Andy Burnham’s coup

[Sandysandybeaches]

I’m feeling increasingly annoyed and worried about this.
He seems like a decent chap and clearly popular in Manchester but it feels increasingly ‘off’ that he is arriving like done kind of messiah to save us all. It feels like an arrogance and very undemocratic. Were there really no Labour mps up to the job?
His aims and vision sound great but there was nothing about how he’ll actualy achieve it and I worry that people will soon feel let down and the trust in mainstream parties will be broken even further.

Thr focus on Manchester I find worrying from someone who wants to run the entire country. How does an extra layer of admin in other place help everyone else who still lives somewhere peripheral? No offence to Mancunians but they’re even further from me than London and I am not interested in the place, in fact it sounds like rural areas, the south west and north east will be even more ignored.

It does feel increasingly like a bloodless coup.

I don't think anyone is arguing the constitutionality of it all. But all those people you've mentioned were MPs at the general election before they ran for PM. What Burnham has done is very different and people are unsettled by what feels like scheming.

keeping the same leader wouldn't stop a party getting elected on one manifesto then changing it. I am not sure how you'd stop it. The usual excuse is "oh we didn't know how bad things were."

I agree. His big idea which seems to be devolve everything will soon fall apart when all the regions start arguing over who gets what. The joy of 'Manchesterism' was that he always had someone else to blame - Westminster. When the tables are turned and he's in the firing line, the halo will soon wear off.

Yes, thanks. It feels like we are all feudal peasants again. Maybe because we already have a constitutional monarchy with one king - it feels like another coronation with another unelected man to rule over us.

No but it's far less common for parties to lurch to an extreme under the same leader. Either way we should have safeguards in place to ensure that democracy isn't abused so that a government can't lurch significantly away from the mandate they were elected on. Of course changes can be made and not everything will be delivered, but we all intrinsically know when the lurch has gone so far that the government is basically unrecognisable compared to what was elected.

How can Andy Burnham come in and implement almost constitutional change and radical decentralisation as he core policies when this was completely outside of what Labour stood for when they were elected a few years ago?

I’m astonished that Labour members are ok with him not doing any hustings before deciding they all want him as their leader.

Say what you like about the Tories but at least their leadership contenders had to set out their stall for scrutiny.

To be honest, I think we need to let Labour to decide who is going to lead them and us all. And leave Andy Burham to build a case for himself, within Labour. And any other candidates.

It is far too much by now.
They do not even let them breath!

Enough with this chase, chase, chase..
It feels like harrassment by now.

I will be tuning in when the next PM has been elected.

Enough on stalking Burham by now.

It's essentially just the threat of Reform, they're having to do something radical to try and stop them getting in so a full makeover of how they seem to operate as far the the public is concerned..

As someone who actually lives in Manchester and votes Labour I can't say I'm thrilled, but then I actually quite liked Starmer. However, I understand he isn't popular enough to win a GE which is why all this is happened now..

I really don't think we can stop Reform now, the majority of people are feeling shafted about immigration now that even the middle class children can't find jobs or homes. However I suppose it's worth a try? The party isn't going down without a fight which is quite admirable.

Expanding devolution was very explicitly part of the 2024 Labour manifesto:

In England, Labour will deepen devolution settlements for existing Combined Authorities. We will also widen devolution to
more areas, encouraging local authorities to come together and take on new powers. Towns and cities will be able to take hold of the tools they need to pursue growth, create jobs, and improve living standards. Local areas will be able to gain new powers over
transport, adult education and skills, housing and planning, and employment support. We will ensure those places have the strong governance arrangements, capacity, and capability to deliver, providing central support
where needed.

You can read it here: https://share.google/VPW7xeiWvG8pP14eT

Obviously, Andy Burnham has different ideas on HOW to do it, and is definitely a stronger advocate for devolution, but I don’t think it’s outside their manifesto commitments.

Stalking?

That is the most bizarre take I have seen.

He was mayor of Manchester and not part of the government which was elected just two years ago. He manipulated a situation whereby he is going from outside government to PM unopposed within months.

It’s called Scrutiny not stalking.

Why on earth is it admirable. It’s suicide and irresponsible.

