Forum menu
point still stands he plays well to the region but that may not work so well in Somerset, Norfolk or the home counties.
I doubt he cares what the voters of Somerset, Norfolk or the Home Counties think of him. They aren't the voters he needs. It's the white working class voters in the red wall constituencies, metropolitan voters and those in the anti-Farage liberal centre which he needs to unite. He's done that very well in Manchester so far and could also do it across the country. Who else in Labour can do that?
The only chance Labour probably had at any sort of recovery.
But then again very much in line with incalculably stupid behaviour.
They think they look tough and confident but they're not reading the room.
.
What's this bullshit regional racism, are you really trying to suggest a "northerner" can't be PM,
It's reasonable to suggest that he would not be equally popular with all segments of the electorate but I doubt that would be down to being northern. Rayner was quite popular before her moment of stupidity.
I reckon they have forgotten Michael Corleone's advice to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. They should've backed him and given him a junior ministerial role.
What's this bullshit regional racism, are you really trying to suggest a "northerner" can't be PM, FFS trying to spin that as a concern is a sign of desperation, you have got to have really drunk the Kool-Aid if that's all you can offer up.
You're sounding a tad desperate and hysterical to be honest, if you want to keep championing career first and hang the consequences Burnham you carry on. For me he isn't the answer to Labours deepening unpopularity and I'm glad his been blocked to avoid months or years of infighting within Labour reducing their effectiveness and voter appeal further. Thats the way the Torys behaved, if you want more Tory behaviour in government that's up to you, personally I don't.
Starmer has delivered us a tory government, sounds more like you want to close ranks and just continue that, probably with Streeting.
And what on earth has what footy team he supports got to do with anything?
Curious how you can have a manc persona when supporting a Liverpool football team but lets not dwell on it cos we probably agree on this mostly. I'm not really sure either why he wants to be PM but he clearly thinks he can replicate his success in Manchester across the whole country.
Lets not forget he had a rocky start as Mayor, the local authority leaders (especially Richard Lease) were suspicious of him and were less than collaborative and he had the appearance of someone with a fancy title but little power. That's changed massively since and he's implemented some very significant and tangible benefits for working people. I'd like to see him finish the job on housing and homelessness so glad he's not going anywhere.
Good also to see you've finally seen the light on the importance of buses and public transport. I remember you weren't too keen on that stuff when Corbyn was around 😉
Burnham is only interested in power for himself
And Starmer and his pals voted 8-1 against him having a seat knowing that he'd make a leadership bid isn't a sign of only being interested in power for himself?
I really do think that Burnham could have given Labour a decent chance against Reform, but with Starmer still at the helm there's no chance.
And more importantly for now, with Starmer at the helm there is little to no chance of policies that actually help people, it will just be more "trickle down" "bonfire of bureaucracy" "free the developers" tory soundbites until labour loses the next election.
Curious how you can have a manc persona when supporting a Liverpool football team but lets not dwell on it cos we probably agree on this mostly.
We're from the hinterland between the cities, so at school most people supported Liverpool as they were the ones that won everythng at the time (bloody gloryhunters, eh?), so fair play to both Andy and me for supporing Everton and United respectively, both of whom were absolutely shit and won nothing! 😉
Really conflicted by this saga. I'm pretty sure a Burnham government would be better than a Starmer government. I'm also pretty sure that with the current international chaos, having the UK government having a drawn out, divisive, Tory-esque leadership battle rather than focusing on major internal and external priorities.
Short term pain for long term gain?
Very amusing too that the NEC's rationale behind blocking Burnham is that he would 'destabilise the govt' and create a psychodrama that would be distracting. Why would either of those things occur if Starmer was doing as good of a job they claim he is? They've basically just admitted that Starmer is doing a shit job and is in danger of being either deposed by his party or defeated by the voters.
Curious if Binners or any of the other Burnham fans would also be supportive of Sadiq Khan in the same way, as he has many of the main attributes: great public transport, very popular among his constituents, straight talking on Farage and the far right etc.
