Burnham has won. More turmoil?

[KatiePricesKnickers]

Now Burnham has won, it will trigger a leadership contest, and if he wins, a new chancellor of the exchequer.

Surely this cannot be good for the country, or its finances?

YABU - Burnham is a true leader who will improve the UK for everyone and be a competent and respected leader.

YANBU - FFS, here we go again.

It’s an advantage that Burnham wasn’t an MP as he has gained extra kudos by comprehensively defeating Reform UK Party Ltd in the by-election. After their rise over the last few years Burnham has shown not only can they be beaten but utterly trounced.

Absolutely. The Makerfield win has been proof of concept.

Burnham is just an illusion.
People think he will steer Labour a bit more to the right because he looks relaxed and talks with a regional accent. But he won't.
He'll veer to the left to please the PLP, he'll screw up some things because he ain't the best politician, he won't have the time to implement anything of substance anyway, he won't be able to quell internal dissensions and rivalries within the party either.
He has no program, no vision to bring, just an ambition.

He is probably frantically trying to cobble some kind of program together, because he doesn't even have a real clue.

This country deserves better than these chancers.

This is a very reasoned explanation/analysis. My only caveat is that Burnham’s popularity may prove a mirage once the press start on him, which they will. They haven’t bothered much until now because he was a northern mayor. If he becomes PM they’ll attack as they did with Starmer.

Do you believe that the press “attack” on Starmer is his undoing?

Is there no argument for accountability? We hold very different perspectives obviously but I feel the press from another perspective have been very proportionate in their reporting. It is certainly not a one sided affair.

As for Burnham, and coming from the perspective of not being a labour supporter, he is more personable and he most probably will be able to engage with the press and the public better than Starmer has done. The policies will tell their own story.

This may allow him to fight his corner. All good luck to him.

You putting the word attack in quotation marks tells me a lot.
It’s not been ‘holding to account’, it’s been relentless negative spin and endless repeating of gossip. If you can’t tell the difference…well. It’s a shame.

Yes, I think that's a real fear.
People are unhappy about a lot of things and want quick fixes that no one can realistically achieve. To add to that there are often diametrically opposed ideas on how best to achieve the desired change.
If Burnham comes in and achieve something dramatic that benefits some, there will be others complaining it disadvantages them.
Yet if he takes a cautious approach he will be not doing anything fast enough.
The cards are stacked against anyone taking on the role right now, regardless of party.
I'd hope that he will be more communicative about the direction of travel and what steps have been made in that direction, and where outcomes are not immediately possible, offer a straightforward explanation as to why.
I do worry though that he will fall victim to unrealistic hopes, and standards set for him will be impossibly high.

I agree with pp that the Makerfield by-election was a decent enough test. It was a high Reform area for the local elections and he overturned that.

Can you show us the evidence on which you've based this view?

The PLP composition hasn't changed AFAIK, and they are the ones who block/dither/force to u-turn on some reforms that the general population wants: immigration, budget, benefits, defence, etc. that won't change with Burnham, it will be even worse.

He ain't the best politician: he is not. Experienced, yes, but never a game changer. He retreated to Manchester after losing 2 leadership bids. He is doing ok or well in Manchester, but the Bee Network, it's not the same as PM.

He won't have the time: because he won't, next GE must happen before Aug 28, it's 3 years at the very best. It s not long to change things (provided you even know what you want to do and no one else is obstructing), and even less time to see whether it works or not.

He won't be able to quell dissensions: he doesn't have the time, authority or character to put an end to internal battles one way or the other. And you know that joke about a Blairite, a Brownite, a Milibandite, a Starmerite, an insider and an outsider walk into a bar...

He has no program or values: he has a history of contradictory statements, he has been mulling over replacing Starmer for months, yet we still don't really know what he would do once in power that would be so different.

Because he is still trying to find it out himself frantically as we speak I bet, surrounded by advisors and communicators, and I am convinced that their only priority is to look good on media and not p*ss off anyone within Labour that could help him in a leadership contest.

Not expecting it's the way to go to finally address the core issues the country faces.

And he is still a Cambridge-educated career politician, who has known nothing but Westminster and the Labour apparatus.

Who do you think would do a better job at present (from any party)? What plans, policies have they outlined, and abilities have they demonstrated that you feel would address immigration/benefits/budget/defence in a way that would satisfy the majority of the electorate?

The results at the local elections are what precipitated this mess. It could also be read as ‘people don't vote for reform for parliament’ and maybe there was no need for such a big panic.

Point of order - next election is before August 2029, not 28. We have 5 year parliaments.
Edit: you did say he has 3 years so maybe it’s a typo. But for clarity

There were different factors relevant to voting in this by election. For you to believe Reform will be trounced because AB won by 9K votes is pie in the sky. The GE will be a different ball game.