madness if the greens really are going to contest that seat, they got pretty much nowhere in the locals there and Makerfield doesnt have the age or ethnic dynamics that favoured them in Gorton
Burnham certainly has some good ideas on voter reform and devolution and by all accounts is good at message discipline etc & I reckon his take on things like HS2 would be very interesting
BUT the £ & bond markets are already having a 'mare at the prospect of him loosening the fiscal rules, he will be portrayed as a Truss inflation monster
I was quoting daz, tho it is supported by what's in his resignation letter.
Unless you have a draft of that letter written several days earlier I would treat it with a pinch of salt. He went for the top job but didnt have the support.
Unless you have a draft of that letter written several days earlier I would treat it with a pinch of salt. He went for the top job but didnt have the support.
so he resigned knowing he didn't have support to go for it, calling for a field of candidates? Why then did he resign?
To answer my own question, clearly dislodging Starmer is the overarching consideration to avoid a Reform government. Likely not an easy thing to do and at some personal cost but that's politics, and unlike Starmer (who I like fwiw), he's a politician to the roots of his boots. He'd like to be PM as he's said, but so far Starmer isn't dislodged and Burnham unfortunately is not in parliament. I hope Burnham makes it, all the way I really do... Dunno about psychodrama, it's certainly soap opera
and Labour to loose the mayoral seat.
If Burnham loses Makerfield he'll still be mayor. He only has to resign his job as mayor if he wins. TBH even with the greens I think he'll walk Makerfield. Most of the Reform support is anti-Starmer protest/hatred. I doubt even devoted green voters will risk voting for their own candidate because they know what is at stake and are not stupid.
so he resigned knowing he didn't have support to go for it, calling for a field of candidates? Why then did he resign?
Nope. He had gone for it, including having allies set the stage by resigning, before turning out to be a damp squib. He then had the awkward choice of what to do. Not resigning would have been a tad embarassing and unlikely to go down well with those who leapt out the door first.
He had gone for it
no he hadn't , as in would still be SoS Health and Social Care if he'd not resigned. He went for it on Weds.
Good summary of labours thinking spending & reform
my take is that Starmer Reeves have similar thoughts, but much more cautious regards bond markets spiking inflation
Dipped into Social Media and the hate being directed towards Burnham has already properly ramped up. Apparently he’s working for Israel and has fascist military policies.
🤷🏻♂️
Anyone that thinks Burnham will get an easier ride from either side of the political spectrum than Starmer are giving in to wishful thinking, IMHO.
Take that useful summary above about the economic options for any future Labour leader… any and all of those options will be described as “not at all radical” if they are put into practice, under any Labour leader… by opponents on the left and right.
Anyone that thinks Burnham will get an easier ride from either side of the political spectrum than Starmer are giving in to wishful thinking, IMHO.
He's bound to have lot of muck thrown at him by the right but I think a lot of "natural" Labour voters who have voted Reform because of Starmer will swing back to support Burnham. Whether enough will... who knows? The bookies currently have Burnham as odds on favourite for Makerfield.
Nicked this from the Beeb.
Former Green leader Caroline Lucas said she hoped the party would not contest the seat in order to give Burnham the best chances of seeing off the challenge from Reform.
"There are times when it's more important to put country before party. This is one of them," she wrote on X.
Unfortunately she’s not the leader (I wish she still was). The party has changed… in a way the public seem to like… I preferred her far more professional, considered, nonpartisan approach. The public seem much more excited about the populist insurgent “replace Labour” approach of the current leader though.
He's bound to have lot of muck thrown at him by the right but I think a lot of "natural" Labour voters who have voted Reform because of Starmer will swing back to support Burnham. Whether enough will... who knows? The bookies currently have Burnham as odds on favourite for Makerfield.
From a BBC voxpop earlier, a couple of former Labour turned Reform voters said Burnham would be enough for them to return to what they felt was their "proper" political home. There were also a couple of "anyone but Reform comments.
I would love to see the Greens step aside to avoid splitting the centre left vote and help Burnham get in. Most people to the left of Bad Enoch seem to agree that the country would be in a better place with him as PM, and the Greens seem to be pragmatic enough to at least consider it. Obviously, it may later turn out that some overseas based tofu billionaire had given Polanski and Starmer £1m each to make the deal happen...
@ kelvin & MoreCashThanDash
Agreed on all of that, I think it's an interesting statement though (Lucas) and I do wonder if the Greens will not actively contest the seat. We shall see I suppose.
