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!

The secretive wealth that is tolerated in our constitutional monarchy makes it harder to stomach that we are now being allocated a second coronation within our parliamentary democracy.

So, as far as I understand it Starmer's popularity had improved quite a bit in recent polls although still pretty dire. This surely must have been a gradual realisation of the policies he has been putting through which genuinely help renting, working class people, particularly those with young children. I think the MP's were pretty dumb to get rid of him because in another three years with more time and more of the same even the rabid right wing press might have failed to drown out his achievements. If you start to notice things getting better even the papers and social media telling you it's all getting worse would have less breakthrough. They will all start on Burnham immediately. He will initially also make stupid mistakes and a good year will be wasted while he gets a bit of experience under his belt. Tony Blair always said that the time a PM is at their worst is immediately after gaining power and the time they are at their best is when they leave. This country really doesn't have a year to waste.

Great response from Burnham to Badenoch's personal nastiness. No retaliation. Just humour, good grace and a good camera angle. Excellent example of what he can bring to a personality based political arena that Starmer couldn't.

It was a little improved.
But still very low, currently about -45 against a worst rating of -50?
Those numbers are not politically sustainable.

Whether anyone can ever get better numbers long term is a very good question!

As much as I loathe the privilege afforded middle class kids education simply due to their parents finances, you're talking pie in the sky if you believe we can level the playing field by reducing private school places. Classism is baked into our society and will ever be thus. You get a young graduate with a home counties RP accent with a second class degree from a former poly, but who presents and speaks well vs Gregg from a Birmingham council estate with a first class honours from a Russel group uni but speaks with a thick, local dialect and lacks self esteem- who'd you think would get the job? Money also buys confidence and connections. Working class kids will never be able to compete. But it's ALWAYS been that way.

People that I know don't fit into such distinct groups as that. For instance, someone who went to a comp before being first in the family to go to uni. Dad self-employed manual work, mum a cleaner and got into The Civil Service Fast Track. I am just talking about keeping that initial gateway wide re: the conversation earlier in the thread.

But it's ALWAYS been that way.

If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got.

If it shouldn't be that way, then efforts should be made to change it.

Nice sentiment, but how do you propose we do this? Nothing's changed for millennia, don't you think of it were possible, change would have happened by now?

That's precisely what people said/say about all prejudice and inequality.
There's nothing else I can say.

Spoken like a true sixth form sociology student. Sorry. I too was once you, full paid up member of the socialist workers party. Until you reach middle age and accept it for what it is - you get by with the few chinks of light and success stories. But society is rotten to the core and regardless of who is in power, that's capitalism for you.

He doesn't need any introduction, previously an MP and several years as Manchester mayor where he's been responsible for quite a few project fails wasting tens of millions £ and his nepotism is shocking with the wife heading companies that won valuable contracts within the city.

I do t agree with you. My grandfather was a miner from the north. Both his children went to local school and then onto London Russell group universities. When asked how they did it, they just said we applied and got in. They didn’t see any barrier to entry at all.

That thing about his wife is disinformation.

This.

I actually think she fancies him and he will use it to his advantage. I look forward to their exchanges.

Don’t be pedantic, you know exactly what I meant. People voted for Labour to get the conservatives/Richi out. It was a protest vote from the country to show the conservatives we had enough and in turn we all knew that voting in a Labour candidate in our constituency would ultimately mean a vote for Keir Starmer to be PM as he was the leader of the party. It was the reason Jeremy Corbyn didn’t get in, because no one liked him and didn’t have confidence he could run the country regardless of whether they agreed with labours policies. As a result if a PM resigns and someone is shoehorned in, we should be entitled to another general election. We haven’t voted for Andy Burnham to take control of our country, we voted for Kier Starmer.

Bloody hell are people STILL banging on about her they voted for Starmer. I has been explained on this thread and others multiple times and in great detail. That in the UK parliamentary system you vote for people who are in a party. The fact you choose to focus on party is your issue.
Interestingly when JC was leader of Labour they got more votes than under Starmer but the spread of the votes meant they didn’t get enough MPs.
You want a GE every time there is a change of leader. Think about that. A PM dies at a time the country is vulnerable, we have a GE. The PM becomes a hostage to fortune. We might have an ill PM who is encouraged to stay because the party wants power. A PM might use this to threaten their party to stay in power. A rule like this has many massive implications you just haven’t even considered.

I’d go further and say the information about his wife is a blatant lie.

Like starmer ,it's that "impermeable " that deeply concerns me.

@Bookbears It was a protest vote from the country to show the conservatives we had enough and in turn we all knew that voting in a Labour candidate in our constituency would ultimately mean a vote for Keir Starmer to be PM as he was the leader of the party.

In a nutshell, that is obviously the way the electorate saw it. Added to that prominent Labour politicians, Rayner and some say Burnham, said that Sunak 'had no mandate'. Sunak was not only an MP but was well known as Chancellor. The resigning of Josh Simons to make way for Burnham ....

Same ! Df northern and wc background got himself to grammar in the days when teachers helped you and went on to great jobs in London ! That was the days when clothes /accent and the old boys club still very strong .loads got through by grammars then