It’s the hope that kills you – so fingers crossed for Andy Burnham ⁠73%

By Zoe Williams⁠81%

7/14/2026, 3:00:56 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 67.5% saturation with 313 hits. Analysis detected 1,771 faulty-reasoning hits from 464 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (5,924 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.90% of the article peer group.

Andy Burnham yesterday got himself clear of the magic number – the 323 Labour MPs who had to support him to make any leadership challenge mathematically impossible. 
Half a week had gone by in limbo, his endorsements standing at 322, everyone knowing he was the next prime minister, nobody able to call it anything more than “likely”. 
What were those last MPs waiting for? 
Maybe they were just in it for the atmospherics? 
You can’t run a coronation like a slam dunk; it needs choreographed suspense, a sense of ceremony. 
In an ideal world, the last names would have arrived in the form of a wax-sealed letter, carried by a horse or a bird. 
Now Keir Starmer can resign, parliament can go into recess and Burnham can take office next Monday, with the right amount of pomp. 
Had there been any kind of contest, even briefly, it would have recalled Liz Truss giving way to Rishi Sunak, or Theresa May succeeding David Cameron; whatever your view on the relative merits of those people, the associations would be mainly: “Oh hell, not this again.” 
Instead, the change of prime minister is unfolding more like a royal wedding – you feel an ambient duty to spectate and even celebrate, but you’d be mad not to stay sceptical. 
Whether it’s governing this country or marrying into the royal family, the gig looks like a nightmare. 
Unlike a royal wedding, this isn’t an event for which we have precedent. 
There’s no overall vibe of “behold, your saviour has arrived”. 
A lot of the signifiers will be made up on the hoof by the media, which could underreact or overreact; given the choice, they will probably go large. 
We’ll know more by Wednesday, after England’s World Cup semi-final, because the delusion of a nation unified by hope – “hope in every heart”, if you prefer – will be disastrously intensified should it arrive on the back of an outlandish sporting victory. 
It would be better for Burnham if his ascendance stayed in the realm of the normal – a normally visionary politician, with a regular amount of supporters and critics. 
Future disappointments, which are inevitable, would feel more like life and less like a betrayal. 
But that’s not for him to decide. 
He just has to hold his nerve and hope that no one starts next Monday, the morning after the final, with a pint at 11am and the national anthem. 
Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist 
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? 
If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.3%Zoe Williams: 5.9%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias9.3%This article: 5.8%Zoe Williams: 1.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias5.8%This article: 24.8%Zoe Williams: 4.4%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic24.8%This article: 5.8%Zoe Williams: 2.2%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.8%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.6%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Zoe Williams: 5.0%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect15.5%This article: 3.2%Zoe Williams: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.2%This article: 11.4%Zoe Williams: 0.7%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 17.7%Zoe Williams: 3.6%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias17.7%This article: 15.9%Zoe Williams: 1.8%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias15.9%This article: 36.2%Zoe Williams: 7.7%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias36.2%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Zoe Williams: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 1.7%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 4.5%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.7%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.7%Zoe Williams: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias15.7%This article: 9.9%Zoe Williams: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect9.9%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 1.9%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 1.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.3%Zoe Williams: 3.7%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority1.3%This article: 23.3%Zoe Williams: 2.8%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma23.3%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.4%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.0%Zoe Williams: 12.9%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization8.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.0%Zoe Williams: 0.7%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon5.0%This article: 41.8%Zoe Williams: 6.5%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion41.8%This article: 14.0%Zoe Williams: 1.1%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question14.0%This article: 9.3%Zoe Williams: 2.8%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.3%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 5.2%Zoe Williams: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature5.2%This article: 2.8%Zoe Williams: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division2.8%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 6.5%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.7%Zoe Williams: 1.9%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.7%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.3%Zoe Williams: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground6.3%This article: 1.5%Zoe Williams: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity1.5%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 3.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 67.5%Zoe Williams: 13.1%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice67.5%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 1.9%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 1.6%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoe Williams: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Zoe Williams: 2.4%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.8%

464 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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