Reform is showing that given the choice people are moving to the right. So a sensible Labour reaction would be to strengthen the centre. Stop alienating the electorate and treating very very ordinary people as if they are greedy wealth hoarders and listen to people so the country doesn’t fall into the hands of the far right.

The amount of press following him around is rather close to stalking indeed.
There is a thread about his sandals!
I am going to let it breath, let them do their thing and start asking questions once they have actually decided. You know. After.

Andy Burnham's devolution is completely different to what the manifesto suggests and what was referenced on the campaign trail where it was barely mentioned at all. Very few Labour voters would have listed it as a central policy at the time of voting. It is now THE central policy. This is a seismic shift.

It's like Reform promising to implement new powers to control immigration as a bullet point in their manifesto and then deporting anyone not born in the UK.

This is the sort of thing that I find hard to understand.

Burnham’s swept in and, short of something extraordinary happening, will be the next PM. People are interested - whether supportive, negative, neutral, curious, whatever - and they have every right to expect the media to follow Burnham and ask questions, and to comment themselves, pro or anti or anything else.

The left would - quite reasonably - examine and comment on a Tory PM in waiting.

Why should Labour PMs or pretenders be given special treatment?

Labour have actually done quite well at addressing some keys things to help the majority of people such as strengthening worker's rights and renter's rights. They've also brought down immigration which was at an absurd level under the past government. It had been driven up on purpose to inflate the housing market and rent costs to benefit a few. .

Unfortunately, smear campaigns funded by landlords etc al have been very successful at painting the current government as incompetent despite all this. That's why they're having a makeover, because they won't win the next GE without one.

Do I think it will work? Probably not, because the aftermath of the Boris wave has been too massive and is still causing shockwaves through communities now. Is it worth a try as far as Labour are concerned? Well, why wouldn't they try? The whole point is to try and win votes to keep power. Any party would.

DH worked with him about fifteen years ago and he tells me he definitely isn’t “as thick as two short planks” an insult presumably made without any knowledge of his qualifications or experience.

Respectfully, devolution was spoken about on the election trail, a lot. Keir Starmer's spoken about 'full fat devolution'. It explictly said in the King's Speech Labour would spread power out of Westminster into communities. People voted for more power in the regions under Boris Johnson too, with 'levelling up'. Burnham’s rhetoric might be the most revolutionary, but I would argue it's an acceleration rather than a change of direction. The obvious question is whether he can actually deliver it.

Having said that, if I was a gambling woman, I'd bet on Andy Burnham calling an election sooner rather than later so that he can go further than the 2024 manifesto.

Respectfully it was never seen as one of Labour's main policies. It wasn't even listed as a major policy here to assess public awareness:

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/disconnect-between-public-awareness-and-support-labours-policies-ipsos-poll-finds

Labour promised to devolve more power to metro mayors and made pledges around Council funding and there were a few other relatively minor policies but it never detailed or even implied that the level of devolution Andy Burnham wants was on the cards. Tory levelling up again was limited devolution at best.

I don’t want chaos.

I want a stable economy, low crime and lower taxes.

I want to be able to get a hospital appointment when I need it and not to have to wait 12 hours in
A&E.

Chaos? What
good is that to me?

It’s Labour MPs who are replacing Starmer with Burnham.

You may have not been following the news but the Employment Rights Act has placed additional unnecessary strain on employers and the Renters Rights Act is successfully pushing up rents. As always Labour is committed to ideological change, not using common sense.

No arguments about how damaging the previous Tory regime was (although I don’t buy into the suggestion that the Boris Wave was a specifically a deliberate house price conspiracy). But that’s not what we’re talking about.

You say the whole point is to try and win votes….yes and so when the challenge is from the right, why are the government acting as if they have a huge mandate to move to the left? They don’t. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity will realise that they voted in as a response to Tory greed, corruption and chaos not because people wanted radical reform and taxation. This makes me angry because it leaves the gates wide open for Reform to capitalise.

lol - how’s the weather over there.

I'm very surprised that he hasn't realised how bad this 'coup' is going to look as soon as something goes wrong when he's PM.

It makes me think the people advising him are not fit to be advising him.

Who do you think it is who's doing this?