I find the "Burnham turned Manchester into an economic powerhouse" argument a little hard to believe, and would like to know more. Chancellors, let alone mayors, really just surf global and national economic trends.
Curious if Binners or any of the other Burnham fans would also be supportive of Sadiq Khan in the same way
Sadiq Khan doesn't look well. Always has the appearance of having stayed up all night. No idea what's going on with him, but it's not a good look, and unfortunately image plays a major role in whether people will vote for you.
I think Khan has probably been more consistent, but less forthright in highlighting government failures and would more likely to be a continuation PM towing party line, when it is quite clear the party really needs a bit of a shake up. Burnham has been happy to pour petrol on the immigration issue, saying the government is getting it wrong but he doesn't really commit to a side, but has said more local powers are needed during the "hotel riots/protests" which would indicate moving more towards reform than even Starmer.
I don't know who the good candidates are, I would rather see Ed Miliband back than either Burnham or Kahn, but he isn't going to win any election.
Chancellors, let alone mayors, really just surf global and national economic trends.
That is just "putting the sign in the shop window" the attitude of political failure without even trying, of submitting to the whims of the rich and the corporations and making excuses for doing nothing for the majority of people.
Curious if Binners or any of the other Burnham fans would also be supportive of Sadiq Khan in the same way
[...] image plays a major role in whether people will vote for you.
Khan was elected 2-3 times as councillor, 3 times as MP, and 3 times as London Mayor. I'm not sure the electorate sees things the same way you do!
Curious if Binners or any of the other Burnham fans would also be supportive of Sadiq Khan in the same way
[...] image plays a major role in whether people will vote for you.
Khan was elected 2-3 times as councillor, 3 times as MP, and 3 times as London Mayor. I'm not sure the electorate sees things the same way you do!
I'd have no problem supporting Khan, the supposed crime ridden Islamic state of London seems to be doing pretty well under him, and a lot of Londoners agree
Curious if Binners or any of the other Burnham fans would also be supportive of Sadiq Khan in the same way
They’re similar in many ways and it’s an interesting comparison. Andy’s point, right from the start, was to say that if Westminster devolved more powers to Manchester, so they were similar to London, then he would use those powers to create strong economic growth and better transport etc.
You can argue about how much of that is down to Andy, but the fact is that those things have happened on his watch. So he’s delivered on what he did he would with those enhanced powers.
You also have to remember that people vote not just with their heads, but their hearts too. Just ask Farage. Andy won himself many plaudits for squaring up to Westminster repeatedly over lockdowns and covid funding (amongst other things) so that if you live in Greater Manchester you had a leader who put his money where his moth was in the interests of Manchester
Centrism is destroying the Labour party (and the country) - so Burnham comes with that baggage but he's quite a few notches better than Starmer - and has said and done a few interesting things.
And that's literally all Labour has got apart from Streeting. Ugh.
This is about trying to turn Labour's fortune around (unlikely) not thinking Burnham is sufficiently tooled up to definitely beat Reform.
No one at this point can be measuring Starmer's success on the doorstep as better. It would be delusional.
Curious if Binners or any of the other Burnham fans would also be supportive of Sadiq Khan in the same way
...if Westminster devolved more powers to Manchester, so they were similar to London, then he would use those powers to create strong economic growth and better transport etc.
You can argue about how much of that is down to Andy, but the fact is that those things have happened on his watch. So he’s delivered on what he did he would with those enhanced powers.
1) the English don't want more devolution. It was a huge failure in the NE and there's been no popular demand for it since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_North_East_England_devolution_referendum
2) I don't think Khan, let alone Burnham, can claim much credit for economic growth in their cities. Their powers are very limited in the areas that impact private investment decisions. I see you want to give Burnham credit for what has happened but aren't sure whether he had anything to do with it... 🤔
Curious if Binners or any of the other Burnham fans would also be supportive of Sadiq Khan in the same way
[...] image plays a major role in whether people will vote for you.
