Would you be more likely to vote Labour if Andy Burnham was in charge?

[QueenStevie]

As the title says really.

I certainly would. I have had massive amounts of respect for Andy Burnham since he spoke at the Hillsborough memorial and was changed at by the crowd and you could see how he took it and how it registered with him and, from then on, he took on the fight and ran with it.

I have also been really impressed by what he has achieved in Greater Manchester. If he'd have been able to stand in the Gorton and Denton by election, I have no doubt he would have won. I worry now that the ship has sailed though and Labour have just been discredited so much that even Burnham might not win a by-election.

Jesus.

I mean, I once had a sex dream about Dominic Raab, so I've no room to talk, but Christ, woman.

He's like one of the extras in a pub scene in a Shane Meadows film.

Yes

I'd need to see what his policy plans were.

I vote based on policy not personality.

No. He may be a nice bloke, and good on telly, but he is also a socialist. So obviously I couldn't vote Labour because of him.

No, I can usually look beyond the person to the policies but something about him gives me the absolute ick. It's like a Doctor Who episode and he's an alien wearing a human suit.

who ever is in charge they all answer to the same masters

or became Mayor of Manchester when he was a Scouser, made no sense at all,
to then become known colloquially as a ‘fuckin’ Manc’ seemed baffingly disparate

an objection would be his missus remember who appeared at a sombre
Memorial service for the queen Mother dressed as an ingenue in a pink coat with large flower and Mary Janes
totally inappropriate garb and behaviour
symptomatic of a disrespect, ie not an ideal candidate to achieve high power

I think he’d make a better deputy PM than Lammy (or Raynor, or Prescott was). But we need Starmer on the world stage at present. Things are far more globally perilous than any time since WWII.
I cannot think of any politician, of any party, who could come close to what is required on that front. Would be interested in hearing the suggestions/ideas of others in this regard.
The pressure to bin him off plays right into Reform’s hands (as the right wing press are willing it to be) and that would be truly disastrous for the country.

Well I once had sex with Dominic Raab… 😳 but that’s an entirely different thread…😂

You mean the mere mention of his misdemeanours of letting thousands of girls getting gang rap3d and trafficked and doing absolutely nothing about it? That is 'getting the same treatment as Starmer'?

Gosh poor lads.

Well Burhham would be less wooden, and would connect more easily with the public. That really counts. Starmer just doesn’t have that; I don’t think it’s in his character.

The main thing is that any leader is clear on what the electorate wants. At the moment, Starmer is busy demonstrating the opposite-even now. He is telling us what he got right, nearly everything apparently, which is more evidence of his total unsuitability .

Christ most of them would do better than Starmer, he’s just the best the Labour Party has to offer. No more no less. And as said, irs a bloody low bar.

Andy B is more attractive and likeable than Starmer and that does count for something, but he is more left wing. People voted for Starmer because he was centre left and was expected to cut the welfare bill and promote growth! He has failed dismally at both but that is the fault of the Labour backbenchers. The left wing of the Labour party is the problem. The UK always prefers a centrist party. Thats why Blair could win elections. It's so bleeding obvious. Why can't Labour backbenchers understand that?

No, he seems a bit blown by the political winds and he changes his position based on whatever he will benefit from the most.
He is also a narcissist.
He might be better than Starmer and it would be nice to not here darlek voice anymore though.

Because they privately think the electorate keep making bad decisions. And if only they could see what they see...

BBC

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent
This is a big moment.
Catherine West does not want to be leader of the Labour Party. And she is not going to be leader of the Labour Party.
But she has just kicked off the process by which the Labour Party may have its first leadership election since Keir Starmer was elected in 2020.
West’s plan (which she says she came up with this morning) is this: by Monday, either the cabinet will have ousted Starmer, or West’s colleagues will have a chance to nominate her formally to contest the party leadership.
It is highly unlikely that West would get to the 81 MPs required for there to be a full ballot of party members between her and Starmer.
But suppose she got close? Suppose dozens of Labour MPs backed West as a show of frustration? That might be enough to tempt others to launch a leadership bid.
Or it might fall apart rapidly and prompt Labour MPs to row in behind Starmer, solidifying his position for now.
Let’s see. Whatever happens next, this is a big moment.

Good Lord, No, not the King of Manchester, he's already failed once

No. Not unless he’s going to cut benefits for people who can’t be bothered to work and stop the congestion charge

Eyelashes, accent, unflappable air!

My sister met him many years ago when he visited the charity she worked alongside Hazel Blears. She said he was friendly, chatty and seemed genuinely interested. Hazel Blears not so much.

Another not very genuine thread, aimed at smearing either Burnham or the Labour Party. Pity. I thought it might be a genuine discussion. But no.

When it comes to a general election I vote for party, not individuals. So I’m a Labour voter, regardless of leader.

Well, Louise Haigh is purportedly throwing her hat/phone into the ring, too.

So.

What???