To find Andy Burnham’s sudden rise to the top odd?

[GarlicBiscuits]

A few weeks ago, I’d never heard of this man. A few weeks ago, he wasn’t even an MP.

Yet suddenly, he’s everywhere and going to be our next prime minister? What qualifies him for this role? It seems that all the Labour MPs love him. Why?

The whole situation is very odd to me… I’m not sure it’ll do Labour any favors at all.

Indeed.

I keep seeing references to this on X, from the usual suspects and obvious bot accounts. But no-one ever explains what role he played or didn't play.

He was Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the HO for a year. I don't know if grooming gangs was part of his portfolio. Might have a look at Hansard and see what comes up...

No, but he was mayor of GM, also police and crime commissioner for GMP.
Maggie Oliver has a lot to say about Burnham on grooming gangs, none of it good.

https://www.dailymail.com/debate/article-15825933/MAGGIE-OLIVER-Burnham-chance-voice-grooming-gang-victims-wasted-it.html

It was a Reform attack line before the Makerfield by-election. I’m not going to click on a link to the DM and it appears to be the only news source carrying this story.

I actually agree that PMs and Deputy PMs are often plucked by the party selection processes from relative obscurity.

Of the last five PMs only that useless fraud Boris Johnson was particularly well known to the man or woman in the street.

He’s speech interestingly was a lot of recycling of what Daisy Cooper has been saying for years. She’s done a really good video on her Facebook page illustrating this with historic clips.

Can only assume you only take a fleeting interest in politics not to have heard of him.

This is probably more helpful. It is definitely a Reform attack line.

www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/what-we-do/safer-and-stronger-communities/tackling-child-sexual-exploitation/timeline-for-activity-on-child-sexual-exploitation-in-greater-manchester/

Could you set out what you mean about his conduct in the HO?

When labour won the last general election I told my husband that Andy Burnham would take over from Kier Starmer at some point - I didn’t think it would be so soon. He looks the part more (whatever that means I’m not sure) but he seems to be well liked, is confident and has a good sense of humour. I’m not a labour supporter but am intrigued to watch how it will go.

I remember watching an interview with him a few years ago - he was cooking a curry in his kitchen and seemed quite personable. I like it that despite his job as mayor he seemed very normal and relatable.

Her interviews were covered across various media outlets.
Would you like a link to the Times Radio interview she gave on Andy Burnham?

He was Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office), serving from May 2005 to May 2006.

Yes, but what conduct are you referring to? His main responsibilities were nothing to do with grooming gangs.

I am not pointing to any specific conduct.

My point was, and is - whatever he has done/not done, in relation to the broader grooming gangs issue, will most likely come under fresh scrutiny.

i.e. If he has anything to hide, these things have a nasty habit of coming to light.

“This is good as it gets for Burnham.
It’s all downhill from here.”

@Bullandbear - not sure what you mean!
I went to an event yesterday evening with politicians who were in the Cabinet and a former PM. As usual, everyone wants to talk to them, they meet all the most interesting scientists, artists, entrepreneurs, top of that this and other and are wined and dined and invited for life to pretty much anywhere or anything they fancy personally.

If anything, it is only up hill post the actual roles - these ones are still MPs.
Fair few are going to be missing Starmer, especially a lot of Legal because apparently he followed due process and the law. The fact that some politicians don’t follow the legal advice in itself is pretty shocking. We all know Boris Johnson was flying by night when it came to crashing out of the EU and all the many laws in place.
Just hope Burnham is more sensible than Boris Johnson at this point.

@JacketPotatoFoodOfTheGods asked

Why on earth would he have played a “part” in grooming gangs?

You replied

"FGS in terms of his conduct whilst in the HO"

But now you can't back that up. My feeling is that you are just mindlessly spewing Reform attack lines. No surprise there.

BTW AB's HO portfolio had nothing to do with grooming gangs afaics.

Haha. Like others have said, your ignorance is no reason to start a thread.

Don’t be like that, TW.

I don’t recall many predicting Rayner’s troubles, or Starmer’s demise - in fact, they used similar language to yours just now.

And yet here we are.

Remember, anything is possible in politics, as this Labour government have amply demonstrated.

As I said. You can't back up your claim.

Claim?

Reread my posts. Meanwhile, another poster asserted that Burnham never worked for the HO - they have not corrected that wrongful statement.

True. Not long ago the same people were adamant Starmer would stay, and Labour didn’t change leaders.

Very true on both points. I thought Starmer would stay (although not once Mandelson happened. It was clear from that point Starmer was done) and I didn't want Labour to go down the Tory route of ditching PMs.

I don't like what has happened one little bit and I don't particularly like Burnham or what he has done. But that doesn't mean Reform-inspired claims about him should not be challenged 😊.

Burnham could be Labour's biggest mistake or the best thing that could have happened. We shall see.

There was no need to “correct” it. You told us he worked there for a year. You neglected to mention that it was in a junior role unconnected with grooming gangs.

Ok, so - for the sake of posterity, please.

Are you emphatically pro-Burnham, or?

It would be interesting to see a job description and person spec for the role of Prime Minister.

I guess its possible in this internet based world
that the ‘personal communication style’ element on such a document is different to what was needed prior but I worry that’s has become the overriding requirement.

On the other hand if we need sound bite type ‘leader’ it is imperative that the followers - those heading government departments have the necessary subject matter substance and grit or we are going to spiral further.