Khan was elected 2-3 times as councillor, 3 times as MP, and 3 times as London Mayor. I'm not sure the electorate sees things the same way you do!
I'd have no problem supporting Khan, the supposed crime ridden Islamic state of London seems to be doing pretty well under him, and a lot of Londoners agree
I agree. Interesting that politecameraaction appears to be pushing the idea that Andy Burnham supporters are racists.
I agree. Interesting that politecameraaction appears to be pushing the idea that Andy Burnham supporters are racists.
Interesting that that's what you projected onto the question!
The enthusiasm for Burnham seems to be driven by the amaaaaaaaaazing job he has done as Mayor of Manchester (not as an MP, Minister or Shadow Minister). And yet Khan has been running a bigger city with a larger budget and more devolved powers for longer, and been re-elected more times as Mayor.
The supposed economic miracle of Manchester under Burnham actually started far before Burnham took office, and the growth rate was a majestic 2% between 2002 and 2019, and at best it's unclear how the Mayor was responsible for high or low economic growth anyway.
In other words, any quality that Burnham has, Khan has it in greater measure - except, to be fair, the apparent desire to quit as Mayor and go back to being an MP.
Blimey, even Polly's had enough now...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/26/andy-burnham-labour-new-leader
Crikey. I had wondered what a centrist would have to do to lose Toynbee as a cheerleader.
She’s on about electoral reform to stop Reform… not going to happen, and if it did would be the gerrymandering claim Reform need for a 2019 style “defense of democracy” campaign to win people over. She also doesn’t say who she’d back as leader… which if you’re wishing for a leadership campaign you’d better have thought about. Not “letting” Burnham stand might have delayed the leadership battle that’s coming (and he’d never have won)… but when/if it comes, who’s it going to be? She mentions Streeting… be careful what you wish for. A government distracted by a leadership campaign, only to give us another “unelected PM” in the eye of the public, won’t necessarily revive Labour in the polls, or shift the government in the direction you’re thinking/hoping for. It could do three things that I personally don’t want… give legitimacy to the idea that Labour should let Farage take the reins sooner rather than later while he is polling so high, either gifting him an early election or fuelling his support as some kind of “legitimate king” kept out of the castle by a politician only selected by other politicians… it could make Labour more populist rather than less so, with a ramping up of “saying as it is” as regards groups already in the firing line… and it could destabilise things economically domestically at a time of great instability internationally.
We don't need electoral reform as in the electoral system (not that I am against that either) but FFS we are desperate for political financing reform, stop the oligarchs bending politics to their will before everyone else gets to vote. Cap political donations to 500 a year for any individual or organisation, and make it a criminal offence to either accept or give bigger donations (bribes).
And I don't give a **** what reform might say about it, they won't hesitate to change the system to suit them and remove democracy at any opportunity so lets not run scared of doing the right thing in case the bad man might whine and say nasty things FFS.
Starmer is more interested in crushing progressive politics within labour than standing against the far right political direction he is bending too.
And maybe it is difficult to name many contenders, because the one thing the Starmer project has been successful at is keeping anyone who might challenge the current labour leaderships hegemony out of sight and out of labour.
FFS we are desperate for political financing reform, stop the oligarchs bending politics to their will before everyone else gets to vote
Yeah we are in need of that. But, again, “Reform are spending much more on campaigning than us, we’re going to change political funding”, also falls into the “establishment stitch up narrative”. Changes like this coming from a party so far behind in the polls… the “anti-democratic” headlines write themselves, even if the changes are about protecting democracy from being bought by the rich.
FFS, of course they will criticise anything labour does to strengthen democracy, but it is the government's job to do it anyway, or it should be. If Starmer is allowing Farage to run the country without even being elected as PM what exactly is the point of Starmer being PM?
Cap political donations to 500 a year for any individual or organisation
So you want to destroy unions' ability to pursue their members' political objectives...?
Unions members political donations are a personal voluntary donation, I am sure you know that.
But even given that, the money pumped into politics by the wealthy swamps what the unions members contribute (and frankly with current labour get extremely bad value for their donations), so I still think we would be in a better place if that was the cost.
