Andy Burnham is just a dumbed down version of Starmer

[WarmHiker]

Just caught a snippet of some confident sounding commentator on tv repeating a line that you tend to hear in all news programmes. That Burnham is personable and has charisma. That line is starting make me think that as a country, the tyranny of low expectations has really hit a new low.

First thing’s first, when did saying ‘isn’t it’ after every sentence pass for charisma. Is the bar for charisma really that low.

Second, the guy’s failed upwards into a job that he’s clearly not fit for. His answer to everything is ‘Booses’.

The economy is on fire, buses. Immigration is out of control, buses. Crime is a problem, buses. We have the most expensive energy, buses. Industry and businesses are shutting down, buses.

He’s basically a small town mayor who accidentally became the prime minister because the quality of talent in parliament is non existent. Manchester is not a small town but running buses in Manchester doesn’t make you fit to be a PM. He was a failed health secretary, failed to be Labour leader twice when he actually had to have proper fight, somehow grifted his way to a mayor job for a decade. And yes his predecessors were any better. But why all the fawning over Burnham.

AIBU to think that we are headed towards a point soon when the public turns on him. He’s utterly out of his depth and the false shine will wear off in no time. A General election is looming.

All in all, so sad to see that this is the calibre of person at the top of government. What has happened to this country that no one smart wants to go anywhere politics.

If the IMF have to bail us out

Given that the IMF currently thinks we’re doing pretty well why would anyone entertain that as a possibility? The IMF shot that fox last week.

Gordon Brown had been a long serving Chancellor before taking office. He knew exactly what to do to set the Bank free. Michael Gove had been Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families for three years. He had the support of his Party Leader planning his reforms, and when Cameron became PM he put Whitehall behind Gove. In other words, both Brown and Gove had access to everything they needed to prepare the policies you list during a long lead-in time.

The Makerfield by election was only on 4 July of this year and 13 days later Burnham became PM. Before the election he could not make meaningful policy plans; he lacked access to the needed experts. Also he had a rather demanding job.

I haven’t come to a conclusion on Burnham but this comparison is not fair.

Do you mean he didn’t know much on an important topic when running for Makerfield? So he could make that categoric statement about not re-joining.

In his own words doing so would undermine everything he’d said about strengthening democracy.

As I said in my post, Burnham had been planning his move for a while.

He has formed ideas but they all for the future. Not now.

Totally agree - its so depressing. I'm hoping against hope that the right unite if there's another election otherwise we're completely finished and will be France mark 2.

We now have an X factor situation with politics. Starmer could have done more.

This is what he actually said in the Makerfield campaign:

I’ve got a really clear position. Some people call it a U-turn. It isn’t. I remain of the view I’d like to see us rejoin in my lifetime. That doesn’t mean you rerun the referendum now

I personally believe, and nothing is new because of the byelection, that rerunning Brexit now would be a mistake, because it would just entrench that feeling of division

To answer a pp question yes, those attacking Burnham would rather have the misogynistic party of racists and fascists (as demonstrated by the it documentary), led by someone under parliamentary investigation for failure to declare donations. A party whose workers apparently advised foreign nationals how they can get around the legalities of donating.

They would like them to unite with other right parties, such as the one that has given credence to the black shot brigade, a significant number of whom think that protecting are women and children means beating the shit out of them in the home.

If those people think that the decent, hardworking, honest people of Britain want that they are mistaken. There is a reason the polls show them dwindling, and that is because more people see them for who they are.

For @poetryandwineif she didn’t see his words

Burnham said: ‘My view is that Brexit has been damaging, but I also believe the last thing we should do right now is re-run those arguments.’

He added: ‘I am not proposing that the UK considers rejoining the EU.

‘I respect the decision that was made at the referendum and it is going to undermine everything I have said about strengthening democracy if we don’t respect that vote.’

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx21en4807wo

That was before the by election was called. The quote from the Guardian was his position during the campaign.