It's personality politics, most voters don't have a clue where Burnham, Starmer etc sit in the political spectrum, if they did they wouldn't vote for Farage who'd privatise the NHS and erode the welfare state. Who the red wall disproportionately rely on.
See USA and Trump and his electorate.
Dipped into Social Media and the hate being directed towards Burnham has already properly ramped up. Apparently he’s working for Israel and has fascist military policies
This isn’t Gorton and Denton. Gaza and Israel will not be in play in Wigan, so that’s the Greens main weapon out of the equation.
The thing is with Andy is that since leaving Westminster over a decade ago, he’s successfully distanced himself from the London-centric party to such a degree that lots of people who don’t vote Labour, vote for Andy. They just don't associate him with the main central Westminster party at all. He’s almost seen as an independent.
He has a cross-party appeal few politicians have ever managed. He’s done this by being non-partisan, inclusive, pragmatic and most importantly… good at his job.
A comment you hear all the time around Manchester, even from natural Tory voters is “he just gets things done”. He’s does too! His record speaks for itself in exactly the areas voters care most about.
Reform aren’t going to be able to just pin the failings on this or previous governments on Andy, as they do with their usual politics of grievance, because he isn’t part of that system. In fact, he’s consistently been one of its most vocal critics.
He’s a very effective campaigner too. I see him winning comfortably in Makerfield, despite the usual hysterical pro-Reform press coverage
even from natural Tory voters is “he just gets things done
Apart from when its politically difficult or unpopular and then he just abandons it like an orphan in a 18thC novel. - see Manchester ULEZ for example. It literally took some taxi drivers driving in circles around St Peters, and it was dropped
All the things people say about him - he's effective, he's cross party seem to be true enough, I've met him at local Labour events and he's blokey and friendly enough. He also (to me at least) gives off massive inauthenticity vibes. He clearly wants to be at Westminster, he's the most "politician" politician I've ever met (if that makes any sense)
He has got name recognition, and that counts for more than anything else in elections, but there's an inconsistency that sets my teeth on edge, every time a possible position opens in Westminster he's like a dog on heat, and than it closes and he's all "I love Manchester, my hearts here, and I'm not leaving". Like I said; inauthentic
Apart from when its politically difficult or unpopular and then he just abandons it like an orphan in a 18thC novel. - see Manchester ULEZ for example. It literally took some taxi drivers driving in circles around St Peters, and it was dropped
I don’t think you can lay that one at his door. That’s was a scheme foisted in them by Boris Johnson’s government, despite them subsequently disowning it and trying to blame the Manchester combined authority for it when it all went tits up
Which is exactly the type of thing Andy has been railing against for years. An over-mighty and arrogant Westminster forcing their policies onto the regions without any consultation. Hence his pitch to devolve real power to the regions and bring this kind of nonsense to an end
Manchester ULEZ for example. It literally took some taxi drivers driving in circles around St Peters, and it was dropped
Oh for gods sake, the Manchester ULEZ scheme was scrapped because it was fundamentally stupid. Here in Tod anyone anyone with an old diesel would have had to pay 9 quid to get to the M62 so instead would have gone the other way down the valley sending all the polluting vehicles through Hebden Bridge. I think Burnham scrapped it because he realised it was going to screw loads of working people in a massive area.
Burnham certainly has some good ideas on voter reform and devolution and by all accounts is good at message discipline etc
Does he have what it take to ensure that future governments need majority support not minority support before he hands the reins over to Reform (and the minority among us ready to vote for them)?
Burnham is a classic weathervane politician. Looks to see the way the wind is blowing and then shouts " follow me"
He has no principles and will do and say anything to get power.
I liked it when Guy Martin told Burnham to take his shoes off when entering that eco house.
There’s a man of the people!
Uncle Jezza… do you just copy and paste that exact same statement every time anyone mentions his name? 😂
I just get tired of people calling him the messiah. He is just a very naughty boy
Some good news for Andy anyway. Looks like there will be another option available for those in Wigan who think Farage and his lot are a bunch of tofu-eating wokerati communists!
I wonder if their candidate will be from Great Yarmouth?
I’m predicting a good result for Restore, even getting just 15% of the vote share would be massive for a party that’s been around for 5 minutes and most people haven’t even heard of but I’m quietly confident they’ll do better still.
but I’m quietly confident they’ll do better still.
I reckon whatever online bubble you inhabit might not be that representative of the real world
I don’t think you can lay that one at his door.
Oh for gods sake, the Manchester ULEZ scheme was scrapped because it was fundamentally stupid.