Unions members political donations are a personal voluntary donation, I am sure you know that.
No - the member can consent or not to their subs going to the union's political fund, but they're not personal donations to the party.
Toynbee in the grauniad is against the blocking of Burnham and thinks Starmer should resign. Given she has been a great cheerleader for Starmer thats quite significant
No - the member can consent or not to their subs going to the union's political fund, but they're not personal donations to the party.
Good point, if the cost of losing union political funds was to make lobbying and think tanks illegal I would sign up to that in a second. I mean look at the Tony Blair foundation, paid 100' of millions by Ellison and petro states to promote climate denial and to give tech bros access to government including NHS patient data so they can profitise our ill health.
I think the whole unions contributions to labour is around 4 million a year, the Blair foundation is paid many multiples of that to corrupt governments for the profit of the few. And that is just one of the many think tanks and lobbying companies doing exactly the same thing.
Leasehld cap sounds good
I suspect that a LOT of pressure will be coming from property investors on this (and donnations from them will be flowing to reform who no-doubt will seek to reverse it)
Really hope they dont cave to pressure on this one and u-turn
No - the member can consent or not to their subs going to the union's political fund, but they're not personal donations to the party.
Good point, if the cost of losing union political funds was to make lobbying and think tanks illegal
You would like to make it illegal for Oxfam to lobby the government on developing countries access to climate change funding or to publish reports about the distribution of income globally?
You're talking about massive censorship (and you don't really seem to know what think tanks do either).
You're talking about massive censorship
No I'm not, I am talking about ending that, we already have "massive censorship" through the distortion of wealth on politics and media platforms.
Good that you should bring up oxfam in your desperate attempts to excuse the wealthy being able to buy power, it is quite a major concern of theirs, in fact it is perhaps their primary concern at the moment as they know that their power to do good is completely washed away in the tide of oligarchy greed and selfishness in buying politics and power.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/resisting-rule-rich
That Toynbee article makes zero sense. She points out all the issues that Burnham Standing as an MP brings, from possible loss of the seat [anyway], a expensive new mayoral contest that again, may go to different party or individual, the unwelcoming cold shoulder and party melodrama that undoubtedly would follow, the fact that Burnham has lost both his leadership campaigns, to the fact that all 5 most recent PMs have been successively the least popular of all time, meaning there's no guarantee Burnham would do anything to improve that statistic, and the fact that every single news item about Labour would just become the possibility of a leadership challenge, but yet bemoans the decision to prevent him from standing, and then blames Starmer's 'lack of firmness' for the fallout.
I get the impression she's more pissed off about the fact that she won't be able to get column inches from it now.
You're talking about massive censorship
No I'm not, I am talking about ending that,
You are proposing making think tanks illegal. You are suggesting it should be a criminal offence for people to get together, discuss social/ economic/ political/ religious/ whatever issues, and publish their collective thoughts. That is censorship.
You are proposing making think tanks illegal. You are suggesting it should be a criminal offence for people to get together, discuss social/ economic/ political/ religious/ whatever issues, and publish their collective thoughts. That is censorship.
No I am talking about ending billionaires ability to fund them to distort political reality, are you a Tufton street professional liar for hire? You certainly sound like one, and that would explain your political positions in any discussions.
Brass tacks - none of this would be even happening if Starmer wasn't Britain's most unpopular PM of all time.
Starmer literally brings everything on himself by 'full-sending' this Labour project above what's good for the country every single time.
The Labour right appear to not have any self-reflection of what is going to eat them alive. The extent which they go to try and survive is the mechanism which will kill them. It's gloriously stupid.
What MSP is proposing works pretty well in France. Parties get publically funded once they reach a certain size and donations to campaigns are limited. Go over and you face justice as Sarkozy is now.
Limited companies should have to have a shareholder vote on political donations.
Unions used to be able to just send money. Thatcher reforms meant each individual union member must agree to the donation. Well labour should level the playing field