Andy Burnham…

[CurlewKate]

What specifically is it that makes people think he would be a good leader of the Labour Party or Prime Minister? Actual practical reasons. I’m not saying he wouldn’t be-and I like the fact that he’s on the Left and he has an appealing way with him. But apart from that, what would he bring to the job? Not being Kier Starmer doesn’t count!

Yes, his support for the victims of Hillsborough has been impressive. He hasn’t given up on them.

Although I don't live in Manchester, I'm from further North West but I do know a lot of Burnham from local media etc and he does seem to have achieved a lot and is very popular around Manchester. He comes across as more "normal" and simply not being another "London Elite" makes him popular in the regions.

Also regularly campaigning to improve the utterly crap railway network throughout the North, from Newcastle, down through Leeds and Manchester and through to Liverpool. We suffer the Northern Rail franchise which Burnham and rightly criticised throughout his years (decade) as Manchester's mayor as it's utterly crap, and has not improved one iota since taking back under government control.

Interesting that Angela Rayner doing “working class” jobs counts against her. Oh, but she didn’t go to Oxbridge, did she?🤣

Indeed.

Its quite the thing to be a SERVING politician and RETAIN that popularity for as long as he has.

Labour are foolish to dismiss this. Blocking him from standing doesn't reflect well on the party. They clearly see it as an unwanted leadership challenge. But Starmer is extremely unlikely to do well at the next election and Burnham is clearly who a lot of the PUBLIC would like to see given a chance.

The NEC have effectively now managed to appear in the optics as voting against the people's candidate. That's not going to play out well...

They had to rip the Bandaid off. Otherwise this would all have played out and festered over the next few months/years. And it would have put Labour at real danger of losing the Manchester Mayorality, as well as the cost of running the campaign.

And there would have been no guarantee that Burnham, if selected, would have won the seat. Zack Palansky, for intance, running would have split the left vote, perhaps allowing Reform to gain it.

Agree with this. Andy Burnham is fine but he is driven by his own want for the top job rather than what’s best for the country. I’m not sure if Tory-style in-fighting and stopping the important work of government to have a lengthy leadership campaign is what the country needs right now, or anytime soon.

Don’t get me wrong, Starmer / McSweeney have made massive communications mistakes, but I think Starmer needs to be given more than 1.5 years and a chance to get on with it. He’s got 14 years to unravel plus Trump to contend with. They are making headway with NHS, but progress is slow. He is taking steps to dismantle the bureaucracy that slows down government (as outlined in the news last week but overshadowed by the orange Toddler as per usual) and should be given the chance to do so.

Unlike in the authoritarian White House we don’t have executive orders left right and centre and there are checks and balances on our leaders, so those who are impatient and used to a culture of Amazon Prime and on demand everything cannot understand why change takes time. The answer isn’t just chuck out the PM and start again with someone new (whether Burnham or Farage). A different face won’t help, and on the international stage could make things a lot worse.

Im critical of much of Starmer’s choices, but I do think he’s an adult compared to Johnson Truss etc and has been effective with the international crises. What he says he wants to achieve I broadly agree with so let’s give him a decent run at it. No he’s not a charismatic leader but so what. I can look past that for now. The next GE is the time to evaluate and vote. Until then Andy Burnham should curtail his own personal ambitions for the sake of stability and world peace, frankly.

You see I think they've picked the slow death...

Also Polanski standing in Manchester for a by-election 😂

Way to get the Labour vote out.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/01/zack-polanski-will-not-stand-in-gorton-and-denton

He's not standing.

Why the laughter? That article says:

Polling for the seat currently shows the Greens polling on 24 per cent in Gorton and Denton behind Labour on 29 per cent and Reform on 27.

And Zack Polanski is from Salford.

By-elections are funny old things...

Polling only means so much for by-elections. It's who can get the vote out.

If it came to it, Polanski opening his gob in Manchester as a local candidate would probably flip some potential reform voters and would motivate the Labour reluctants.

As much as he might get youth vote he's a desperately devisive candidate.

He has a unique skills set which I can assure will set off many a northern inbuilt 'twatometer'.

I've heard the same comment about him before and I assume this is some sort of unconscious bias because of his northern accent. It makes him appear down to earth, honest etc etc

I just can't see it, maybe because I'm also a northerner and I know we lie and cheat as much as anyone else 😂

Equally, by-elections can be a poll on the current govt, far more than a general election. So, imagine Burnham gets to run. He loses. That may not be the "Gotcha!" that will stop him trying again, because "bi-election was about Starmer, not me!" type stuff.