But literally nothing has replaced it. The fundamental idea is not wrong, air quality in cities is poor, has really bad outcomes for children and the elderly, and Manchester's air quality is poor. There's been some hand-wavey - oh we'll get cleaner taxis, and electric buses, but other than that, at the first sign of it being something that wasn't going to work, or was unpopular and that he wasn't prepared to put his name to, it was gone. That's not leadership.
at the first sign of it being something that wasn't going to work, or was unpopular and that he wasn't prepared to put his name to, it was gone
It wasn’t his idea. It was foisted on the combined authority from Westminster by Boris Johnson. It was deeply flawed (as things foisted on you from Westminster tend to be) and when there was a massive backlash against it Boris and co dropped it like a hot turd and tried to shift the blame for the whole debacle onto Manchester.
What did you expect him to do? Take the rap for another one of Boris Johnson’s ill-conceived brain-farts?
Oh for gods sake, the Manchester ULEZ scheme was scrapped because it was fundamentally stupid.
Should've gone ahead, just with a smaller size and without the black cab exemptions that London got. Decent subsidies for bus companies to run both electric buses and extend the hours the routes operates.
But literally nothing has replaced it.
Not sure that's completely true. There are a few areas of Manchester that unrecognisably cleaner and calmer with the changes to how the streets are used.
Anyway, I'm more concerned about TJs comment (which is how I felt about Burnham during past leadership contests). Not that he's changed his thinking and direction (that's learning), but that others will have very different ideas about what a Burnham government would be like. Currently there is lots of support for him taking over from people inside (and outside) Labour that I think/feel are expecting very different shifts in government policy if he becomes PM. The reality if he succeeds will need to be much narrower... and then what happens...?
and when there was a massive backlash against it Boris and co dropped it like a hot turd
CAZ currently operate in London, Bristol, Birmingham, Bath, Newcastle Portsmouth, Sheffield, Bradford, Aberdeen Dundee, Glasgow and Edinburgh. The schemes generally don't charge for vehicles with compliant engines Euro 6 for diesels and Euro 4 for petrol cars (cars from about 2005).
The backlash in Manchester was just the same as pretty much everywhere else, the Cities and mayors pressed ahead, because clean air is pretty important. Dirty air kills people after all. Manchester stands out as a place where it wasn't really implemented with any sort of commitment despite the over £100 million of public money spent on infrastructure.
Framing everything as a good or bad thing simply because it's "Boris" (or whomever your chosen goody or baddie is) why we're having a leadership contest in this country again, despite the fact that no one outside the press and team behind both Streeting and Burnham thinking that it's a grand idea.
Some caller on the the radio at the weekend said there is nothing "soft" or "left" about Makerfield - they are more likely to be lured by Reform. One lost seat. One damaged PM. 2 pretenders in the wilderness.
The backlash in Manchester was just the same as pretty much everywhere else, the Cities and mayors pressed ahead, because clean air is pretty important.
Clean air is important, but so is democracy. We can applaud the 'leadership' (or arrogance some might call it) of city authorities pressing ahead with a scheme which is very unpopular (and in Manchester we know that because there was a referendum on a similar congestion scheme which was massively rejected), or we could conclude that's why we now have Reform councillors taking control of cities and possibly soon Reform MPs taking control of the country. This isn't China, if local authorities and govts do stuff that the people don't want, they'll pay a price at the ballot box.
Clean air is important, but so is democracy. We can applaud the 'leadership' (or arrogance some might call it) of city authorities pressing ahead with a scheme which is very unpopular
And yet no doubt you'll applaud as he takes the same view point as you do on things like public ownership of water? Astonishing hypocrisy.
This isn't China, if local authorities and govts do stuff that the people don't want, they'll pay a price at the ballot box.
I understand this "keep poisoning the kids or the old people won't vote for you" line, but I think the people of Manchester were let down on this. There were other ways to help people that rely on old vans for their livelihoods etc, rather than totally withdraw from any controls on polluting vehicles. Burham got this one wrong, IMHO. I don't agree that "nothing" has happened to help air quality in Manchester, but it's very much been limited to a few (successful) city centre schemes (such as Deansgate as mentioned above, and the University area). Oh, and "voters" have been moaning and groaning about those schemes as well! Where it comes to air quality, you have to feel the backlash and do it anyway...
And yet no doubt you'll applaud as he takes the same view point as you do on things like public ownership of water?
??
Last time I looked there was general support for taking water into public control. Nationalisation (or public control at least) of utilities has consitently been one of the most popular 'left' policies for the last 10 years or so.
So we'll do things that are popular, but not really pressing, but we're not going to things are are really pressing, but are unpopular?
