Ask a straight question, get a straight answer. It’s how politics is supposed to work but almost never does, which is why on the rare occasions it happens the result can be faintly chaotic. What did Andy Burnham mean when he said – in response to a question from the Tory MP Harriett Baldwin – that Labour couldn’t partner with the Green party while it remains wedded to the “Zionism is racism” motion its members have just endorsed? Were Green MPs now barred from a future coalition government? If so, what about councils where they are currently sharing power with Labour?

Though Burnham was only confirming what ministers have been arguing privately for days, at first nobody seemed to know: tellingly, it took almost 24 hours for the Labour party chair, Bridget Phillipson, to confirm that unless local Green groups disowned that idea sharpish, “Labour will bring any such local arrangement to an end”. So much for cuddly cross-party Andy, who always seemed so relaxed about rainbow coalitions. Now elected Greens in places such as Sheffield or Lewes must choose between power and members’ wrath, a useful rehearsal for what a hung parliament might feel like.

Westminster is increasingly realising that while nobody knows quite what’s in Burnham’s head except Burnham, unlike most prime ministers he is surprisingly liable just to tell you. He did it earlier this week on a podcast, pointing out that Russia tried to interfere in the Brexit vote (which is true, albeit the sort of truth that for complicated reasons prime ministers don’t generally dwell on). Now the safety catch is off again.

What did he mean with his comments about Labour and the Greens? Most likely just what he said: that the Greens crossed a line and it cannot be overlooked, especially by a party still recovering from its own battle with antisemitism.........

© The Guardian