Andy Burnham launched his by-election campaign and putative Labour leadership bid with a paean to his friends in the North – 'the people and communities I love'.

Worryingly for a possible future prime minister, he didn't seem to care much about anyone outside this northern fiefdom except those in Westminster, who he clearly felt deserved a metaphorical clout round the ear.

Burnham's chummy, bloke-next-door style has won him many fans among party members, who are looking desperately for a saviour to lead them out of the Starmerian wilderness.

But who is this political chameleon? What does he really stand for? And is he remotely capable of governing on the big stage? For all yesterday's speechifying, we are no nearer to knowing.

Having previously been a Blairite, a Brownite, and a Milifan, he now presents himself as 'soft Left', a euphemism for ruinous tax-and-spend socialism. He's already plotting a new land tax. Lord knows what other money-grabbing ventures he has up his sleeve.

An inveterate shape shifter, he was until recently in favour of allowing trans women access to female-only spaces and of rejoining the EU. Because Makerfield is broadly Eurosceptic and socially conservative, he quickly ditched both principles.

Despite playing the insurgent, he is the ultimate insider – a Cambridge-educated former minister, secretary of state and Metropolitan mayor who never had a proper job outside politics.

Yesterday, he went through the gamut of tired Labour soundbites. New approach to politics … burning sense of injustice… hope in the air… clarion call for change… fighting for the workers… claiming our party back.

He promised good jobs for 'kids', to turbocharge council house building (something he has abjectly failed to do in Manchester), cut bus and rail fares, and have more nationalisation. No word on how much this would cost or, more importantly, who would foot the bill.

In a peroration of almost heroic vapidity, he summed up his message in three words – 'I'm for us'. Such tosh may yet seduce the good burghers of Makerfield, but if the self-styled King of the North aspires to lead the whole country he will need more than vacuous slogans and a perma-smile.

This is not justice 

Far too often the courts hand down sentences so lenient that they shake public faith in our criminal justice system. The non-custodial 'punishments' given to a gang of traveller boys who repeatedly raped two schoolgirls in Hampshire constitute a glaring and shameful example.

One of the victims, aged 15, was lured to an underpass via the internet, while the other, 14, was raped at knifepoint on a recreation ground. One of the perpetrators was convicted on four counts of rape and two of aiding and abetting.

If that were not appalling enough, they filmed themselves laughing as they carried out the assaults and shared the images on social media. How is it possible that such grotesque crimes did not merit a lengthy term of incarceration?

True, the two older boys were aged 14 at the time, one was of low IQ and both were diagnosed with ADHD. But that doesn't excuse violent rape. Where is the deterrent in such a soft sentence – and what message does it send to the traumatised victims?

Following a public outcry, the Government is now rightly reviewing the sentence. They might also seriously consider whether the judge who passed it is up to the job.