He also said he’ll ban international friendlies during the Premier League season.
hes got it in the bag!
Average tenure of a PL manager over last 10 years is c.1.8 years...
Average tenure of a UK Prime Minister over the last 10 years is c.1.7-2.0 years.
Is this worryingly correlational?
(Sorry, late to the piece and completely tongue in cheek...maybe we shouldn't let anyone who likes PL football vote.)
FFS man the Manchester congestion charge died in 2008 and burnham became mayor in 2017.
Er, wrong cockeyed money making scheme?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrl2m16v13o
I've never been able to understand @tjagain insistence that Burnham 'plays the race card' what is this all about exactly?
I've lost count of how many times he's stated this and how many times I've asked him to provide some evidence of this. He never has previously, no matter how many times he's been asked and he's not going to now, either.
Maybe we should appply the same principle and all start saying that TJ is actually related to Putin and is the captain of a Russian shadow fleet oil tanker? We don't have to provide any evidence of this, obviously. He just is, because we all say he is.
What've you go to say about that then Ivan?
Can you provide us with any evidence whatsoever of Andy Burnham 'playing the race card'?
I have done multiple times and when he orgionally did it you agreed it was disgusting.
deniable dog whistles
im in a car beside loch ness so cant do it now but ill find the quotes and post them
I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for this Andy Burnham's dip into racism exposé. Hope it's not his well known time as the policy chief for the Klan.
read scotrotes link to my previous posting of some of his comments a few posts above.
its a clear dogwhistle done deliberately
this is just one of a series of statement he made
"The free movement of people within the European Union has made British streets unsafe, a senior Labour MP suggested on Wednesday.
Former Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham, said a failure to deal with people’s concerns about immigration was risking public safety.
“It is time for many of us on this side of the House to confront a hard truth,” he told the Commons, during an opposition debate on Brexit.
“Our reluctance in confronting this [immigration] debate is undermining the cohesion of our communities and the safety of our streets."
“I am no longer prepared to be complit in this His speech did not make clear why public safety had been put on risk.
Burnham said that immigration numbers needed to fall because “there is nothing socialist about open borders.” The free movement of people within the EU had been “defeated at the ballot box and is no longer an option,” he said.
Burnham claimed that the large influx of EU migrants was “not working for the most deprived areas of our country” and suggested that it had “made life more difficult where it is already hardest”."
OK, having read the speeches he made at the time, there's some context.
He was clearly talking about public services groaning under the strain of additional recipients, hyper local economic concerns, and voter anxiety, all of which are (or were at the time) real things that it absolutely is in the wheel house for any socialist politician. The same thing happens to socialist politicians when they speak on equally stridently viewed topics like welfare reform and policing - both are trad labour hard lines that some (for want of a better term) Fabians get wound-up about.
Now, you could say - The use of this sort of language actually does no good, it's imagery is a well trod path that appeals to a certain nationalistic demographic who hold [sometimes virulent] anti-immigration views and a politician like Burnham should be more careful, or that blaming immigrants for 'stretching' public services actually just shifts the blame from failures.
Both views are valid, although it's clear it's not what Burnham was trying to do - and that bit is important, this isn't a rivers of blood moment, and wasn't designed as one, it's at best; cloth-eared He's not intending for it to be a dog whistle, and has said so subsequently. @tjagain has, as is his normal way, decided on one particular view about it, and has determined that because he has thus spake - he is correct, and will die on it's hill.
Lack of nuance @tjagain, not that you do nuance...
of course its a dog whistle. in his first mayoral campaign he was under threat from the right and tbey were making immigration an issue. This was his response. A cleverly crafted dogwhistle with plausible deniability.
He made a series of interventions like this.
the context makes it obvious, the repeated nature of the comments make it obvious
he is too clever not to have inteended it
Burnham will say anything to get elected
Nope. I've read that through a couple of times and I can't see how this is in any way 'playing the race card'?
On the strength of that, I'd retitle your somewhat hysterical 'Andy Burnham is a racist!' interpretation as 'Andy Burnham raises issues about levels of immigration'
You could equally argue that it's you and people who share your worldview that's the problem here, which he refers too (completely legitimately) in this statement:
“Our reluctance in confronting this [immigration] debate is undermining the cohesion of our communities and the safety of our streets."