I compare him being made PM to a service manager jumping the org chart several rungs to be made CEO.

And yes, his dad’s dead. We know it’s sad for you Andy, many of us have had the same thing happen. But his dead father seems to inspire a lot of his decisions, and having any leader make decisions based on sentimentality is ridiculous.

They’re all useless. If these are our best and brightest then we are all fucked.

He obviously had ideas. He did not have access to planning tools until very recently. There is a big difference.

Thank you. @BIossomtoes

I don't think people want another General Election at the moment which could destabilise the country. It could end in a hung parliament.
] or worse, a Reform government led by Farage! Remember what happened to Teresa May. He needs to be given time and I don't understand why people are so negative. From a personal perspective he would like to rejoin the EU but won't go against the will of the people. He wants a fair discussion.

Why skip his other quote @poetryandwine?

A bit selective, in any case it seems he should know more when making a categorical statement.

Reform voter by any chance?

Burnham is using the death of his father as an illustration of how problems in social care affect families at every level of society - even the PM’s family. His message is ‘if it can happen to my dad, it can happen to yours’, and I think it is a fairly effective way of focusing attention on the problem. That’s very difficult to do, because people prefer not to think about needing it one day.

Burnham has been interested in social care at least going back to his time as Shadow Health Secretary. I was new to the UK, learning how the system worked, and I found his views interesting.

I disagree.

But I also think my other point about governing for today and not for 2030 is not being discussed nearly enough.

He’s just been on GMB with Susannah Reid talking very articulately about this, saying that his own personal position has always been that Brexit is damaging, and that he’s always been clear he’d like to see Britain back in in his life time, but that he understood the British people were boss, and he would never move ahead of the public on this, because to do so would be in democratic, but thought he thought we needed a serious debate about what relationship with the EU was best for Britain going forward. That really doesn’t sound dissimilar to what he said in Makerfield, to me.

I do think suggesting he’s misled people, and people in Makerfield in particular, is barking up the wrong tree. Beth Rigby on Sky did a report with people in Makerfield on this and they really didn’t seem to feel lied to or betrayed.

In general, I tend to think a world where politicians never speak with nuance, should only ever be black and white in their stance, and should never alter their position, does seem like it can only lead to a dumbed down, simplistic politics.

The quote is below. But ok Labour will skip over it. It reminds me of Starmer and posts on here with similar. We’ll see how it works out.

But his dead father seems to inspire a lot of his decisions, and having any leader make decisions based on sentimentality is ridiculous.

Thatcher talked a lot about her father. Which I guess does reinforce that point although perhaps not in the way you intended @Frrrout.

I’m not Labour. I’m an individual with an opinion. And that opinion is it is good and healthy for politicians to speak with nuance and flexibility and not to patronise Red Wall voters by assuming they are blinkered and single-minded about Brexit. From Beth Rigby’s report in Makerfield, plenty of people there feel the same.

I don’t think Starmer was the same at all - in fact I think he was cowardly and disingenuous about Brexit, and didn’t speak up about the damage it was doing, because he was scared of the political consequences. I’m glad to see Andy Burnham take a different approach.

A quote below with his words was skipped entirely. It won’t be skipped when not on mn, and people will react to that.

I just heard a caller sounding the opposite to mn take on FOM and Burnham’s switch. Perhaps Labour have enough advisors saying the same as these posts and as with Starmer telling him it’ll be fine. Let’s see.

A significant proportion of our population want us to at least rejoin the single market. Far more than actively oppose it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/03/half-want-to-rejoin-eu-and-backing-it-could-drive-up-labour-vote-megapoll-finds

Given that it would also undoubtedly confer economic benefit, why shouldn’t Burnham open the discussion. A decade has passed now. No single policy can be held sacrosanct forever as circumstances and opinions change.

So when he said ‘rerunning Brexit now would be a mistake’ - what do you think he meant?