Rachel Reeves has endorsed Andy Burnham as the next Prime Minister, which would be a straightforward career move if Burnham hadn’t reportedly considered demoting her in his first week. This is not a metaphor for political ambition. This is actual political ambition.
The logic here is pure musical chairs: Reeves backs Burnham now because she believes he will win, and once he wins, she hopes he will let her sit down somewhere important—preferably not the backbenches. The alternative is to back someone else, who might also demote her, or to say nothing, which guarantees she gets demoted by everyone.
What makes this delicious is that Reeves knows the score. She knows Burnham has thought about moving her. She is endorsing him anyway. This is not blind loyalty. This is calculated desperation dressed up as party unity.
The real absurdity is that this is how modern politics actually works. Nobody endorses the person they think will be nicest to them. They endorse the person they think will win, then they negotiate what chair they get to sit in afterward. Burnham might demote her. He might not. Reeves is betting that being early on the Burnham bus is better than being late, or off it entirely.
So she has backed him. He has not promised her anything. She has not asked him to. They are both pretending this is about the party’s future while playing a very old game: who gets the good office when the music stops.