He's got a point. Because those on the left would scream 'RACIST!' at anyone who even raised the subject of immigration, the subsequent failure to engage with peoples concerns on the subject essentially handed the argument over to the likes of Little Tommy Ten Names and Nigel Five Houses. With predictable results.
The statements you refer too are clearly pre-2016 (as they refer to EU immigration), so lets just have a look at the ten years since then and have a think about where that pearl-clutching attitude to discussing immigration has got us?
Unfortunately, we're now in exactly the same boat (no pun intended) with those on the left soiling their petticoats in faux horror as soon as anyone even mentions the subject of welfare reform. Depressingly, I'm sure the end result will be exactly the same.
He's got a point. Because those on the left would scream 'RACIST!' at anyone who even raised the subject of immigration
You are letting your habit of being led by the hard right press kick in again regurgitating their claims without thought or consideration. It is also pretty ****ing rich coming from you and your generally rather unnuanced views about reform voters and co.
Whilst there were a very small subset who would apply it to anyone discussing immigration.
Its just the hard right press using their standard tactic for claiming victimhood and avoiding an actual discussion by amplifying a minority view and presenting it as the standard view of their opponents with the handy implication you cant actually debate now.
A cursory look shows that immigration and, for that matter, welfare reform are never out of the ****ing headlines.
Welfare is a great example like the NHS in that people announce it cant be discussed and/or reformed when its a)endlessly discussed and b)endlessly "reformed". The problem is the reforms make things worse because they are based on fantasy right wing ideologies and the "we cant discuss" really means "we dont want to discuss our ****ups" and just want to blame something.
I would agree we are screwed though but for rather different reasons than you.
of course its a dog whistle.
Open borders has always been anti-socialist - Owners will exploit immigrants and good paying union jobs will disappear. [goes the thinking] Increase the population in any deprived area and public services will groan under the strain. Nothing about this is at all controversial from someone like Burnham. You can't show that he meant it as a dog whistle, the evidence isn't there for it. You've just decided that because that's how you interpret it, it must be the case. Pointless arguing with you about it.
I don't think either claim - that he'll say anything to be elected, and that he's racist are true.
He's got a point. Because those on the left would scream 'RACIST!' at anyone who even raised the subject of immigration, the subsequent failure to engage with peoples concerns on the subject essentially handed the argument over to the likes of Little Tommy Ten Names and Nigel Five Houses. With predictable results.
Agreed. Whether you like it or not, ordinary people *are* concerned about immigration. Exaggerated and hysterical coverage by right wing MSM is a massive contributor to this. So how do we address this? I'm pretty sure that the answer is not screaming "Racist!" or accusing anyone who dares to raise these concerns of "playing the race card". This is fuel to the Restore / Reform fire.
You are letting your habit of being led by the hard right press kick in again regurgitating their claims without thought or consideration.
Ah yes, the usual argument from our lefty freedom fighters (power to the people and all that, comrade), right on cue.... anyone who disagrees with them is an unthinking drone and slave to the military industrial complex, incapable of independent thought and has their opinions spoon-fed to them by the right wing press?
Not remotely patronising and always a good way to get everyone to appreciate your obviously superior worldview.
Anyway... back to the actual subject of the thread... Keir Starmer....
Surely PMQ's and all sorts of other things now are now just going to be a complete farce? He's going to stand there at the despatch box today and any last vestiges of authority he had are now long gone. Everyone knows that he's history. Completely dead in the water. Kemi will doubtless be even smugger than ever, which is quite some achievement, given how inexplicably pleased with herself she usually looks. It's just going to be ritual humiliation.
I still can't believe that after 14 years of Tory rule, 2 years into government the Labour Party has managed to totally **** this up to this degree
It's just going to be ritual humiliation.
I doubt that Kemi will be able to make any capital even as the most deepest wish of any opposition politician comes true. She's entirely inept.
Not remotely patronising and always a good way to get everyone to appreciate your obviously superior worldview.
That's pretty rich, considering your oft-expressed views on Reform voters.
He's going to stand there at the despatch box today and any last vestiges of authority he had are now long gone.
Not really. He isn't actually challenged - yet.
