That was pretty obvious from when he campaigned for the leadership
He did well raising the profile of the party and realigning the policies to appeal to a wider voter base beyond your usual middle class eco warrior types. Recently though he seems to have fallen into the trap Jo Swinson did in thinking he can replace Labour as the main party of opposition.
I don’t know when you joined the Greens but “we’re here to replace Labour” has been their explicit campaign message for a while now.
I don’t know when you joined the Greens but “we’re here to replace Labour” has been their explicit campaign message for a while now.
In Labour - Green marginals I have no problem with that. But taking votes off Labour in areas where they can't win is self-defeating.
Have we done this yet? I suppose you have to admire the self-deprecating honesty.
https://twitter.com/LesTrumpeter/status/2057361023783334105?s=20
In fairness it’s hard for anyone to understand the Consitution because the UK doesnt have one. It’s all just based on some loose idea of custom and practice and can be changed at the whim of any government that can get it through parliament. It one of the many weakness of UK governance arrangements that we made sure other countries didnt have when we told then how to do it back in the day.
councils do have a written constitution. the dimwits need to read it.
In Labour - Green marginals I have no problem with that. But taking votes off Labour in areas where they can't win is self-defeating.
would you say the same for lib dem marginals or SNP?
In fairness it’s hard for anyone to understand the Consitution because the UK doesnt have one.
Yeah we do. It's just not a single document, and while bits of it are unwrtitten convention, Monarch signing bills into law (for example), there is a bill of rights and common law.
While the reformists are being unintentionally v honest and a bit dim, I wonder what help there is from councils who're often swearing in "Bob from down the road" to make decisions that effect 1000's of folks, if they're just handing out a constitution and told "read that" that seems a little bit under prepared.
In fairness it’s hard for anyone to understand the Consitution because the UK doesnt have one. It’s all just based on some loose idea of custom and practice and can be changed at the whim of any government that can get it through parliament. It one of the many weakness of UK governance arrangements that we made sure other countries didnt have when we told then how to do it back in the day.
It isn't a weakness, IMHO, but a strength because it's an evolution.
It means that bits of the "constitution" can be changed quite quickly and in isolation. It means that organisations can make their own rules as well, e.g. Andy Burnham could set off towards becoming PM by being appointed to the House of Lords because then he's a member of one of the Houses of Parliament.
Convention set over many years tells us that the PM must be an MP, but that's as rigid as it gets.
That convention is repeated in the Cabinet Manual and the official Labour Party Rule Book repeats that, so Burnham has to be an MP.
We've never been through a revolution that suddenly needs rules
the constitution reffered to in that piece is the constitution of the council not the uk
more breiteer nonsense from Starmer and his team exposed in todays Guardian.
which bit of " the 4 freedoms are indivisible" is so hard to understand. Pushing for a single market in goods without the other 3 freedoms is just a nonsense
Yeah we do. It's just not a single document, and while bits of it are unwrtitten convention,
That’s just a complicated way of saying doesn’t exist. Try using that as a defence in court. Yes mlud it’s an unwritten convention that lets me do this
I wonder what help there is from councils who're often swearing in "Bob from down the road" to make decisions that effect 1000's of folks,
There is full online training that councillors and prospective councillors can access. As they are putting themselves forward to represent people they are expected to educate themselves. Something I doubt ost Reform councillors have the capacity to do.
Local councils are run on “conventions”, many written down, as well having a constitution and many mandatory responsibilities. Just like central government, the reliance on these “conventions” means that if you elect people who decide they want to change things to avoid work, and/or abuse their positions, they very much can. Our new Reform council has scrapped most of the oversight committees (which do the day to day work of making sure officials do what is needed of them with some democratic responsibility)… freeing up much of their own councillors’ time, because they’re not interested in doing the work and aren’t really in it to make sure the council works for the local population. Unsurprisingly.
Local councils are run on “conventions”, many written down, as well having a constitution and many mandatory responsibilities.
The constitution is mandatory under the Local Government Act 2000.
The content varies from place to place.
The frustration for local government is that they suffer over problems that they can't control and get hammered if the national government is poor.
Maybe local government should be disconnected from national parties and we vote for individuals without a party affiliation
Been tried in many areas of the country. Turns out that without party oversight independents often turn out to be down right wrong uns (many aren’t of course). But anyway, conventions do run right through local government, and can be ignored when you get a majority of councillors looking to “overturn the system”. Rebels without good cause.
Could they not move right culturally but left economically?
At the very least they'd be able to move farage away from debating immgration onto his positions on nhs, workers rights etc.
Hasn’t this been the (failed) strategy? Throw asylum seekers and immigrants under the bus? And then when that’s not enough do the same for trans people? All while investing in services and taxing the wealthy? But it’ll never be enough… Farage will still promise to stamp down harder on those already trodden on. And on the other side (my side I suppose) the service improvements are too limited and the tax system is still taxing workers far more strictly and heavily than asset owners.
Hasn’t this been the (failed) strategy?
Lots of caveats about left vs right. If we go for in terms of economics "right" means Thatcher/Reagan vs previous right wing ideas.
