spiked⁠96%

Free speech isn’t safe in Andy Burnham’s hands ⁠73%

By Max Thompson⁠92%

7/30/2026, 10:55:54 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.8% saturation with 190 hits. Analysis detected 1,306 faulty-reasoning hits from 580 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (8,080 of 29,795 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.90% of the article peer group.

The self-styled ‘King of the North’, Andy Burnham, has shaken hands with His Majesty King Charles and formed a government in his name. 
After two years of Keir Starmer’s government, the most hostile to free speech in living memory, the British public ought to let out a sigh of relief that Britain's most unpopular premier’s reign of terror is over. 
But that would be at best premature, and at worst foolish. 
Over the course of the past two years, the Free Speech Union's membership has ballooned from 14,000 to more than 45,000. 
This is a testament to the dire state of free speech in Starmer's Britain, and another scathing epitaph for his political career. 
But our new prime minister could prove an even greater enemy of free speech than his predecessor. 
He is more likeable than Starmer, a more seasoned political operative, and has a track record – albeit disputed – of getting things done. 
But once that bloke-ish charm wanes, and it will, we should expect to find him just as hostile towards free speech and its advocates as Sir Keir. 
Nowhere is that clearer than in his attitude to the press. 
Burnham has long advocated greater state control over Britain's media. 
In 2016, as shadow home secretary under Jeremy Corbyn, he campaigned vehemently for the second part of the Leveson Inquiry. 
This planned follow-up was scrapped after scores of journalists were cleared of any wrongdoing by the criminal courts. 
Yet Burnham has gone as far as to say that relitigating all this is ‘non-negotiable’. 
His appetite to chasten the press is further evidenced by his close relationship with Hugh Grant, who, with campaign group Hacked Off, has spent the past 15 years demanding state regulation of the media. 
As reported in the Telegraph, at an event hosted by Hacked Off in June, Grant addressed a group in Westminster on his favourite topic. 
He lambasted Starmer for not dog-collaring Britain's press and identified a Burnham premiership as his opportunity to muzzle it. 
Nathan Sparkes, Hacked Off's chief executive, also told the Telegraph of his disappointment in Starmer and his hopes of Burnham taking up the mantle. 
They have every reason to be hopeful that the UK’s new prime minister will be even more censorious than the last. 
Byline Times has reported that, back in March, Burnham said he hadn’t ‘given up on [Leveson part two]’ and that he would enact it ‘if he had the influence’. 
Well, Andy most certainly has the influence now. 
Burnham’s disdain for the press was also on display during his furious run-in with Christian Calgie of the Daily Mail during the Makerfield by-election, and his studied avoidance of any press scrutiny throughout the farcical Labour leadership ‘contest’. 
Ominously, Burnham’s cabinet is just as hostile to the press as the PM himself. 
Lucy Powell, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, has stated that she wishes to censor social media platforms such as X and Facebook during election periods, and has identified the Representation of the People Bill – paused until September – as her legislative vehicle for doing so. 
All of this bodes ill for Andy Burnham’s premiership. 
Already, he has been made leader of the Labour Party and prime minister with no election, no public debate and minimal press scrutiny. 
He is on a collision course with anyone whose views differ from his own. 
Max Thompson is the campaigns officer at the Free Speech Union. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.4%Max Thompson: 13.6%spiked: 8.0%Confirmation Bias11.4%This article: 3.1%Max Thompson: 0.8%spiked: 0.4%Anchoring Bias3.1%This article: 6.9%Max Thompson: 4.3%spiked: 3.5%Availability Heuristic6.9%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Max Thompson: 2.3%spiked: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias1.4%This article: 4.0%Max Thompson: 3.3%spiked: 6.9%Framing Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Max Thompson: 1.0%spiked: 0.7%Optimism Bias4.1%This article: 28.6%Max Thompson: 14.3%spiked: 2.3%Pessimism Bias28.6%This article: 32.8%Max Thompson: 14.7%spiked: 11.4%Negativity Bias32.8%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Max Thompson: 4.6%spiked: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error12.4%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.6%spiked: 3.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Max Thompson: 1.5%spiked: 1.4%Halo Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 1.0%spiked: 1.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Max Thompson: 1.0%spiked: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Max Thompson: 3.8%spiked: 6.2%Ad Hominem9.1%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 4.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.4%Max Thompson: 0.9%spiked: 2.2%Appeal to Authority3.4%This article: 1.9%Max Thompson: 0.5%spiked: 3.4%False Dilemma1.9%This article: 10.0%Max Thompson: 8.1%spiked: 2.8%Slippery Slope10.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.9%spiked: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.2%Max Thompson: 15.1%spiked: 13.2%Hasty Generalization11.2%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.4%Max Thompson: 5.1%spiked: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion6.4%This article: 1.4%Max Thompson: 0.3%spiked: 1.7%Begging the Question1.4%This article: 5.2%Max Thompson: 1.3%spiked: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.4%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.0%Max Thompson: 1.0%spiked: 0.6%Composition/Division4.0%This article: 15.2%Max Thompson: 3.8%spiked: 3.2%Anecdotal15.2%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.4%Max Thompson: 3.1%spiked: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.4%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 1.5%spiked: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.6%Max Thompson: 1.9%spiked: 2.1%Unattributed Quote2.6%This article: 5.0%Max Thompson: 2.1%spiked: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection5.0%This article: 16.4%Max Thompson: 22.4%spiked: 23.0%Biased Writer Voice16.4%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 2.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Max Thompson: 3.9%spiked: 8.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Max Thompson: 0.0%spiked: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

580 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers27%attributed speech425writer words
Selected voice

Byline Times

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words19% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Byline Times: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.4 ptsWriter: 22.4%Byline Times: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Byline Times: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Byline Times: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.