AIBU to think his speech sounded too parochial for a leader?

Apart from not knowing how reliable your source is I don’t think pointing a finger at Central Government somehow absolves Local Authorities for being corrupt.

By parochial, do you mean he spoke with a regional accent?!

Britain is one of the most economically lopsided countries in the rich world, and a big part of the problem is a highly centralised state.

Successive governments have spoken about the need to address that imbalance - from the Northern Powerhouse to Levelling Up. I think it’s refreshing to have a leader who actually plans to not just talk about it, but to do something about it.

And if he becomes leader of the Labour Party, Andy Burnham does have a mandate for these ideas - it was Labour who won the election, not Keir Starmer (we don’t have a presidential system) and Labour’s 2024 manifesto spoke explicitly about expanding devolution. So we DID vote for this - it’s just there’s now a leader with the vision and drive to actually deliver it.

Deepening existing devolution and widening it to more areas was in the Labour manifesto, so yes, in principle.

It specifically talks about local areas gaining more powers over transport, adult education and skills, housing and planning and employment support.

The manifesto is really helpfully online so it's easy to check this stuff.

Local councils are notorious for corruption. And central government isn't?

It's worth looking at the UK's plummeting position in the Corruption Perception Index (produced by Transparency International) and the examples included there.

Well, did we vote for any of this?

Local councils are notorious for corruption. Think planning, contracts, self interest. Arguable whether many have a mandate to actually operate so few people ever vote in them.
Offloading decisions that Central Government would normally take to Local Authorities does not bode well. It really amounts to abdicating responsibility for the decisions made.
He knows he has to raise taxes. But doesn’t want the blame for doing so. So will leave that with the Local Authority.
Any issues, nothing to do with your MP. Talk to the Council.

I can’t see anything substantive on this thread from you - perhaps you could quote the post in which you explained why this isn’t true? Thanks.

Once again, who's going to be paying for the hike in security. Being PM obviously carries more risk.

Devolution is a big risk for him. We’ve already seen how much people view local elections as an opportunity for a protest vote. If he doesn’t win over the electorate we could end up with Reform running the regions. And do we really want to add yet another layer of politicians?

I already have. I'm not going to repeat myself for you

What is your problem? Feel free to prove me a liar instead of just insulting me

Okay - how about ‘in my opinion he is achieving a weird cult like status where people won’t actually counter a statement they disagree with by putting their opinion across; they just get nasty and call people liars’? Better?

I am AUDHD so if I don’t type the words exactly how you think I should then that’s just how it is. What is your excuse for being unpleasant?

Like I said, if you don't want to be called a liar then don't lie.

Honestly? Poll after poll, focus group after focus group, election post-mortems all show that one of the biggest causes of disaffection and unhappiness with politics is that the basics aren't working. The bread and butter stuff doesn't get done, or gets done badly.

The UK and England in particular is one of the most centralised governments in the developed world, and that comes with downsides.

Regional devolution and local government reform to date has been half-hearted, piecemeal, inconsistent and quite a British "let's just muddle through." Devolution in the home nations has been similarly inconsistent. It's a created a system that the centre can't navigate consistently or efficiently so results in far too broad "one size fits all" policies

Devolution isn't a particularly sexy or eye-catching thing and the reason central governments don't like it is that it sets up alternative power centres and means they are less likely to get the credit when things go well.

In a country where people feel it isn't being governed well, and in some ways feels ungovernable, it's refreshing to have someone stake their leadership on the idea that administrative structures aren't working and need fixing, rather than grandstanding on "the big issues" (that are often unfixable without sorting the "small stuff" first.)

@randomchap If you can’t put your point across without calling people names then you clearly have nothing of note to contribute.

Hope this helps.

Which you presented as a fact.

Opinions are usually signalled by "In my opinion/In my view/ I think"

Who is lying? That is called an ‘opinion’.

I am a southerner but I must say I am loving how enraged people are by the reasonable concept of Westminster not being the centre of the political universe.

I don't understand what the issue is. The civil service already has offices across the country and it is not a bad idea to do the same for government (as long as money is not wasted on new offices).

And so the lies begin.

Where has he said he's only interested in Manchester?

Because he is already defining himself as only interested in Manchester. How about trying to put together a plan where centralised government serves the whole country? Councils are bankrupt, it’s going to cost a lot of money to just get right; even before you start ‘improving ‘

Great but a drop in the ocean.

In Manchester he put a tourist tax on hotel rooms - £1 a night I think.

What about his plan will create division?

Where's the money coming from for these cosmopolitan schemes?