UPDATE: Reviews section refreshed, redesigned, searchable: Go take a look
housing and transport is already devolved. as is much of energy
Tbh TJ. You're repeatedly making a point that Burnham is lazy based on an article you stated you was unable to read that itself doesn't state that Burnham doesn't know these things.
No - I am saying he does not understand the relationship between Holyrood and Westminster. Its not the same as with the Mancheaster mayor and that he does seem to realise that water and rail are in public control in Scotland
edit - see my post on previous page as well.
I am saying he does not understand the relationship between Holyrood and Westminster.
Yeah we get It TJ. No one can understand Scotland, it’s just too complicated and beyond our primitive English intellects.
beyond our primitive English intellects.
Amply evidenced by our need to read articles before forming an opinion of their contents.
1) - again this is already devolved powers
2) the relationship between the councils and Holyrood is devolved. Is Burnham really going to try to override Holyrood?
No, he's going to encourage "Metro Mayors", something that Glasgow has wanted for a few years. This is what the SNP Government is afraid of.
It's something that Susan Aitken (SNP Glasgow council leader and regional chair) would welcome
Andrew Carter, chief executive of Centre for Cities, said the First Minister should “look again” at creating a directly elected mayor for Glasgow City Region, arguing the model could help deliver and lead to improvements to major projects such as the Clyde Metro and the Clyde Tunnel.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/26244915.mayors-scotland-john-swinney-urged-rethink-opposition/
Moving the goal posts much? Encourage metro mayors? Nowt to do with what he claimed in that article!
Again I ask you - how is he going to ensure more council houses are built in Scotland?
As for metro mayors - once again this is not something that is in his power to do.
What is so hard to understand about this? He is saying he is going to do in Scotland things that have already been done ( public control of water and rail) Or things he will not have the power to do ( build more council houses)
Can you please explain to me how that is possible? What mechanism is he going to use?
For Scotland, that means energy, housing and transport. It means taking the cost of bills, rents and buses seriously. It means making sure people are not left overpaying for the basics while their wages stand still and their communities are asked to accept less.
so how is he going to do this? Please explain how is is going to change devolved matters?
What is so hard to understand about this?
It isn't difficult to understand, not even for the English.
It's only you that thinks that he'll need powers to achieve change. Comprise, isn't that how politics works?
There's no point us discussing it, that's for him, the various councils and Hollyrood to discuss.
He's going to use the cover of the great Tunnocks teacake crisis to declare Martial Law, remove the rights of all Scots under emergency legislation, burn Holyrood to the ground and rule over you like a medieval monarch over a fiefdom.
Don't be fooled by the affable northern bloke routine, its just a cover for his tyrannical intent towards those north of the border
He's going to declare Marshall Law, remove the rights of all Scots under emergency legislation, burn Holyrood to the ground and rule over you like a medieval monarch over a fiefdom.
Don't be fooled by the affable northern bloke routine, its just a cover for his tyrannical intent
Shhhh! I was keeping quiet about that and his plans for the Barnett Formula (that he's already U-turned on)
What is so hard to understand about this?
It isn't difficult to understand, not even for the English.
It's only you that thinks that he'll need powers to achieve change. Comprise, isn't that how politics works?
There's no point us discussing it, that's for him, the various councils and Hollyrood to discuss.
So he is actually not going to do any of these things then that he claims he is going to do in Scotland because they are either already in place or he doesn't have the power to do so nor any remit to do so?
So you accept then its actually a load of hot air from him?
Cheezy peeps, find a better hill to die on other than the contents of an article you didn't read
Its just very irritating when yet another Westminster politician fails so completely to understand the UK constitutional settlement and makes claims about Scotland that have no basis in reality.
I do note no one has actually explained to me how he is going to do these things (*timba has at least tried)\
laters peeps
So you accept then its actually a load of hot air from him?
I accept that it's a load of disingenuously copied and pasted hot air from the SNP that's repeated without question.