Burnham's also stopped being mayor, so now Labour has to fight that election as well. And prob lose it.

In that case, Starmer still has the "Burnham problem", but he's also lost a bi-election and a mayorality. And is therefore in an even weaker position than he is now.

He seems to be genuinely trying to make a difference for the better. Plus, I fancy him - he is very attractive! 😍

I noticed this when I was in Manchester recently I used to be based there for work until about 7 years ago (national job but there at least once a month for a few days) , it definitely feels different and not in a good way.

I know you said "not being Starmer" doesn't count but rightly or wrongly people definitely vote for personalities - they really do. Starmer hasn't got the star quality that people want in a leader. Look at the utter crap fest that was Boris Johnson, and yet still people would vote him in given half a chance because he "made them laugh". Nigel Farage is seen as "one of us" because he's pictured holding a pint of beer etc etc. I think Andy Burnham has a winning personality and that's important to any political party.

I’m as far from left wing as you can be, but I will admit AB seems to get stuff done, speaks his mind and has more pazazz. I can’t believe KS is a KC, he’s terrible, very unconvincing.

He’s done a lot for greater Manchester in terms of sorting out the public transport, and there is far more to come on this front

homelessness is a real issue but he is addressing it and donates a big chunk of his salary specifically to the cause

mostly though he actually listens to the people. Never was it more apparent than during the pandemic

I think he’d be a fantastic PM. That said I suspect he is a bit too “northern” to be elected, ditto Angela Rayner.

He’s not stopped being mayor. He will now continue to the end of his term which is 2028.

I was imagining the scenario where Burnham runs for Parliament, but loses.

@CurlewKate I have no idea what the fuss is about.

My recollection is that when he ran previously, he got like under 10% of the vote which I thought included party members not just parliamentarians. But I am happy to be corrected on that. But he's been treated like 'the one who got away' and I don't get it - it seems to me like there are just some people within the parliamentary party that like him, fundamentally, which won't necessarily translate to wider voter appeal.

On that point - no idea why people think he would appeal to Labour voters that have gone over to Reform on the basis that he appeals to parliamentarians left of Starmer on the Labour party. Surely, where's the crossover, in terms of values, there?

I don't like Starmer at all. But I can see why the thinking was if he runs, we could well lose Manchester as well as the seat. Yes, he may be the Labour candidate with the BEST chance but that could well mean the narrowest defeat.

Burnham manages to appeal to a fairly broad church.

There will be green voters who will vote for theoretical Burnham and to keep out Reform. And there will be Reform voters who will vote for theoretical Burnham (potentially to keep out a theoretical Polanski) and Labour voters who hate Stamer but who would vote for a theoretical Burnham.

It doesn't work in other directions.

And that's why I think if Burnham had stood with the momentum behind him about being a leadership challenger he'd win. Otherwise disgruntled voters have to wait another few years to take a swipe at Starmer. It wouldn't be voting for the current government because of that. That's what would make it much more complex than polling might suggest. I really really don't think Burnham would lose it.

But since it all will remain forever theoretical, we'll never know.

I think there shall be a shift. Starmer just is not connecting with the public. There is a few years yet for things to change

But saying that no one ruins Labour's chances of being or staying in power more than the party do themselves

Style over substance.
Take a walk around Manchester, lots of shiny sparkly immense skyscrapers surround the city centre, all gleaming, they look fantastic in sunset images and creating that big city feeling type backdrop. Street level though is a whole other world, homeless and addicts on many corners, gangs of undesirables roam the shopping centre. Piccadilly Gardens is like something from a zombie film. It’s jarring to say the least.

I agree, but that’s on Bev Craig. Manchester City Council is a monolith, huge with a big budget and they see themselves as very much the Top Dog in GM. I used to work there and the culture and attitude is very different to the rest of GM - they set themselves apart. They are all about growth and getting investment in the city and don’t give a toss about residents. There not a lot Andy Burnham can do about this as Bev Craig has been elected both as a local politician and as leader by her peers. In my experience, Andy Burnham is not popular in Manchester City Council, but very popular across wider GM.

Unless there's a shift in the NEC membership, Burnham won't get permission. I don't know when/how NEC elections happen next?