Andy Burnham's Path to Downing Street Appears Clearer

Westminster is a postcode whose currency is power – and power is shifting, quickly.

Two key moments on Monday accelerated the likelihood of one key outcome.

Not only did Sir Keir Starmer set out a timetable for his departure but the biggest potential rival to Andy Burnham, Wes Streeting, folded and endorsed the former mayor of Greater Manchester.

So not only did we learn that Sir Keir will soon be gone, but we got the strongest possible indication yet that it is highly likely to be Burnham who is his successor and possibly very quickly.

Burnham would be the UK's fifth prime minister in four years.

The photographs of the new MP for Makerfield beaming in the presence of hundreds of Labour MPs sit alongside the images of Sir Keir and his wife, both emotional, in illustrating that brutal transfer of power.

Take the sight of Chancellor Rachel Reeves at Burnham's event. She wasn't spotted earlier, outside her own home, 11 Downing Street, when staff and some senior ministers applauded the prime minister as he set out his resignation plans.

Senior figures hope to retain big jobs in government and there is a new man to impress. Those making the case for retaining Reeves at the Treasury would point out that she has maintained the confidence of the markets and keeping her in post might help Burnham do the same.

But others tell me it is highly unlikely he would keep her on, given how closely she is associated with Sir Keir's administration.

Some whisper Streeting may replace her, although he denied to me he'd been offered the job by Burnham.

But after the theatre and drama of Monday, the hard questions for the Labour Party and for Burnham beckon.

And some are already worried.

They fret about what all this looks like.

A bloke who wasn't even a parliamentary candidate at the last general election and wasn't even an MP this time last week, could be prime minister by this time next month.

"And remember he's run for the Labour leadership twice before and lost," one minister pointed out to me, adding: "And not only that. He lost to two losers – Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn."

Miliband lost the 2015 general election. Corbyn lost the 2017 and 2019 general elections.

So what is driving Burnham's current magnetism? In short, he is seen as a winner and Sir Keir is seen as a loser.

And not just any winner – a winner against Reform UK, in a part of the country where Reform did very well in the English local elections last month.

Without question, Burnham didn't choose an easy seat to contest to return to Parliament. But it is also true to say that he is very popular in Greater Manchester and his popularity remains largely untested beyond.

"It feels like lots of Labour MPs are dashing for a train that's about to leave the station, but they haven't any idea where it's going," is how one figure put it to me, suggesting there is still plenty the party and the country doesn't yet know about Burnham's prospectus for government.

He set out some ideas, in broad terms, during the by-election campaign, but – perhaps understandably – wanted to focus then on the local concerns that might help ensure he won the seat.

In a social media post reflecting on the prime minister's decision to stand down, he added that "people want to see progress on economic growth, cost of living, public services, housing and opportunities for the next generation".

Few, of any political persuasion, would disagree with this. How he would deliver it will now face intense scrutiny.

It is the lack of detail and potentially very narrow window to fill in the blanks that are causing jitters for some in the party.

It is why some Labour MPs are talking up the idea of trying to persuade Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, to stand in a contest against Burnham.

His friends suggest that, on balance, it is probably unlikely that he would, but he isn't ruling it out at least yet.

The next key moment in all this, then, will be when Burnham decides to set out his stall.

A man who was, until the early hours of Friday, a mayor hasn't had much reason to expound in public on foreign affairs, for example.

But he can be sure, if he becomes prime minister, to spend a huge amount of time considering it.

Would he be willing to find the money to provide the military with the money they claim they need to keep us safe? And if he was, how is he going to pay for it?