I'd give anyone who isn't involved directly in devolved matters to be ignorant of them (as @dazh and @tjagain have pointed out, anyone to the south or east of any border are clearly too stupid to be able to hold anything to do with politics in any other region in their teeny heads anyway) including and up to Mayor of a major city - I mean, why would they?
What's not excusable is that who-ever's job it was to proofread any article written (probably by some lowly harassed staffer) needs that role taken away from him/her for not double checking what the situation actually is, and for letting the same article (with names and places changed) to go to press - did they honestly think no one would spot it?
Draws sad comparison with previous* administration's lack of comms skills. 2/10, needs improving
*Edit: current, obvs...Freudian slip
What's not excusable is that who-ever's job it was to proofread any article written (probably by some lowly harassed staffer) needs that role taken away from him/her for not double checking what the situation actually is, and for letting the same article (with names and places changed) to go to press - did they honestly think no one would spot it?
For me, it's partly about competence but, also, perhaps, lack of communication and possible over-centralisation. All it needed was to check with the leaders of the Welsh and Scottish branches of the party that what was being said was relevant.
All it needed was to check with the leaders of the Welsh and Scottish branches of the party that what was being said was relevant.
You'd have though a quick bloody Google would be a decent starting point frankly.
So it begins... the "better at communication" line as regards Burnham was that, basically, he doesn't sound as boring as Starmer. Nothing much more. A great soundtrack and relaxed demeanour doesn't necessarily result in good communication, even if it's good marketing. Once in office, the details will really matter. I wish him the best of luck. He'll need it.
Looks like a done deal.
Yup. Big change from when he was manoeuvring last conference season and even Gorton byelection.
Something I have found weird with the political commentators all suggesting it was a masterplan which came out of nowhere. He had several attempts all of which failed until Starmer had screwed up to much and even then luck is involved that the reform stories didnt kick off properly until now.
Am I the only one who wonders how a person with no government experience can become national leader? OK, I hadn't even heard of the bloke a couple of weeks ago but surely this is taking the piss
Errr he's been a minister* at least twice to my knowledge? Also Mayor of Manchester is kind of local government, innit?
*Might not be correct term but holder of an executive post in government anyhoo
Am I the only one who wonders how a person with no government experience can become national leader? OK, I hadn't even heard of the bloke a couple of weeks ago but surely this is taking the piss
Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Culture Secretary. Then in opposition several shadow ministerial positions. He has previously run twice for leadership of the Labour Party. So it's not that he has no government experience, it's that you hadn't heard of him.
He was Secretary of State for Health as well. Plus minister of state for health earlier in his career. As opposed to Starmer who had no Ministerial experience before being PM and it really shows.
Burnham has also spent longer as a MP than Starmer - but with a break to broaden his experience running GM
He is genuinely far more qualified than Starmer. The question of legitimacy, not selected by the membership and not on the 2024 GE "ballot" has more legs, but it will be forgotten quickly by the public especially if things improve
Maybe he needs to play up his previous experience a bit initially if it isn't in the public consciousness. Political nerds like me often forget that people don't have encyclopedic knowledge of Ministerial appointments 15+ years ago
So... he's PM on Monday, and today is saying he hasn't made any decisions as to who'll be in his government. He's not allowing any questions from journalists. His only policy commitment on becoming party leader seems to be "Labour means Labour". There's no manifesto. No commitments. No aims to be measured against. What are we getting?
Maybe he'll continue with the current lot for now, can't see much else changing fundamentally so might as well keep the old crew.
BBC have an interesting article outlining the 5 main challenges he faces.
Welfare now at £58b rising to £78b in 4 years, number of people on PIP doubled from 2 million in 2018 to 4 million now.
Finding an extra £9b for defence
Social care for the elderly
Building 1.3 million homes in the next 3 years
1 million Neets
Taxes are going to need to go up a lot which will upset a lot of people who don't rely on welfare etc.
or a lot of people will be seeing their incomes cut which will upset people who do depend on Welfare
Or both which will upset everyone.