I dont think so. Overall the approach has been right wing economically and left wing socially.
If we look the economical side its pretty consistent with the right wing model. Its very market driven.
Socially it has been more "left wing" eg Cameron and gay marriage. Whilst the "left" started on this path I really am not sure it wouldnt have worked without it being pushed by a tory pm.
So tl:dr nope. That hasnt really been tried. We have only seen the reverse.
I wasn’t referring to “overall”, I was referring to this government. It has attempted to throw off accusations of being “socially left” by making life harder for high profile minorities, while throwing small bones of comfort to the left economically with some increased taxation of the wealthy and spending on services. It doesn’t look to be working for them. I strongly suspect if a new leader is appointed more of this will happen… policy against out groups will harden rightwards, economic policy will soften leftwards… as that is seen as the way to stop Reform. Throw some groups under the bus for clicks and likes, while getting on with trying to improve life for the less well off through service improvements and regulations to improve their positions.
I don’t think it works, because it turns away people who want a fairer society (because they want to both protect minorities under attack and economic redistribution and protection)… while not damaging Reform support much because they will never see Labour as standing up for them against immigrants etc, even if they are taking practical steps to make life hard for people not born here (or look or act like they weren’t born here)… because it’s an attitude thing, not a policy thing for them.
Does anyone still think Burnham is a man of integrity and hold consistent positions given his obvious pivoting on immigration in recent speeches?
He has shifted his position radically once again given the fact he is facing the main threat from reform in Makerfield
Does anyone still think Burnham is a man of integrity and hold consistent positions given his obvious pivoting on immigration in recent speeches?
Never considered him a man of integrity, he swings with the wind
Does anyone still think Burnham is a man of integrity and hold consistent positions
I genuinely don't want politicians that hold consistent policy positions, I want politicians who can look at evidence and have it change their minds. Doubtless there are any number of MPs on both sides of the house that hold consistent positions on any number of totally stupid things. Like Brexit, or privatisation or neo-liberalism. Doubtless George Osborne has maintained a consistent position on the need for austerity policies post the financial crash.
Don’t you be coming round here with your pragmatism! There’s no place for that kind of thing around here! 😉
Is Burham changing his positions based on new evidence, or because he’s likely to very soon have to deal with all the national issues (and electorate) that Starmer has to deal with? In much the same way. Where as when G MCR Mayor he could wax lyrical about what “Labour are getting wrong in government” without the responsibility of being PM and leading the party.
You guys both know he is doing this because of his audience. He is worried about reforms challenge thus is pivoting to an anti immigrant stance. Its nothing to do with either new evidence or having to deal with national issues. its purely a political decision based on his main challengers in Makerfeild being reform
If he gets the seat, having to face off against Reform doesn’t end there. Just like the current team he’ll be anti-migrant and anti-asylum seeker to try and beat Reform. It’s unlikely to work.
its purely a political decision based on his main challengers in Makerfeild being reform
Imagine that. A politician making a political decision in order to get elected and in this case prevent Farages band of far right headbangers getting another MP?
Maybe he should go for the Corbyn style idealogical purity instead, then after his glorious defeat he can make a statement about him ‘winning the argument’?
The whole point about the disasterous last 2 years of labour is that Starmer is crap at being a politician. Andy clearly isnt
Make your mind up which you want. I know what I want after the shit that’s come out this afternoon from Mandleson about the shambles at the heart of this government
They haven’t got long before the horror of a Reform government could become a reality
i want integrity. I want someone who will argue for a position tbey know whats right. I dont mean Corbyn style lefty purity.
aping reform has been shown not to work. whats the definition of stupidity again?
FFS what on earth is going on with the formatting I this site?
TJ you know you want to rejoin the EU? do you want those folks who voted to leave to vote to leave again, or join you in the rejoin camp?
If Burnham can get Reform voters to vote for him and not the Reform candidate, that's a win.
If you're not voting for the candidate most likely to beat either Reform or the Tories, you hand a vote to them.
i want integrity. I want someone who will argue for a position tbey know whats right
Good 40min interview with Mariana, she doesn’t hold back on the failings with this Labour government or in this country over the previous 15 years.
If Burnham can get Reform voters to vote for him and not the Reform candidate, that's a win.
By aping Reform with performative cruelty? No thanks. Anyway chasing reform votes in this was is proven to be counterproductive with labour losing more votes on the left than they gain on the right
fortunatly I have multiple other options here who do not indulge the far right by giving credence to their policies
All following reform down this performative cruelty road does is give creedence and respectability to their abhorrent views
Rising unease with the authoritarian policies fr9mmthe government, banning cenk/hassan was bloody stupid
https://bsky.app/profile/lewisgoodall.com/post/3mn7qmlsxz22u
Imagine that. A politician making a political decision in order to get elected and in this case prevent Farages band of far right headbangers getting another MP?
I know it is tricky getting beyond simplistic slogans like "ideological purity" and "sixth former" but for ****s sake can you at least try a slightly more complex slogan like "winning a battle but losing the war" or to stick to your preferred two word slogans "pyrrhic victory".
