To think Andy Burnham is smug?

[Lyra25]

To think Andy Burnham is smug and presumptuous. Just that really and I have no particular political preference, disillusioned with the lot!

It is surely best for the country if we level the playing field?

What Badenoch said yesterday was over the line, talking about knives in the back etc. has been considered unacceptable since Jo Cox and David Amess were murdered.

If I were the the Leader of the Opposition, I think I might try the tactic, having assessed in advance who’s likely to be in Burnham’s Cabinet, of asking Keir Starmer an obliquely innocent question about them that is anything but.

Eg: ‘Will the PM tell me why he allowed the Sec of State / Minister for XXX to ignore the Supreme Court ruling of April 2025 and not bring their department fully to order, under his leadership?’

Put Burnham on notice that his chosen ones have baggage that will be publicly scrutinised, and that compliance with the Supreme Court is not optional in the UK.

It was awful..... killing .... killing ... knives in the back ... reference to bayonetting Well done, the Speaker and Ed Davey.

He's kind of hot though.

Definitely.

He could renationalise my utilities any time
he liked.

So I actually have a lot of sympathy with that view - I'm certainly not a huge fan of his and I don't like the way he's come to power.

However, my concern is that if Burnham fails, the UK fails with him. Another two or three years of being governed by a lacklustre PM who can't manage his own party or make the changes the country is crying out for would be terrible for all of us, and open us up for the chaos of a Reform government or a hung parliament. So much as I don't love Burnham, I do hope he succeeds.

Yes it was disgraceful.
I also don't understand it politically, as Badenoch has been making real efforts to look more serious, which seems to have paid off in personal approval ratings.

Inevitably there is widespread wobbling at the change of PM, at the end of the day they are all just humans facing uncertainty - they don't yet know how to respond to the 99.9% likelihood of a Burnham premiership.

No one knows what he's going to say, who he's going to appoint, whether he's going to be accepted by the public.

Every party is waiting for more information before recalibrating their messages against the new Labour leader.

But the messages Badenoch picked yesterday were wrong.

Yes, that is very fair. It has made me realise how much the Tories and Lib Dems have hardly been mentioned recently. The Opposition are going to have to step up, they have lost so many members, but this is not the way to do it.

Farage takes all the attention away from the Oppositon - I do think that is the media, but they also don't question him rigorously enough.

😂😂

I'd like to unionise his railway.

He's the most popular politician in the country.

https://yougov.com/en-gb/ratings/politicians-political-figures

I bet if you hate Burnham you're no fan of Starmer anyway. Labour won a majority and they get to govern until 2029.

I'm not particularly keen on him leaving his Mayor job but compared to the corruption in the Conservative government and Nige happily taking a 5m bribe I can't get too excited about him leaving a job after 9 years.

That what makes no sense. No one knows who he will appoint, what he will do -yet Labour MPs are falling over themselves to backing him anyway. Labour MPs seem more concerned about not having a leadership election where their piss poor record will come out than putting in place someone with a tested plan.

If they genuinely throught they had changed the country for the better the best route for Burnham would be to ride the wave a call an election. His "vibes" based popularity can only go one way.

Labour MPs will know more about what's happening - they are his internal colleagues.

The opposition are inevitably not getting the memos.

It's not long to wait until 7th July. Then everyone, voters and opposition parties, will start to recalibrate.

What Badenoch and Farage are worried about is what if his popularity doesn't tank to Starmer lows???

The most surprising on that list is David Frost, he's quite niche!

It's easy to be the most popular politician in the country when you're not making the hard decisions.
I can't bear Burnham, for reasons already given, but was fine with Keir, and would generally rather MPs got on with their actual work instead of wasting time and effort politicking and picking sides and forcing others out of office.

I don't understand why people imagine a world where democratic politicians won't engage in politicking - the clue is in the job title!

Unfortunately Starmer did become too deeply unpopular, a politician can't operate from there - politics is politics.

You know what I mean – scheming and taking sides and trying to figure out who can do them the most good, rather than actually doing their job of running the country.

If Starmer's authority was still strong, there would not have been any driver for change.

That's how politics works.

What else would a democratic politician do - just carry on backing a leader who has lost almost all public support and who is making decisions they don't agree with? That just isn't how democratic politics should or would work.

I don't disagree with this particularly. I think Starmer is a good man who did some good and was lambasted by a press on the side of millionaires and billionaires.

Pragmatically though he has become so unpopular he's not viable as a leader. It's deeply unfair, but battling on is going to hand power to Reform, which is a disaster for the country.

We do seem to have a weird need to have our leaders be charismatic 'characters'. Boris Johnson got away with an incredible amount of corruption and sleaze before he was finally ousted. If Starmer had done and said 1/4 of what Johnson did there would be riots.

This is why I'd rather have coalitions (I mean of several parties, not another Tory–Lib Dem shit-show), and boring grey-suited politicians who just pursue evidence-backed policies. Messier, sure, and less attention-grabbing, but power being concentrated in one person and the leadership of a country being reliant on personal popularity seems more and more crazy to me.

I like him. I voted for him as MP for Leigh, he did lots of visible work in the area for a low income area. Only when he stepped down as MP after losing the Labour leader campaign to Corbyn in 2015, he decided to go for Manchester Mayor. I was interested to see how a Scouser would be received in Mcr but he is well-liked and made tangible improvements like the V1 and Bee Network.

It's unusual to have an MP that seems to be genuine in wanted to make improvements for the sake of the electorate instead of lining their own pockets. I hope that he is able to make meaningful changes in the Govt for the better. I like that he will take the "man of the people" crown from Farage and show him for the poshboy grifter that he is. I'd be fascinated to see how Trumpy reacts, I hope he implodes.

I did like Keir Starmer too and felt that he took an undeserved battering for his Premiership, it was lovely to have a grown up in charge for a change.

I'd support PR on principle, it's more democratic. Then you get coalitions.

But is it actually more stable and less about politics? Not really.

Your choice is democracy (so popularity) or not democracy.

I think there's a difference between political parties offering evidence-backed solutions, and banging drums about immigrants, single mothers, or whoever is the current easy scapegoat.

He was filming a thing when the Bee Network opened, and I saw him that morning coming out of Costa on market street balancing a bunch of coffees for all the crew. Seems like a decent bloke.

Yes there is a difference, and I understand your wish for a utopian political system.

But I think being realistic about human society/politics is important - is there a democratic nation you can point to that has declining living standards, a cost of living issue, reduced public services but has NO political parties focusing on scapegoats?