Burnham is going to be faced with the same challenges that Starmer's currently wrestling with. A chronically under-performing economy which in turn forces our hand to make choices because we're in hock to the Bond Market. Starmer has tried to raise taxes and special interests groups have forced him to backtrack, he's tried to make small changes to pensioners - didn't even try to tackle the triple-lock' just a an annual hand out, that's been U turned.
We need to spend more on defense , the NHS, schools, social care...transport infrastructure, and institutions to name but a few, so he'll need to have plans in place for all of those, not just announcements. Effective reforms become reality only after the drawing up of credible blueprints, and adjusting for practicalities, the rewriting of laws, the securing and effective marshaling of resources, all of that boring stuff takes time (probably more than 22 months) We are a society that worries chronically about public debt, yet won't end un-affordable pensions triple lock. We've sunk untold billions into building high-speed rail only to pare it back to the point where it connects just Birmingham to London
None of this will change from Starmer to Burnham, and the media and febrile voters won't give him more than weeks to get his shit together, and he won't because no one has any patience left for real, but dull and badly needed stability, and we'll be back to square one.
What will change from Starmer to Burnham? Given 22 months, or whatever time we'll have 'till the next general election, what are people expecting to happen above and beyond what is already underway...? Do they think/hope Burnham will stop the anti-aslym seeker stuff? Will he make cuts to any benefits? Narrow or widen who can claim them? Go further and faster on tax increases for the wealthy? Keep up the NHS spending, or redirect some to Social Care? What about charges and restrictions for non-citizen workers? Different measures to cope with prison numbers? No changes to which crimes can be tried by jury? Pretty sure we can expect more devolution... but that's already on the way. The bills to workers, renters and freeholders rights... do they not go far enough? Will he strengthen them, or weaken them as industry campaign groups are calling for? Same with minimum wage... keep increasing it? Especially for young people? Or roll back efforts to do away with poverty pay and insecure work? What's going to happen for Universities? Overseas students? Shifting terms for student loads? What about Europe... stop the plans to makes us closer to our neighbours? Speed them up? Drop red lines from the manifesto? What's the change of direction? And how long will he be given to show that we've reached somewhere new... somewhere new that gains rather than loses votes for Labour?
So we'll do things that are popular, but not really pressing, but we're not going to things are are really pressing, but are unpopular?
Whether you like it or not we live in a democracy and govt can only do what the people will allow it to do. There's a debate whether we should be more like China and railroad through reform irrespective of what popular opinion will accept. We'd end up with much better infrastructure and public services probably, but then we'd lose a lot of the things which make us a democratic, relatively free society. Leadership isn't forcing stuff on people, it's persuading them that it's worth doing and gaining the trust to be able to do it. Starmer evidently hasn't done any of that.
None of this will change from Starmer to Burnham, and the media and febrile voters won't give him more than weeks to get his shit together, and he won't because no one has any patience left for real, but dull and badly needed stability, and we'll be back to square one.
No the reality of governing won't change. But what will I think will change is the method and the framing of it. Starmer has approached it as if the voters and democracy don't really matter, as if it's just a process that has to be executed by civil servants and ministers without much connection to the real world and the messy business of public opinion or experience. Burham I think will change that. The key difference will be the principle that govt exists to impact the lives of working people who form the vast majority rather than serve the interests of a small, insulated elite which long ago forgot how or gave up on doing things which might be a little different to the status quo.
What will change from Starmer to Burnham? Given 22 months, or whatever time we'll have 'till the next general election, what are people expecting to happen above and beyond what is already underway...?
Probably some good old fashioned retail politics to demonstrate that the govt has the backs of working people while he lays out the framework for devolved power to region and local communities and taking utilities and public transport under public control. A freeze on fuel prices, caps on energy bills, freeze or reductions on train/bus prices, maybe even a higher lower tax threshold.
If you think Burnham means a radical change in direction I have a bridge to sell you.
none of that list will happen
Starmer has approached it as if the voters and democracy don't really matter, as if it's just a process that has to be executed by civil servants and ministers without much connection to the real world
This is clearly bollocks though, Every time a special interest group has raised issues about a policy - Land tax, winter fuel allowance, they've backed down, so to say that he not 'concerned with the real world' is clearly wrong. Plus, he was handed a massive majority, in times past, that would've been the signal to pretty much do what you want, Starmer's ability to do that has been severely curtailed right the start
The key difference will be the principle that govt exists to effect the lives of working people who form the vast majority rather than the interests of a small, insulated elite
You can't possibly say that Starmer's interest is a small insulated elite with a straight face, given they've just passed a Renter Act, and are busy with a Workers Rights Act.
