To think Andy Burnham is doing a decent job so far?

[spiceupyourlives]

I’m really impressed by him working with the tories and Lib Dems on social care. It’s what we’ve needed more of in this country for so long, and a solution to the crisis will only come about if the next party to take charge is also committed to the solution.

I hope he fixes it. My point was any policy where the biggest winners are wealthier families and the losers are less wealthy families is going to be a hard sell to get though. Care is one area where because it is paid directly it is very obvious that people pay different amounts for the same service. But the same applies to most services the wealthy pay far for the benefit of the NHS than those who don't work, yet get the same service, but if you put forward a policy that said lets balance that out would be uproar.

As I’ve already tried to point out, no work has started. He just has a commitment from others to collude in seeking some alleviation to the current issues. All ifs and maybes.
Note I say alleviation - thinking a total solution will be achieved in deluded.

I like the idea of more cross party working - less point scoring and more problem solving.
Number 10 North is an interesting idea - I’m not against it, but I’d like to be reassured that Burnham is also considering the interests of other regions - and understands that their needs are very different to Manchester’s.
I didn’t like the way Starmer was pushed out and I thought it was unnecessary but it’s already obvious that Andy Burnham is much more charismatic and skilled at PR. He has reinvigorated politics and has already suggested some good changes eg to education and drilling in the North Sea. Appointing Healey as the exchequer was an excellent idea. I don’t like the sound of Ed Milliband as foreign secretary though - it would have been far better to leave Yvette Cooper in that job.
Personally, I welcome no VAT on electricity and £2 bus fares but they do look a bit like stunts/bribes to win over voters. He needs to show us how he’s going to pay for it all and most importantly how he is going to drive economic growth.

Well, yes but I think that’s because a lot of the negativity and criticisms on this thread are - at the moment - hypothetical. He might end up being bad at some of the things people are suggesting he’ll be bad at - but we haven’t seen that yet.

His job right now is to show the public who he is and what he stands for, and get buy-in to his political vision, in order to shore up as much good will as he can, to make the policy shifts he wants and needs to make.

And if I’m honest, I’d say he’s doing a fairly indisputably good job at that.

Had Labour and the Libdems worked with Teresa May in 2017, the social care crisis may be solved by now.

Any politician can make themselves popular by promising to spend more money to solve everyone's problems. What we've heard nothing is how he plans for fund the extra spending at the same time as dealing with the country's enormous 3 TRILLION pound debt and 120 billion annual interest payments (more than education budget). It's a double whammy and needs to be paid for somehow.

I have never particularly liked Andy Burnham , and I don’t like how he became PM, AND I didn’t actually vote Labour in the last GE… but I am agreeing with a lot of what he has been saying , and the decisions made so far seem sensible and in line with a just left of centre government, which is what I think we need.

So yeah, I (somewhat grudgingly) do think he is doing a decent job so far!

I think you might be wrong. Farage's inspired 😃 move to call a by-election, the ongoing investigations into his and Tice's financial affairs and Reform's slow slide down the polls are all good news for Labour.

Interesting times.

Did she invite them to work with her?

Did they offer?

I don't know!

I have no interest in Reform, but if you simply wish take a negative for them as a positive for Labour, you might be disappointed.

Firstly, I really don’t think it’s true that any politician can make themselves popular by promising to spend more money: Boris Johnson promised and spent massive amounts of public money and it didn’t make him popular. And more importantly - as posts like your own demonstrate - promising to spend lots of money automatically makes you UNpopular with huge swathes of fiscally conservative voters.

The art of politics is first identifying and speaking to the public’s concerns - and then actually solving those problems, in a tangible way. After a week, Andy Burnham’s clearly only at the first part and I - and a lot of other people, across the political spectrum from what I’ve seen, to be fair - think he’s doing an exceptionally good job of reading and speaking to the public mood, and communicating his response.

Obviously, the true test will be actually delivering - and doing so without triggering unexpected tax or debt crises. But we just do not know whether he can do that or not yet, therefore claims he definitely won’t be able to are - by nature - hypothetical.

By refusing to rule out more tax hikes? You might be happy with that. The hard workers and achievers are about to be hit again.

We shall see, but the end of Reform would be a positive for everyone IMO, Tories included.

But again, saying hard workers and high achievers are about to be hit again is purely hypothetical. Refusing to rule out more tax hikes doesn’t mean he is actually going to raise taxes - and to rule out tax raises outside of a budget just because the media keep asking, is IMO playground politics. There are things that will need to be paid for, and whoever is in government will need to pay for them.

Genuinely, the majority of criticisms I’ve seen on Andy Burnham on this thread are about things he MIGHT do rather than on anything he has said or done, which in itself is telling.

Get rid of a legitimate political party. Sounds like fascism. Surely not.

There is a big difference between a party flying high and then disappearing to locking the leaders up and making the party illegal.
I took the comment about this being the end of Reform to mean the party will drop in the polls and maintain a few MPs but will no longer be a realistic government. I certainly didn’t think @TemperanceWestwas implying we round the leaders up and imprison them. I think we need to stop making silly judgments and use our skills of inference.

You are exactly the kind of person who interests me regarding Burnham.

What do you see in him & his government that wasn't there with Starmer - other than more pizazz and knowledge of how to play the media?

Genuine question, not being goady.

Sadly, I think you’re right - and I remember there was a lot of clamouring from across the political spectrum - and especially the care sector - at the time for her to do just that. Sadly, it didn’t succeed - I think at the time her position in her own party was too weak for her to pull it off, and she was too close to a snap election.

Andy Burnham himself tried for cross party talks on this way back when he was health secretary, but has spoken about it being a mistake to attempt it so close to an election.

The big hope for anyone who actually wants to see meaningful change happen on social care is that Andy Burnham has hopefully learnt from his own - and Theresa May’s - mistakes by making this a personal mission while he does still have a lot of political good will behind him. Let’s hope he can pull it off!

Eh, who has said that? Not me. Right now it is looking as though Reform will get rid of itself, at least as a potential government, with no outside help needed.

I am sorry if the thought upsets you.

We shall.

My only hope is we don’t have to wait for the same two years per Starmer. I’m not sure the electorate nor the economy could withstand that.

So you wish for more instability and uncertainty? That is a shame. Do you live in the UK?

There’s no shame in it.

No I don’t - I’m allowed max 90 days per year as a non-resident, which I mainly use during the summer.

And what a summer!

I thought you might not. You wish to see instability and uncertainty in the UK but it won't affect you personally. That is not a very pleasant stance.