Burnham does not have an easy route into the 'safe' seat. If Reform take it he's screwed forever. His vision of himself as PM is 'just the same, but without Starmer'. It's not the most engaging of strategies.
He's being dressed up as the King in the North, but there's as many folk up here think he's a nob than think he's the great leader - despite how he's portrayed on the BBC
Streeting isn't popular, despite actually offering an alternative vision to actually address some of the problems that only one other party acknowledges as a problem. The B word is bigger than immigration as an issue, but only the Lib Dems have the nerve to even bring it up in conversation.
Streeting is too startled and blinky to be intimidating, but at least he's offering something new.
incapable of independent thought and has their opinions spoon-fed to them by the right wing press?
Thank you for proving the point. You immediately go full ****ing batshit crazy incapable of any nuance and projecting to the nth degree.
As for "lefty freedom fighters" shall we look through the history of the political threads etc? Since there is a pretty ****ing clear history of you simply hurling abuse at reform voters vs us nasty lefty types taking a more nuanced view.
Not remotely patronising
****ing hell. You really are unselfaware arent you? Which does explain a lot about how easily led you are.
Anyway... back to the actual subject of the thread... Keir Starmer....
Nah he is of basically zero interest now until the leadership election kicks off and if he takes part.
I doubt that Kemi will be able to make any capital even as the most deepest wish of any opposition politician comes true. She's entirely inept.
Indeed. Obviously self-awareness isn't something she possesses as the Tories have completely failed to benefit from the present chaos in the Labour Party. She seems to still be basking in her own brilliance though, despite this.
We all know who the beneficiary of all this is. It'll be interesting to see if he breaks his usual habit and actually shows his face in parliament today. Unlikely. He's been somewhat quiet since the news broke about his 5 million pound Thai crypto-bung. He'll be rubbing his hands with glee at all this though. Its an absolute gift
It'll be interesting to see if he breaks his usual habit and actually shows his face in parliament today.
If it's not entirely about him, he's never interested.
Streeting is too startled and blinky to be intimidating, but at least he's offering something new.
Maybe or he might just be trying to **** things up for Burnham. By bringing up Brexit now it associates Labour with the EU and may help reform out. I dont think Streeting is offering anything Burnham was at least hinting at when he was on manoeuvres last year.
Is this over stating his political talents? Maybe but one thing we have seen from the Labour together lot is they are pretty good at tactical political moves inside Labour even if those moves results in defeats long term on a wider scale.
Burnham has the problem of winning the seat really needs one set of policies but then winning Labour leadership another.
Streeting failed in the quick bid to become leader before Burnham could return so now his best chance is to, well, ensure Burnham doesnt return with the added bonus of becoming more appealing to the labour members as he does so. Well if they believe him.
If it's not entirely about him, he's never interested.
He will see its about him though. Remember they were painting the local elections as the stepping stone to his coronation. He will want to come and crow assuming he doesnt have some freebie on.
Plus the more he gets painted as the next leader the better the chances of those personal gifts.
Maybe or he might just be trying to **** things up for Burnham. By bringing up Brexit now it associates Labour with the EU and may help reform out. I dont think Streeting is offering anything Burnham was at least hinting at when he was on manoeuvres last year.
Exactly the point that Helen Lewis brought up in the Private Eye podcast this week. To combat Reform in the by-election he needs to convince the people there that he's pro-anti-immigration, but then, if he successfully mounts hius leadership challenge, will need to do a 180 and be pro-Europe, which will leave him open to criticism in many, many ways.
I honestly do not think any of the people doing the knifing right now would be a good choice, but retaining Starmer now, as weak as he is, is just a huge gift for whoever is in opposition at the time of the next GE. If only Starmer would grow a spine and actually start leading.
Starmer's last few appearances at the dispatch box have seen him relaxed and easily seeing of Badenoch... facing off against what's left of the Conservatives is probably the easiest part of his job at the moment.
How'd the Labour back benchers vote of electoral reform go down last night?
Burnham has the problem of winning the seat really needs one set of policies but then winning Labour leadership another.
Well, that's a good trial for being PM at the moment. Starmer might be "the problem" for many... but for two very conflicting sets of reasons... not anti-immigrant, anti-benefits, slash spending, lower taxes for many... quite the opposite for others (including me).
