𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Andy Burnham is to become the Prime Minister on Monday after being confirmed as the leader of the Labour Party on Friday. This will see him meet the King, who will ask him to form a government, including the formation of a Cabinet. There has been much speculation as to who will be in it, and holding which jobs. It is certain that it will look different to Sir Keir Starmer’s, as Mr Burnham looks to signal a fresh start to voters.

The role of Chancellor of the Exchequer is perhaps the second most important job in the Cabinet, behind the office of Prime Minister itself. No. 11 Downing Street has been occupied by Rachel Reeves, who has proven to be a controversial Treasury boss – although, whose tenure has not sparked debate? The raising of employers’ National Insurance contributions, an almighty kerfuffle regarding the Winter Fuel Payment, an increase to the National Living Wage and a reluctance to increase defence spending to a level many think necessary have been criticised.

Mr Burnham is predicted to appoint a new Chancellor, and a list of potential names have been flying around, including Ed Miliband, Wes Streeting and Yvette Cooper. But it is thought Shabana Mahmood has been chosen.

Labour has had a mixed record since the party won the 2024 General Election to say the least, and many will be worried about who the former Mayor of Manchester will have in his team. Below is what I believe would be the worst possible person in some of the most important roles.

Former Labour leader Ed Miliband is considered to be of the soft-left faction of the party. Above all, Brits are worried that he is not sufficiently fiscally conservative, and amenable to borrowing that would violate Ms Reeves’ fiscal rules.

The idea that Mr Miliband could be appointed has also been greeted with skepticism from Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, who told The Observer: “It’s been floated that Ed Miliband would be chancellor. That would be a noose around the neck of what we need to do on jobs.

Mr Miliband’s stance on net zero, including a total ban on drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, has been slammed by critics.

They highlight that fossil fuels are being imported from abroad.

Offshore Energies UK stated: “We will continue to need oil and gas for decades to come. “The question is simple. Do we produce more of it here at home, supporting our workers and communities, jobs and tax revenues, or do we import more from overseas?”

It has been reported that Mr Burnham is going to announce plans for North Sea drilling, so his position would be at odds with Mr Miliband’s.

The current Energy Secretary would also no doubt be amenable to the idea of a wealth tax, which would most likely drive money out of the UK when we need it most.

Angela Rayner is not what you would call diplomatic. In 2021, she was reported to have called Conservative ministers “a bunch of scum”, and the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, a “racist, homophobic misogynist”.

Whatever you may think of the Tories and Mr Johnson, this phrasing is at best indelicate, at worst unpleasant, dehumanising and dangerous.

This was not the first time this is purported to have happened.

In 2020, Ms Rayner was rebuked after the word “scum” was heard in the House of Commons.

Conservative MP Chris Clarkson asked if Ms Rayner had used the word about him as “that is what I heard”.

Ms Rayner later wrote in a statement: “I apologise for the language that I used in a heated debate in Parliament earlier.”

It seems she is unable to contain herself when meeting people she disagrees with – a vital skill needed to be a success at the Foreign Office.

Can you imagine her in a meeting with Donald Trump, for example, who she has branded a “buffoon” and an “embarrassment”?

There is also the matter of Ms Rayner’s recent tax affairs.

In May, she was cleared by HMRC of deliberate wrongdoing or carelessness over her tax affairs.

She has settled a £40,000 in unpaid stamp duty.

Even though she did not on purpose initially pay the huge sum, getting herself into the situation in the first place is not what you would call careful and considerate conduct, which is also needed to be Foreign Secretary.

The main problem with appointing Louise Haigh as Home Secretary would be that it would mean someone with a criminal conviction would be in charge of the police.

Talk about a lunatic in charge of the asylum.

She was forced to resign from her posting as Transport Secretary in November 2024 after it emerged that she pleaded guilty to lying about her work mobile phone, suggesting it had been stolen in 2013.

Ms Haugh admitted in court that she had dishonestly reported to her employer that her BlackBerry had been stolen.

She was convicted of fraud and handed a £100 fine.

It is thought that Ms Haigh will become the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

David Lammy has been criticised for his decisions as Justice Secretary, and his re-appointment would be the wrong move. His most controversial policy is getting rid of the right to trial by jury in an effort to tackle a huge backlog in Crown Court cases.

He has doubled down on the plan, despite new figures showing a small fall. According to the quarterly figures, 80,061 cases were open at the end of March – 37 fewer than the previous quarter, The Law Society Gazette reported.

Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, told the publication that figures showed “MPs have been misled by assumptions dressed up as evidence”.

She added: “It’s high time the government ditched its ill-conceived attack on the right to trial by jury. The justification for these plans has never been there, these figures show MPs have been misled by assumptions dressed up as evidence.

The measures that have already been pushed forward in courts are already “starting to turn the tide”, the KC emphasised, adding investment is needed, not rhetoric.

Mr Lammy is also overseeing the early release of criminals, including killers, rapists and sex offenders, to free up space in prisons.

Hardly making the country safer, is it?

Pensions minister Torsten Bell firmly defended the government’s controversial decision to means test the Winter Fuel Payment.

This involved a humiliating partial U-turn, restoring the cash to more than three quarters of pensioners in England and Wales.

Now, households with an annual income of £35,000 or less will automatically receive the payment, which is worth between £200 and £300, depending on the person’s age.

In January 2025, Unite the union research showed 67% of pensioners had reduced their heating, and 63% felt the cold more often as a result of the cut.

A third were taking fewer baths or showers, and 16% had cut back on hot meals due to the increased costs of trying to stay warm.

Hardly calm and competent governing, is it?

Military chiefs would no doubt resent the appointment of Rachel Reeves as Defence Secretary.

In June, John Healey resigned from the role, saying that the Prime Minister had been “unable” and the Treasury “unwilling” to “commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats”.

As the world is arguably the most fragile it has been since the Cold War, I for one would like someone in the job who understands the importance of financing the nation’s military adequately, both to maintain its current resources and develop new ones, instead of figuring out who the government could tax in order to hand out more welfare payments to Brits.

Speaking of welfare, Liz Kendall was the Work and Pensions Secretary when the government was forced by its own backbenchers to U-turn on plans to cut benefits.

This will perhaps go down in history as the beginning of the end for Sir Keir Starmer, as it became apparent that, despite a huge majority in the House of Commons, he did not have the capacity to subvert a rebellion.

Wes Streeting, by many measures, did a good job as Health Secretary, although lots of things remain to be done.

In my view, he should be reappointed to the job.

If nothing else, it means consistency, something that has been severely lacking at the top of government departments of late at a time of political turbulence.

Bridget Phillipson has fought a war against aspiration by introducing VAT on private school fees.

This has led to schools suffering financial difficulties.

Thetford Grammar School cited the policy as one of the reasons for its closure in April.

Malvern St James, an independent school in Worcestershire, said the same, as did St Gerard’s School in Bangor.

This amounts to vandalism of the country’s education system, which is historic and diverse.

In June, a Deltapoll of National Education Union (NEU) members revealed that 74% of surveyed teachers and support staff believed Ms Phillipson was doing a bad job.

She has been slammed over the recruitment of teachers, and a proposed overhaul of the academy system, which, critics suggest, would reduce their freedom and “centralise power in the state”.

Her reign seems to be classic Labour: tax and less freedom in the hands of those who know their sector best.