Burnham unopposed & likely to be PM by mid July

“An imposter (or impostor) is a person who assumes a false identity or pretends to be someone else to deceive others, typically for personal or financial gain.”

LBC were discussing yesterday that Andy Burnham has said he has had impostor syndrome in the past.

Looks more like the real impostor now.
Where is the Burnham Plan @SheilaFentiman - if he has been ready to go for months as you claim why has he not published a detailed essay on his Burnham Plan for Britain?
Or is it more Burnham Burns Britain?
Which one is it going to be?

Yes @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g listening to the shit show fake pantomime I mean pmqs on a Wednesday is just a disgrace. It reenforces division.

Early on in WW2 party politics was abandoned and there was a coalition government with everybody working towards one goal - fighting the war and protecting the civilian population. I wish we could ditch party politics now and have a government of national unity, with talented competent people from all sides of the political divide working to put long-term solutions in place for the really big issues, e.g.:

• strengthening the economy and getting a much higher percentage of working age people into work and paying taxes;
• how to pay for health and social care and welfare at a time of falling birth rates and rising life expectancy (but not healthy life expectancy)
• preparing for the challenges from our changing climate
• regaining control of vital infrastructure like water from companies who've put profit before the service they're supposed to provide

I felt that way too. What a time to be alive.

Yes I agree, but thinking aloud, would the issues be the same- i.e. nothing gets done? Although I guess the centrist parties would be those most likely to be able to cooperate so it would also stop the drift to the fringes

e.g. the "one nation tories" have zero hope in the current environment- they are totally stranded and in danger of becoming extinct. If PR existed they could have their own party and look to be part of a coalition.

Indeed. At least there would be hilarity amongst the chaos, and not just chaos.

It's a real race to the bottom. Burnham looked so smug going into Parliament yesterday. What a total, self serving prick.

We don't know Burnham's policies.
We didn't know keir's either but then neither did he.

We need someone who can listen to experts when they have no expertise. But real experts.not civil service.

With no real economy the UK is screwed. We need more affordable energy urgently.

They had 14 years in opposition to get ready for power. And failed. Completely.
2 years in with a massive majority and they've damaged the country.
He's got a lot to sort out.

This is a problem that affects both main parties. They are effectively broad coalitions rather than single parties. This is a direct consequence of not having PR. If we had PR they would be separate parties that might come together in coalitions rather than a single party that is constantly infighting.

If only we could clone Count Binface.

Yeah, I think he should take over ASAP - much better for the country than a 'lame duck' PM. Burnham can announce his programme for change at conference in September, if he likes, but he should have his hand on the tiller before then.

In that case he should be ready to go - none of this need a bit of time for policy setting or wot not?

I don't see Burnham as self serving. I see him as a labour man who saw what a shit show was happening. I would have been pissed off in his position and thought I could do a better job. Some of us think that every day but aren't in the position to do much about it.
Starmer has been useless with his dithering and cover ups. On top the bloody press destroying everything as they do. But if you were squeaky clean and didn't let other men buy your wife frocks or give mandelson a plum job you would have a chance. I mean I've always bought my own dresses and I'm on a lesser wage than the Starmer's.
Let's hope Burnham has not got any skeletons in his closet but I think he's been around long enough for them to be out by now.

Absolutely no ambush from the back. Burnham’s position/plan to become leader has been clear for months.

It doesn’t make a practical difference if it’s a “coronation” or not - Burnham will be PM either way.

This so true.

Self-serving snake Streeting is almost as bad as Burnham then.

I wonder what the press / public's moniker for Andy Burnham will become in due course. His equivalent of "two tier Kier".

We'd need Proportional Representation in order for a new centrist party to stand a chance. Or for people to not be horrified by the thought of a coalition. But the Tory - Lib Dem one was an unmitigated disaster in terms of creating support for coalition governments.

For the record, I'm also for a centrist party and proportional representation. Both would hopefully represent the largest percentage of the voters (even the ones I don't agree with) and hopefully be able to get on with the job of actually governing.

Why waste time on a contest when people like Streeting know they just don't have the numbers to win?

Anyway deals are being done behind close doors to get roles in a Burnham government in exchange for support/not challenging him as the next leader.

Better for the country as well to move on quickly to a new government that gets on with the job.

Agree with this too. I would vote for a centrist party and Labour back benchers are absolutely sabotaging their own potential success. I've come to consider them as idiots, tbh.

Does anyone know what Burnham's policies are likely to be? I appreciate we elect the party, not the PM, but at least the Conservatives thrashed out their policy differences in public before changing their leader.

I am weary of the permanent ministerial shuffle. It means no one follows through on projects and no one is in charge of their brief. As a country and a system, we've got to get back to four-year terms being the norm.

The Labour Party inherited a shit show so it was a tough brief from day one.

But they lied about not knowing what the financial situation was, lied about the cause of the black hole (some was of their own making), and then - to top it off - introduced policies which made things worse! I'm not saying we weren't in a bad way, but the evidence was that it was turning a corner.

The VAT on private schools and IHT on farms were both ideological policies. Neither is actually fiscally useful (I have no skin in either game).

They hamstrung themselves with their manifesto (but didn't let the content of it bother them when they cut WFA), then forced themselves into policies which made the cost of employing people far higher.

The errors are their own, and unforced.

Starmer performed better in opposition. But it's dead easy carping from the sidelines, not so easy to actually perform in government! (As I'm sure every party finds out when the GE brings a change of government.)

Watched Newsnight last night.

It was Labour MP after Labour MP saying the best thing for the country is that Burnham gets in quickly and we don't have the distraction of a summer of debates.

They actually come across as more out of touch and clueless than the Tories did in the last parliament.

I actually don't think Starmer was so bad. Under hks leadership, he followed process, waiting times in the NHS reduced, the economy started to recover, the national minimum wage went up ha inf been stagnant for years, he resisted joining in trumps lunacy war, free breakfast club for all kids etc. He listened when people complained about the winter fuel allowance and reduced it's severity. He had a lot of good quality a and sometimes you just need to follow process to get a country back on track. But his downfall was he wasn't a strong character liked by the media, he was 'dutiful instead of 'dynamic'. The best dirt they could dig up on him was accepting a free Taylor swift ticket which I think he paid back! Hardly compares to the last administration level of scandal! And I do believe he probably didn't know about Mandlesons Epstein links or they were played down, but I can see why he was chosen as he had a good relationship with Trump. I note no one is going after the King, our head of state, for resignation/abdication for his brother's links to Epstein and yet the palace must have known about that as he was friends with him after he was charged. I don't know much about Andy Burnham but I really hope he isn't a power hungry style over substance sort of person. Out country needs stability right now, not a change of leadership trying to get to grips with the job yet again. To be fair to Starmer, I suspect he'd had enough of the infighting whilst he was trying to get the job done. I quite liked Angela Rayner too as she seemed good at what she did and was a people northerner, but she came a cropper too and was punished for trying to do the right thing. Let's hope Burnham isn't going to be farage lite.