AIBU to think his speech sounded too parochial for a leader?

[lightseeker]

I listened to Andy Burnham's speech today and all he talked about was devolution to the regions. I mean ok, fine, by all means give that a go. But, do people think he sounds like a national leader? What about international policy - the Middle East or Ukraine? What about sustainable energy transitions? What is his stance on developing closer relations with the EU? What about the economy? What is his global vision? It will take a lot more than building more council houses and giving out free bus passes. AIBU - the man is sounding way too parochial?

@randomchap If you can’t put your point across without calling people names then you clearly have nothing of note to contribute.

Hope this helps.

Honestly? Poll after poll, focus group after focus group, election post-mortems all show that one of the biggest causes of disaffection and unhappiness with politics is that the basics aren't working. The bread and butter stuff doesn't get done, or gets done badly.

The UK and England in particular is one of the most centralised governments in the developed world, and that comes with downsides.

Regional devolution and local government reform to date has been half-hearted, piecemeal, inconsistent and quite a British "let's just muddle through." Devolution in the home nations has been similarly inconsistent. It's a created a system that the centre can't navigate consistently or efficiently so results in far too broad "one size fits all" policies

Devolution isn't a particularly sexy or eye-catching thing and the reason central governments don't like it is that it sets up alternative power centres and means they are less likely to get the credit when things go well.

In a country where people feel it isn't being governed well, and in some ways feels ungovernable, it's refreshing to have someone stake their leadership on the idea that administrative structures aren't working and need fixing, rather than grandstanding on "the big issues" (that are often unfixable without sorting the "small stuff" first.)

Like I said, if you don't want to be called a liar then don't lie.

Okay - how about ‘in my opinion he is achieving a weird cult like status where people won’t actually counter a statement they disagree with by putting their opinion across; they just get nasty and call people liars’? Better?

I am AUDHD so if I don’t type the words exactly how you think I should then that’s just how it is. What is your excuse for being unpleasant?

What is your problem? Feel free to prove me a liar instead of just insulting me

I already have. I'm not going to repeat myself for you

Devolution is a big risk for him. We’ve already seen how much people view local elections as an opportunity for a protest vote. If he doesn’t win over the electorate we could end up with Reform running the regions. And do we really want to add yet another layer of politicians?

Once again, who's going to be paying for the hike in security. Being PM obviously carries more risk.

I can’t see anything substantive on this thread from you - perhaps you could quote the post in which you explained why this isn’t true? Thanks.

Local councils are notorious for corruption. Think planning, contracts, self interest. Arguable whether many have a mandate to actually operate so few people ever vote in them.
Offloading decisions that Central Government would normally take to Local Authorities does not bode well. It really amounts to abdicating responsibility for the decisions made.
He knows he has to raise taxes. But doesn’t want the blame for doing so. So will leave that with the Local Authority.
Any issues, nothing to do with your MP. Talk to the Council.

Well, did we vote for any of this?

Local councils are notorious for corruption. And central government isn't?

It's worth looking at the UK's plummeting position in the Corruption Perception Index (produced by Transparency International) and the examples included there.

Deepening existing devolution and widening it to more areas was in the Labour manifesto, so yes, in principle.

It specifically talks about local areas gaining more powers over transport, adult education and skills, housing and planning and employment support.

The manifesto is really helpfully online so it's easy to check this stuff.

By parochial, do you mean he spoke with a regional accent?!

Britain is one of the most economically lopsided countries in the rich world, and a big part of the problem is a highly centralised state.

Successive governments have spoken about the need to address that imbalance - from the Northern Powerhouse to Levelling Up. I think it’s refreshing to have a leader who actually plans to not just talk about it, but to do something about it.

And if he becomes leader of the Labour Party, Andy Burnham does have a mandate for these ideas - it was Labour who won the election, not Keir Starmer (we don’t have a presidential system) and Labour’s 2024 manifesto spoke explicitly about expanding devolution. So we DID vote for this - it’s just there’s now a leader with the vision and drive to actually deliver it.

Apart from not knowing how reliable your source is I don’t think pointing a finger at Central Government somehow absolves Local Authorities for being corrupt.

From the Labour manifesto:

"Economic growth across the country

Every town and city across the country has a vital contribution to make to our economy. But too many areas have been held back because decisions are often taken in Westminster, and not by local leaders who understand local ambitions and strengths. This means we fail to make the most of the contribution everyone can make, hampering economic growth. So, Labour will transfer power out of Westminster, and into our communities, with landmark devolution legislation to take back control."

So yes, we did vote for this.

The sad fact is that many in the North who have not travelled around the UK do believe they are harder done by than elsewhere. When it is not so.
There is not a line drawn across the country that says below is all rich, above is all poor. It is far mashed up and no lines.
London has rich and poor.
The South ( which is not London) has rich and poor.
The Midlands has rich and poor
The North - West Central and East has rich and poor.
And the same for the West and the East.

Do parts of Chesire need ‘levelling up’? Do parts of North Yorkshire?

Sorry but don’t believe in this political rubbish. It is designed just to obtain votes. But don’t believe in it.

It's interesting that you've replied to a point about lopsided government and over centralisation by focusing on the North - when a proper approach to decentralisation would get rid of the fragmented patch work we currently have and roll out stronger powers (including fiscal powers) across the country.

No, but your post implies that Local Authorities are more corrupt than Central Government, and does not provide any evidence for this.

It may or may not be the case, but surely we would need evidence before concluding that devolution creates a greatest risk of corruption?

I replied to the post arguing about the need to level up as it is called. The post focused on the North. As inevitably much will from now on.

Crikey. This is Mumsnet. Do not dismiss a well known fact ( corruption in LA’s) because a poster is not able to provide at the drop of a hat detailed statistical evaluation.
No. LA’s are corrupt. Well known. My original post did not mention nor imply about any corruption in Central Government. As well you know.

It mentioned Northern Powerhouse alongside levelling up as a way of tackling regional inequality/differences in economic performance; I don't think it was focused on the north as a whole?

I remember.

Think American HOA

I think the original post was clear enough. It didn’t mention anything else but.

Agreed. At this point, I’m happy with anyone who isn’t Farage to be PM.