DAILY MAIL COMMENT: In turbulent instances, we want a statesman – not a provincial mayor

The chances of Vladimir Putin attending next year’s G20 summit in Manchester are vanishingly slim.

He hasn’t been to the annual meeting of advanced and emerging economies since 2019, and seductive as the charms of England’s third city may be, they are unlikely to coax him out of the Kremlin for this one.

Another considerable disincentive is that he could face immediate arrest for war crimes as soon as he set foot on British soil. However, he has been invited, first by Donald Trump and now by Andy Burnham.

Downing Street says the Prime Minister had no choice in the matter. Russia is a member of the G20 and Putin its head of state. But couldn’t he have shown a little more resistance?

Just days ago, Mr Burnham was telling the UN General Assembly that Russia posed a clear and present danger to all this country stands for. Putin and his henchmen were waging ‘industrial-scale’ cyber war not only against our defence systems but our very democracy, he said.

Yet here he is now, willing to play host to the bloodstained old tyrant in his adopted city. Perhaps he could offer to throw in a tour; a tram ride, perhaps, or an invitation to observe a Manchester city council meeting.

The PM must surely be aware of how bad this looks, and what a slap in the face it represents to beleaguered Ukrainians.

At the very least he should issue a formal statement pointing out that the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for Putin’s arrest, that he poses a singular threat to world peace and that he should be treated as an international pariah.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham holds media interviews in No10 North on September 25

Instead, Mr Burnham shrugs his shoulders in pained helplessness. In times of turbulence not seen since the Cold War, Britain needs a wise and steadfast statesman. Instead, we have a provincial mayor flapping in the wind.

Is it any wonder Argentina’s president Javier Milei (who incidentally is also on the G20 guest list) has renewed his country’s claim to the Falklands, or that Mr Trump is minded to back him? Or that Caribbean nations are intensifying their absurd demands for slavery reparations? They can smell weakness.

The lack of will to defend British interests, which began under Sir Keir Starmer and his human rights lawyer cronies, is reaching its apogee under Mr Burnham, who seems incapable of making decisions.

Will he cancel the Chagos surrender? Does he think sanctions against Israel will have any effect beyond alienating our most important ally in the Middle East? Is he preparing to take Britain crawling back into the EU? On these questions and many more he is at best obscure, at worst paralysed with indecision.

He is scarcely any better on domestic issues. Is he really committed to controlling migration, defending the rights of biological women, fighting anti-Semitism, exploiting oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, reducing state spending, easing cost-of-living pressures?

Or is he just another tawdry tax-and-spend socialist, his priorities driven by the unions, poverty lobby and his own terrifyingly lightweight backbenchers.

Mr Burnham has been Prime Minister for just two months, yet already there is a palpable sense of drift and disillusionment around his administration. The overwhelming fear for many is that he is simply not up to the job – that in big times we are lumbered with a small man.