Skip to main content

Andy Burnham becomes UK’s next prime minister after meeting with King Charles III

King Charles III welcomes Andy Burnham, during an audience at Buckingham Palace, London, where he invited the leader of the Labour Party to become Prime Minister and form a new government, on July 20, 2026 in London, England. (Photo by Aaron Chown – Pool/Getty Images)

(LONDON) — Andy Burnham officially became British prime minister on Monday — the country’s seventh leader in 10 years — having already been elected as the leader of the country’s Labour Party last week.

Burnham, who until recently was serving as the mayor of Greater Manchester, succeeded outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Speaking outside the prime minister’s official residence — 10 Downing Street — on Monday morning, Starmer said, “Today I am here to offer my resignation and close the book on my time as prime minister. My work is done.”

“I thank the British people for the opportunity to serve. I go with good grace, I go with a smile, and I go proud of everything that we have achieved. Thank you very much,” Starmer added.

Of his successor, the outgoing prime minister said, “I now pass the baton to Andy Burnham, I wish him every success. He has my full support.”

After his address, Starmer traveled the short distance to Buckingham Palace to formally inform King Charles III of his resignation. Burnham then also traveled to palace where the king asked him to form a government.

The new prime minister then traveled to Downing Street to give his first address, telling the assembled press that Britain must show “that we can regain our stability.”

Burnham said his appointment will serve as “a circuit-breaker” for the country, pledging to deliver a new political and economic model and a 10-year plan.

Among the new prime’s commitments were to address cost of living concerns, help young people into work, end homelessness, re-industrialize the country, put “life’s essentials back under public control” and push for more local powers.

Through the rest of Monday, Burnham is expected to begin appointing cabinet ministers from Number 10.

Starmer announced that he would step down in June, following months of domestic political turmoil. Despite leading Labour to a historic majority in parliament in the 2024 general election, Starmer faced persistent external and internal criticism over his perceived failure to deliver rapid change after 14 years of Conservative Party rule in Britain.

Many in Starmer’s party had written to the prime minister asking him to step down following local elections in May, which saw the party lose more than 1,000 seats on local councils, results that were widely interpreted as a repudiation by British voters of Labour’s performance under the prime minister’s leadership.

Starmer long said he intended to see out his full five-year. Announcing his resignation in June, Starmer said, “The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election. I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer with good grace.”

Burnham was the only candidate in the subsequent leadership election, ultimately winning nominations from 379 of the 403 Labour members of parliament — of the 650 MPs in total — in the House of Commons.

In accepting the leadership of Labour last week, Burnham said his mission was “to bring back hope” and address decades of economic inequality plus falling living standards.

“We must recognize that this generation of politicians — myself included — have failed to challenge a political culture and an economic model that simply doesn’t work well enough for ordinary people,” he said.

Burnham will become the seventh leader to take the reins of the country in 10 years, a reflection of the political and economic turbulence that has beset the country since the Brexit vote in 2016.

The incoming prime minister said he would also make British politics “less toxic, adding, “I will work to build a new politics. The country is crying out for it.”

Burnham, 56, was born in the Lancashire region of northern England. Burnham started out as a journalist, writing for trade magazines, before transitioning to work as a Labour parliamentary researcher while in his early 20s.

Burnham rose through the party ranks before being elected as the MP for his hometown of Leigh, in Greater Manchester, in 2001. He held that seat for 16 years, during which time he was appointed to several cabinet positions under Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

During Labour’s years in opposition, Burnham bid to become Labour leader twice, but was defeated by — and then served in shadow cabinets of — Labour leaders Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn.

In 2017, Burnham left parliament to become the mayor of Greater Manchester. In his victory speech, Burnham heralded what he called “the dawn of a new era, not just for this city region but for politics in our country. It has been too London-centric for too long. The old political and party structures haven’t delivered for all people and for all places.”

Burnham is associated with the center left of the Labour Party, and has described himself as a socialist. Burnham’s time as Manchester mayor saw him emerge as a major proponent of shifting investment and political power out of London, and earned him the nickname “the King of the North.”

ABC News’ Kevin Shalvey contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Judge tosses Trump administration’s case against Harvard alleging school didn’t protect Jewish students from discrimination

(CNN) — A federal judge in Boston dismissed the Trump administration’s multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against Harvard University that alleged the school failed to protect its Jewish students from discrimination, marking the latest development in their lengthy dispute over funding and academic independence.US District Judge Richard G. Stearns, a Clinton appointee, wrote in a Thursday ruling the Trump administration had highlighted a handful of concerning incidents on Harvard’s campus but they were “too isolated and episodic” to justify the government’s claim that Harvard was in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.The Trump administration had argued Harvard breached its contract with the federal government under Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs that receive federal funding. To support its claim, the administration pointed to incidents of antisemitism on campus, including many in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.CNN reached out to Harvard Thursday afternoon for comment. The White House referred a request for comment to the Justice Department.Harmeet Dhillon, the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for civil rights, said the administration disagrees with the ruling and is assessing next steps.“The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is actively investigating antisemitism nationwide. The Civil Rights Division has an extensive and active portfolio of antisemitism enforcement, including indictments, prosecutions, settlements, and investigations across the country,” Dhillon said in a statement.In its lawsuit, filed in March, the government sought to halt $2.6 billion in existing federal grants, and asked the court to require Harvard to pay back millions in grant payments.The Trump administration alleged “Harvard fostered and continues to foster a campus climate where hostile antisemitism and anti-Israeli conduct thrives,” according to the filing.But Stearns argued the incidents highlighted by the government overwhelmingly occurred during the 2023-2024 school year and did not prove the school has persistently violated the law. The Trump administration could only point to three other incidents of discrimination in the past two years, the judge wrote.Feuding over fundsThe lawsuit was a marked escalation of a protracted battle between the Ivy League school and the White House, which has featured multiple lawsuits and on-and-off negotiations as Harvard accuses the administration of leveraging funding threats to compel the college to bend to its sweeping policy demands.While Trump’s pressure campaign has yielded changes at other American universities, Harvard has largely refused to comply, saying government efforts to interfere on campus are an overstep of its First Amendment rights.In its motion to dismiss the case, Harvard – which has acknowledged failing to properly confront antisemitism in the past – argued the anti-discrimination claims by the Trump administration were a pretext in its ongoing dispute with elite educational institutions over federal funds.“This litigation is a continuation of the Government’s ongoing campaign of retaliation against Harvard for refusing to capitulate to government demands and for exercising its First Amendment rights,” Harvard attorneys wrote.When it filed the lawsuit, the Trump administration accused Harvard of being “deliberately indifferent” to discrimination against Jewish college members. It highlighted instances in which students were “spit on in the face for wearing a yarmulke, stalked on campus, and jeered by peers with calls of ‘Heil Hitler,’” among others.Harvard pushed back in another filing, accusing the administration officials of ignoring its “extensive efforts” to address known issues on campus in the wake of October 7, 2023.“In the over two and a half years since, Harvard has engaged in sustained, institution-wide efforts to identify and address antisemitism on campus,” Harvard said in the filing. Those efforts were documented in a 300-page report issued by Harvard’s Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story