something genuinely useful,” argued one government figure. “Politicians of all stripes should give it the space to get on with the job.”  

A spokesperson for DESNZ said “securing new homegrown energy and building a grid fit for the 21st century work hand in hand. Great British Grid will bring public and private investment together, helping to build the infrastructure Britain needs.” 

Additional reporting by Nicholas Earl.

The Ukraine war’s spillover into the Black Sea is creating a growing European security and commercial risk: Drones are hitting ships and killing sailors, grain routes are under strain, and insurers and investors are weighing the cost of operating through Ukraine’s ports.

Five commercial vessels have been hit in Bulgarian and Romanian waters over the past week alone, leaving at least four people dead, several sailors missing and others injured. In response, Black Sea countries Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey have raised the issue at NATO, asking for more focus toward the region and joint support, according to two alliance diplomats.

“The attack within Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone is absolutely unacceptable. It constitutes a serious breach of maritime and international law and will further jeopardise safe navigation in the Black Sea,” Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev said on X after the attacks last week.

Russia has been attacking Ukrainian ports and cities in the area since the start of its full-scale invasion. But the recent strikes have brought the spillover into NATO territory. If they continue, EU leaders will face pressure to protect Black Sea shipping and keep Ukrainian trade moving.

Those questions will be top of mind at Thursday’s European Council summit. According to draft conclusions obtained by POLITICO, leaders are expected to discuss the “immediate restoration of safe passage for grain cargo ships.”

A wider problem

Russia is not the only country using naval drones in the Black Sea. Ukraine has also used them against Russian-linked shipping. In June, a Ukrainian sea drone exploded in Romania’s Constanța port after Kyiv said it had veered off course because of Russian electronic interference.

“The Black Sea situation is quite dangerous because attacks are coming from both [sides],” said an EU shipping representative, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. “You have to worry about both.”

Attribution can also be difficult. Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev said Wednesday that investigators still have not proven that Russia is behind the strikes — although some have attributed his reticence to his broadly softer approach toward the Kremlin.

Drone operations by both Russia and Ukraine are likely to continue as long as each has the money and production capacity to sustain them, said Cristian Vlas, assistant research manager for Eastern Europe at the think tank ACLED.

Oleksii Goncharenko, a Ukrainian lawmaker and founder of the Black Sea Security Forum, told POLITICO that a “serious diplomatic initiative” was needed, bringing together Ukraine, Russia and a third-party guarantor, such as Turkey, “to restore freedom of navigation in the Black Sea.”

Grain routes under pressure

The security risk is disrupting routes that carry Ukraine’s harvest to market, with consequences for EU transport links. Black Sea ports are Ukraine’s main export gateway, handling around 95 percent of the country’s grain exports, as well as significant volumes of iron ore. Shipping traffic has fallen as the security risk has grown.

Some cargo is being rerouted to the River Danube, but capacity there has been stretched in recent months as drought pushes water levels to record lows. Operators are trying to add rail capacity, but that risks moving the bottleneck westward to Romania.

Moving more Ukrainian grain overland also risks reviving tensions with farmers in neighboring EU countries, Vlas said. Romanian farmers have worried that Ukrainian produce meant only to transit could stay on the domestic market, he added, while transport operators are already juggling competing demands for capacity.

Ukraine’s Agriculture Minister Taras Vysotskyi has warned that millions of tons of unsold grain is piling up, and that farmers who can’t sell won’t be able to afford to resow all their land.

Bulgaria is working with Romania and Turkey on a joint initiative to protect freedom of navigation in the Black Sea, which Radev plans to bring to EU leaders on Thursday.

Following the Black Sea countries’ request at NATO, military officials are likely to look into possible options such as shifting counter-drone systems to the region, the two alliance diplomats said. Radev said Sofia will convene his counterparts in Ankara and Bucharest to examine further proposals, while a senior Bulgarian official called for new joint anti-drone systems with Romania, partly financed by the EU.

Investment at risk

The attacks also threaten what had started to look like a renewed bet on Ukraine’s ports. MSC, the world’s largest container line, was among the biggest and newest investors, reportedly acquiring a majority stake in a container terminal at a port near Odesa in May.

Ukraine has also been offering investors a long-term concession at the Chornomorsk terminal near Odesa. This terminal is one of Ukraine’s largest planned port public-private partnerships and part of what is expected to be a multibillion-euro reconstruction effort involving European companies.

But people who work in Ukraine’s ports say the case for rebuilding is collapsing.

“No one is ready to invest and rebuild, since you know that tomorrow there will be another missile, another pack of drones,” Oleg Grygoriuk, chairman of Ukraine’s Marine Transport Workers’ Trade Union, said.