Exactly the point that Helen Lewis brought up in the Private Eye podcast this week.
Havent heard that yet but read/heard the general theme from several political commentators.
If only Starmer would grow a spine and actually start leading.
I dont think he can. The spine, or lack of, isnt the problem instead it is the leading bit.
Lead us where? What are his driving principles and beliefs on how he can improve the country? We hear about "ruthless pragmatism" etc but to what end? We end up with the paperclip maximiser where it was ruthlessly pragmatic about achieving its goal of making more paperclips.
Agreed. He seems ruthless enough when it comes to getting rid of people he doesn't like, but that's manager work, not leader work.
Lead us where? What are his driving principles and beliefs on how he can improve the country? We hear about "ruthless pragmatism" etc but to what end?
This is where not having a "Starmerism" completely lets him down. He's probably quite good at detail, he's probably pragmatic in all the areas you need to be, but it's only part of the job of being a good PM. People can't project on to him their hope for the future because he doesn't have a vision for the future
Lead us where?
Which is all I keep asking from those proposing Burnham gets to return to parliament and take over mid-term.
You'd think those most upset about Starmer laying out his big broad aims when seeking to become leader, only to over the course of the following years cut so much back to fit the country's true economic position, and to pander to those who who've been led into obsessing about immigrants and asylum seekers... would now be at the front of the queue asking for specifics from Burnham about what he'll actually do, if he becomes PM this year, after a decade of suggesting and insinuating he'd do so much, so differently, to the current and previous party leaders. Especially now he has said he'll stick to the current government's fiscal rules (which many people in the party know really need to change if the government wants to do more, faster).
would now be at the front of the queue asking for specifics from Burnham about what he'll actually do
Bit confused by your argument here.
If we take it step by step.
Starmer made clear claims to become leader of the Labour party.
Starmer then immediately backtracked on those.
Starmer then went into the GE basically keeping schtum on everything aside "change" and also the "fiscal rules".
So what would the point be of asking Burnham for details? Why wont he be able to announce "true financial position" as well and then change all? Why would he risk being completely bound by the campaign promises since apparently it is now a legally binding position (for labour leaders anyway. I expect it will change in future).
We have already seen him adjust his policies from last year so why should we trust any of them.
Amongst those pissed off with Starmer for going back on his leadership claims I suspect many left when he made clear they werent welcome in his ideologically pure labour together party and almost all of the others I know have very little real support for Burnham. Its just they think whilst shit he might manage to drag labour over the line in a way which Starmer cant.
Starmer then went into the GE basically keeping schtum on everything aside "change" and also the "fiscal rules".
No, there was a manifesto for that GE, which is broadly the pattern of policy being implemented. There have been small additional tax changes and benefit changes, for sure, but it was only "change" without details if you didn't read past the cover... granted that's most people.
So what would the point be of asking Burnham for details?
Because, if he wants to take over the country, without a general election... in the coming months... because he and others consider the current Prime Minister to be a failure... then he needs to say what he'll do differently. Or it's just back to personality politics, and he'll disappoint all if/when he becomes PM and nothing changes for them beyond communication... and then, instead of saving his party, and seeing Reform off at a future election... he'll have buried the Labour Party and accelerated our path to a Reform government.
Burnham is not looking to become leader of the opposition, with years to work on and set out policies, he could be PM this year. Not being Starmer, and his track record as a regional mayor, might be enough for many people to say "give him a try, it can't be worse"... but things can always get worse... look before you jump... ask what he'll do differently.
but it was only "change" without details if you didn't read past the cover... granted that's most people.
That was what he pushed in all the interviews and discussions. If you do go into the detail its highly vague with the bits it is actually specific being a redflag since you need to then figure out what isnt covered.
Because, if he wants to take over the country, without a general election.
Ermm yes but again what is going to bind him? Indeed the obvious flaw in your plan of demanding answers now is that he will have to give answers to keep a not overly representative constituency happy. Now that seems the way to guarantee reform will win. Have Burnham have to come up with policies to keep them happy.
Just to be clear I have no time for Burnham but then I dont for Starmer either and since Starmer seems unwilling, or is that incapable, of change I can see why people want to gamble.
