Chameleon Magazine

 🗂️🦁Starmer dodged a bullet, Burnham holstered the gun, and the press called it “an internal disagreement.” But make no mistake: this was not about policy — it was about predation. What Westminster sold as a committee squabble was, in fact, a slow-motion ambush.

🐾 Beneath the Blazers, Bloodsport

Welcome to the jungle, where the predators wear cufflinks and the prey fills out paperwork. Westminster’s finest spin merchants would have you believe Andy Burnham’s near-challenge to Keir Starmer was just some “procedural hiccup.” That’s adorable. Next you’ll tell us foxes write emails before eating rabbits.

Burnham isn’t clumsy. He’s calculating. The man didn’t miss — he waited. Because you don’t topple a power broker when the herd’s watching BBC Breakfast. You do it when the terrain — the silent, shifting landscape of public opinion, internal grumblings, and IOUs — starts favouring the insurgent.

And what did Starmer do? Nothing. Elegantly. Strategically. He let the machinery of the party — the local pygmies, the gatekeepers of grey-cardigans-and-rules — shield him. They did their job with all the charisma of a GDPR compliance seminar, then patted themselves on the back for saving the system. 🎉

But here’s the twist: the system wasn’t under threat — he was.

This wasn’t about Labour’s rulebook. It was about dominance theatre. And dominance backed by procedure is like a lion protecting its pride by quoting the zoo’s fire safety manual.

Starmer looked strong because the stage was cleared, not because the threat had vanished. The real danger is lurking off-camera, quieter, biding its time. The political equivalent of a sniper in the treeline, sipping tea and waiting for fog.

Burnham said very little. And that silence? That’s the safety catch still on. 🔒

So no, Westminster, this wasn’t a kerfuffle. It was a recalibration of intent. A reminder that ambition wears smiles until it doesn’t — and that the real power doesn’t argue, it waits.

The only thing more laughable than Burnham’s supposed “defeat” is the media’s delusion that the absence of a gunshot means the hunt is off.

This jungle? It remembers everything.

Still think it’s just a tiff in the tea room? Why do we keep letting power games get dressed up as admin disputes? Are we buying the myth, or just exhausted by the rerun? Tell us who you think really holds the trigger — and what happens when the rules run out of rope. 🪓