Many of the problems Starmer has are down to despite making very few campaign statements beyond "change" the few ideologically pure centre right policies they did announce absolutely hamstrung their ability to actually carry out change hence why he ended up in the mess he has.
The whole point about the disasterous last 2 years of labour is that Starmer is crap at being a politician. Andy clearly isnt
We will see. Something which most sixth formers will be able to tell you is popularity can be easily turned. Its fascinating how many politicians are held up as great examples until they do something to upset the media barons.
Cameron, the PR genius up until the point he was stupid enough to give a vote where he was opposed to the press barons, Johnson and then even Starmer. Remember the glory days when you were praising him for purging those nasty lefties and how forensic he was asking questions to Johnson? Even his glorious landslide up until the point where after restricting options for ideological reasons they were left with just performative actions?
Then we have "backroom" experts like Cumming and McSweeney.
Burnham has a problem that he is going to be facing two votes with different constituents. Whist the press will generally let him off, like they did Starmer, to lying to the Labour voters they wont for anything he offers to the right wingers.
Cameron, the PR genius up until the point he was stupid enough to give a vote where he was opposed to the press barons
Everyone thought ‘Dave’ was a **** pretty much from day one.
He was just the least worst option. There was little popular enthusiasm for him though. He just wasn’t Gordon Brown
Remember the glory days when you were praising him for purging those nasty lefties and how forensic he was asking questions to Johnson?
He just wasn’t Jeremy Corbyn, which was a blessed relief for those of us sick of some doddering old Marxist gift wrapping elections for the Tories
He won an election because he was not Boris Johnson, Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak
Can you see a pattern emerging here?
Andy Is the first in a long time to actually have a bit more support, for good reason, than ‘well I suppose he’s better than the rest of them’
Remember he got 67% of the vote in Manchester at the last mayoral elections. Why? Because he’s actually delivered on stuff that people actually care about
That’s an awful lot more than can be said for pretty much any politician going back god knows how long.
And if you’re going to start quoting me on stuff, I’ve been consistently saying that Andy Burnham was what Labour needed for over ten years now.
If the sixth formers hadn’t delivered us the utterly wasted, completely pointless, common room “Oooooh Jeremy Corbyn” placard-waving years instead, maybe things could now be very different
By aping Reform with performative cruelty? No thanks. Anyway chasing reform votes in this was is proven to be counterproductive with labour losing more votes on the left than they gain on the right
Maybe you should start with a look at yourself then. These people aren’t ’Reform Voters’, they’re just voters.
How many actual MPs do Reform have? All these supposed millions have never actually voted Reform at a general election,
Anyway chasing reform votes in this was is proven to be counterproductive with labour losing more votes on the left than they gain on the right
You didn't answer my question. Do you want former leave voters to vote to rejoin?
If the sixth formers hadn’t delivered us the utterly wasted, completely pointless, common room “Oooooh Jeremy Corbyn” placard-waving years instead, maybe things could now be very different
Corbyn was elected leader because Burnham ran a spectacularly useless campaign. I think Burnham is the least worst option Labour has right now, but I can only hope he's learnt something since he left parliament.
Rising unease with the authoritarian policies fr9mmthe government, banning cenk/hassan was bloody stupid
Well it’s all of a piece with the Met telling lies about Palestine marches, secret terror trials, prosecution for “antisemitic” abuse of a non-Jew (Helen Mirren) and the hold on the party of LFI (ex-chair Netanyahu mouthpiece David Mencer). To mention but a few examples.
Anyway chasing reform votes in this was is proven to be counterproductive with labour losing more votes on the left than they gain on the right
You didn't answer my question. Do you want former leave voters to vote to rejoin?
i do not understand your point and anyway Burnham has pivoted to join the hard brexiteers.
Polling has proven that labours pivot to its exteme anti immigration position aping reform has cost them more votes on thd left than they havd gained from the right. The holyrood election shows the same thing.
Labours pivot to the right to a hard brexit anti immigration stance has cost them votes and legitimised reform.
Its highly amusing to me watching folk excuse Burnham for his complete lack of integrity and willingness to adopt contrary positions depending on his audience.
Everyone thought ‘Dave’ was a **** pretty much from day one.
This is, to put it mildly, a rewriting of history.
He won an election because he was not Boris Johnson, Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak
Can you see a pattern emerging here?
That you are randomly throwing names together? Again you are busy rewriting history here or rather regurgitating the rewritten history you have been fed.
Remember he got 67% of the vote in Manchester at the last mayoral elections. Why? Because he’s actually delivered on stuff that people actually care about
Yes I do remember but I can also look at other figures and see, a not massive boost on labour as a whole in the local elections there.
If the sixth formers hadn’t delivered us the utterly wasted, completely pointless, common room “Oooooh Jeremy Corbyn” placard-waving years instead, maybe things could now be very different
I guess unlike Starmer he might not have dedicated himself to purging the left but then I suspect people like yourself would have still be demanding any leftwingers be purged to provide a suitably rightwing ideological pure party and then you would be whining like **** that, unsurprisingly, those lefties have the cheek not to continue to vote for the pure party.