Of course things can get worse but as it stands it almost certainly will with Starmer seemingly wanting to get Farage or one of his cronies in power in 2029.
Ermm yes but again what is going to bind him?
Nothing. But if he wants to take over in the very near future he should say what his plans are. If he fails to implement them, then we're in trouble. But if he isn't clear what he intends to do, then others with decide what he's supposed to be delivering (above what is currently being delivered), and will either be disappointed by him, or will be able to paint him as a disappointment... and then what?
Starmer seemingly wanting to get Farage or one of his cronies in power in 2029
I doubt that's what he, or anyone in Labour wants. If changing leader, and changing it to Burnham, is to bring about changes that could turn people away from Farage, or bolster the Labour vote to help stop Farage... that requires policy and implementation... and for that to be set out to the party and the voters alike. He might be playing a cunning game keeping it vague while fighting to get a seat in the commons... but at some point members need to know what his answers are... and then voters will need to see them working. Unless the plan is to get in, and then write a new manifesto, and then take it to the people... which could mean taking Farage on in a General Election sooner than 2029, while his party is riding high.
Just to be clear I have no time for Burnham but then I dont for Starmer either and since Starmer seems unwilling, or is that incapable, of change I can see why people want to gamble.
Well, if we're being clear. In the past I have really liked Burnham, what he's had to say, and how he's said it... and I stopped being a Labour member because of Starmer's disappointing record so far as PM... but still voted for my Labour councillors (and would vote again for my Labour MP). But Burnham is risking making things worse for the country with this path to becoming PM... with no mandate of his own... he absolutely can't just walk into number 10 without spelling out what he'd do differently, giving everyone hope that things will move in their direction (where there is so many conflicting calls on how gov should change). More generally... I have specific areas I want the Labour government to either change tack on, or go faster with... so how do I know whether Burnham is going to do that... or just as likely double down on what I think the gov is getting wrong, and throw the brakes on where I think they are being too timid and going too slow?
. he absolutely can't just walk into number 10 without spelling out what he'd do differently,
he absolutely can. You're saying what you'd like him to do but he doesn't have to do it if he can convince Labour members on mood music alone. Rejoin and you get a vote, when there's actual competition.
Was it just me or did Starmer sound more relaxed than he's ever been at PMQ's? Like a man who's glad that this torture will soon be over?
As usual, Badanoch was hopeless and the man frog was nowhere to be seen. Off soliciting more multimillion pound gifts, no doubt
No, there was a manifesto for that GE, which is broadly the pattern of policy being implemented.
Yes and no. There were broad policy aims, but two years in we still await details of their implementation. The Warm Homes Plan is a good example. The result will be that Labour gets nowhere near their commitments.
Rejoin and you get a vote, when there's actual competition.
Not if the vote is within the next 6 months... if Burnham gets a seat, he's not going to wait 'till October to challenge to be leader. I hope there is actual competition, not a coronation, to at least force discussion of how policy will change, or refocused and sped up (Warm Homes Plan a perfect example of that). There's also still the nightmare scenario of him not getting a seat, and having made things harder for the current cabinet with no hope of getting in it, as PM or otherwise. If a big chunk of Labour have painted Burnham as the saviour, and Starmer as already done... and then Burnham loses in Makerfield... >eep< ...the whole party needs him to win that seat.
The Warm Homes Plan is a good example.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/warm-homes-plan
https://www.gov.uk/apply-warm-homes-local-grant
Indeed, widening that up to far more households (at both great cost and arguably great benefit) could make a big difference. But as for all this stuff... insinuating "more must be done", and setting out which "more" you are actually going to do are very different things. Because choices still have to be made, by whoever leads the government.
A lot riding on that by-election
no wonder Reform are worried
https://bsky.app/profile/electionmaps.uk/post/3mmbttefc3s2d
@nickc you are proving my point: read the WHP, which was published more than a year late, and you will see that it's remarkably light on detail. Where funding is being delivered, is through continuation of schemes developed by the previous government, such as the Local Grant link you provided. Happy to discuss in detail as I do this stuff for a living.
Well this explains the russian sanction flipflop
https://bsky.app/profile/adambienkov.bsky.social/post/3mmbzovuyhk2b