Maybe he'll continue with the current lot for now, can't see much else changing fundamentally so might as well keep the old crew.
Today he's been talking up Monday as the "biggest political change in 40/50 years" (I can't remember which), so I guess that doesn't mean the same people delivering the same programme. Who knows though.
As long as the millipede is not in No.11 we have a slight hope of peace. That millipede bloke is a dangerous person to be given any important position, completely out of touch with mankind.
Come back to planet Earth.
What ever happened to Zombie Maggots?
What ever happened to Zombie Maggots?
Millipede vs Zombie Maggot 🤣
I think the latter is reserved for whoever appoint millipede to important post. Millipede is just millipede because that's the nature of millipede. 😆
No aims to be measured against. What are we getting?
This does seem to be a rinse and repeat of Starmer and labour together last time round.
Get control of the labour party after a bunch of dubious internal politics and then?
Its even more tricky this time round since at least for Starmer there was in theory some time to plan for office.
Hopefully we will be surprised but we shall see. I cant say I am hopeful given the starting point. It does seem to just be a Labour together reboot and they seem rather short on ideas.
I think the latter is reserved for whoever appoint millipede to important post.
Can you explain why clearly and concisely? Please start with an analysis of how Ed Millibands background in the treasury compares to others.
Can you explain why clearly and concisely? Please start with an analysis of how Ed Millibands background in the treasury compares to others.
I don't like his aggressive net zero green agenda. His views on this seems to be absolute and I ain't buying that. It sounds as if net zero green agenda is the magic bullet to solve all problems. I prefer a balance approach. Not absolute in either direction. You may argue that it is time to invest in next zero etc but it will take years to see the results, albeit it will need to start with a single step, but going by the British way of life, there is zero chance of getting there other than putting more hardship for most. Sort yourself out first at the top then talk to me about net zero. Look at HS2 what a joke. If the govt can't even sort a project like that how on earth are they going to improve the nation? The current political class are all going to fail. Slow car crash simply because there really is no credible person to lead the nation anymore. Seven PMs in 10 years! What is that? Burnham will be gone in one term too if he is unlucky.
Burnham will be gone in one term too if he is unlucky.
You’re probably right. But then this instability is what you wanted from Brexit, yes?
You’re probably right. But then this instability is what you wanted from Brexit, yes?
It was already unstable before that.
Seven PMs in a decade?
Seven PMs in a decade?
Opps my bad, correction ... 😬
- David Cameron (2010–2016)
- Theresa May (2016–2019)
- Boris Johnson (2019–2022)
- Liz Truss (2022)
- Rishi Sunak (2022–2024)
- Keir Starmer (2024–2026)
Feels like yesterday.
instability is hard wired into neoliberalism not being able to fix or rather not wanting to fix actual problems that have caused chaotic economics and inequality etc.Burnham will be gone in one term too if he is unlucky.
You’re probably right. But then this instability is what you wanted from Brexit, yes?
Brexit is a symptom not a cause.
Let's keep trying neoliberalism shall we and see what we get?
The same. And people hate it.
Burnham's chancellor choice will define his failure or success.
Whoever that is. Still, he has a plan, he’s ready… he says he’s not decided who his chancellor is yet. What could go wrong?
He’s said it’s the end of neoliberalism though. It’s as meaningless when he says it as when you do. We’ll have a mixed economy, and the private sector will be as intertwined with public services and infrastructure as ever. Hopefully he’ll follow what’s happening on rail with something similar for water. It’ll be a start. I doubt he’ll even do much there though. We wait and see… we’re all in the dark…
Burnham's chancellor choice will define his failure or success.
This absolutely ^^^
No money in the pocket of people and keep taking from the people, he will out as quickly as he came in.
I don't like his aggressive net zero green agenda. His views on this seems to be absolute and I ain't buying that.
So aggressive he's expected to overturn the ban on new oil & gas drilling in the North Sea ?
This could be an apt watch for anyone believing in Burnhams re-industrialisation drive
