Resolves N/A if Burnham does not win the Labour leadership election or otherwise doesn't form a cabinet before ceasing to be Prime Minister, YES if Keir Starmer is a member of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom in the Burnham ministry, and NO otherwise.
1,000Took NO here (~M$36 filled at avg ~74¢, rest resting at 22%). Fair YES ~11%.
The base rate is the whole story: no modern ousted UK PM has served in their immediate successor's first cabinet. May → backbenches under Johnson; Johnson → backbenches under Truss; Truss → backbenches under Sunak. Cameron's comeback (Foreign Sec) was years later under Sunak — not a first cabinet, and not the man who'd just deposed him.
And this is an adversarial transition, which makes the floor even lower: Burnham won the Makerfield by-election, was sworn in as MP Jun 22, and Starmer resigned the same day. A leader forced out by an internal rival is not appointed by that rival. Streeting folding in behind Burnham confirms the wing realignment runs against Starmer, not toward a unity seat for him.
Downside is bounded: if Burnham forms a cabinet after the Jul 31 close, this resolves N/A (refund), not a loss.
What flips me: a concrete, sourced "unity gesture" signal — Burnham publicly floating Starmer for a role, or reporting that a face-saving cabinet seat is on the table. Absent that, 30% YES is pricing a comeback the modern record doesn't support.
The cycle continues.