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.

There are loads of threads which are along the lines you state. I've started to hide the numerous Reform threads because they add zero to my time on here. They are just echo chambers of insults to both Reform and their voter base. When are these people going to realise it's a party that's been set up to combat the dissatisfaction of both main parties.

You seem to have chosen to be easily offended.

I wonder why.

Like I said earlier, this fawning over Burnham and irrational outpouring of love for him and refusal to see his (glaringly obvious) limitations is a re-run of what this group said about Starmer. It will be fun to watch it unravel.

I’m not offended at all - I just find a bizarre and unhelpful way to frame a political debate. I don’t understand what purpose it serves other than to further to divide people and push them further into their own echo chambers.

What about you?

Aren’t you doing the same thing?

An echo chamber would be where everyone has to agree Burnham is great etc. A thread with different views on here is fine.

While we've got you OP, you listed the Nscale decision as one of the things you were really concerned about as a sign that the country was going downhill.

You must therefore have a view on the grid connection investment plans recently announced?

(I would love to have a discussion on policy rather than personality, but you seem curiously reticent.)

A prime minister appearing on reality shows is not indicative of him being ‘real’. It’s indicative of him being out of his depth.

Did that also apply to Blair, Cameron and Farage?

I don’t actually think so, no - because I don’t think I’ve been insulting to other politicians, or to posters who hold different opinions to me.

I’ve asked questions and engaged with alternative viewpoints - as have plenty of other posters who’ve disagreed with me. They haven’t all used the same sneering, goading tone as the OP and so, i’ve found it enlightening to see their points of view.

I think the rumoured plans for Rosebank will buy him some popularity but in general, I agree with you.

Politically, I’ve never really picked a side. I tend to vote for the person who has the most views that I can broadly align with, so over the years I’ve voted for all sorts.

When AB first got started, I had a smidge of hope that maybe he’d really do something positive but tinkering about the edges with reduced bus fares or saving us £8 a year on gas bills while ignoring the eye watering costs at the petrol pumps, is just bizarre. Expecting people to be grateful that we can now see the prices on Google maps (info that was already available on several different websites/apps) so that we can drive further in order to save 3p a litre, is again just weird and out of touch. There’s been no acknowledgement that the government is making a tidy profit on all this extra VAT on fuel. Any news on where that money is going? Does Rachel Reeves ‘black hole’ still exist?

All in all, I believe that AB is sincere (an unpopular opinion, admittedly) but I think he went into it all starry eyed and didn’t realise that being the PM is about appeasement and keeping your own job, rather than having the real power to do anything meaningful. The backbenchers are always sitting there waiting to start a revolt, the minute a PM steps out of line so I think you’re right, it may not be long before once again the mood turns sour.

This.

I like him.

This thread has really left me in despair at the intellect of voters in the UK, the future of democracy and whether giving everyone the vote actually harms democracy.

Getting back to OPs original point. Yes comparatively Starmer is intellectually superior to Burnham but this doesn't necessarily make him better. Burnham is definitely by no measure "dumb".

But it is "dumb" to suggest that his accent, where he's from and whether he is or is not on Gogglebox is in any way relevant to whether he is a capable OM or not.

What is also dumb is a failure to understand that the Government borrowing more money is increasingly no longer an option, that 10% of Government expenditure being spent on debt interest is not sustainable, that increasing taxation simply slows the economy, which means that you have raise taxation again, that current levels of Government spending is also not sustainable.

The only solution is for the Government to spend less money (not more as Burnham wishes), this will lower yield rates which will lower interest rates which will grow the economy. If it is feasible then decrease taxes but the priority has to be cutting Government spending.

France has the highest level of Government spending as a % of GDP at 57%. The UK is 45%, US 35% and global average 17%.

There is a very good reason why France is in such a mess - it's run out of money and the voters want more Government spending.

But as I said the average voter and poster on this thread is not capable of seeing or understanding this.

I don’t disagree with that. I’m really interested in hearing different opinions of Andy Burnham - that’s why I’ve kept engaging with the thread. I just don’t think it’s productive when those opinions are phrased as insults or hyperbolic generalisations.

(I also completely agree with @LuckyHazelFox that the same thing can happen during discussions about Reform and I don’t think name calling is useful there, either)

I hear what you’re saying, and anyone talking about the debt over the last few years has got backlash. France is a warning on this now.

So of the options, who would you prefer?

I am from GM and you aren’t wrong. I think there may be a deep dive into GM’s historic leadership at some point. He is liked but he doesn’t have the heft of an international politician and Trump thinks he’s a good guy which makes my heart sink.

I think this is a really interesting perspective - and I do agree that the quality of political debate in our country in general has become too shallow, with too many people demanding instant solutions to complex problems.

But I don’t think it’s true to say how a Prime Minister presents and how they choose to communicate with the electorate is irrelevant to how capable they are. Starmer was simply not well liked enough to take the public, or even his party - with him on cuts. It remains to be seen whether Andy Burnham will be. But I think behind his talk of hope and everyday fixes, the strategy is very much about getting the public to believe in politics again, in order to enable longer term, potentially tougher reforms to take place.

I also don’t think at the moment, there is an opposition party with the fiscal credibility to get the debt down, either - the Tories might talk the talk, but at the same time they’re promising costly tax giveaways to their base. So, I personally would rather give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt and at least wait and see what the budget and the spending review hold.

I wonder what was the main change in France that has lead them to where they are now 🤔

France has a long history of violent and disruptive political protest which pre dates anything you might be hinting here.

I do not support the rioters in France or think they are a positive thing. I think far right and far left civil disobedience is equally frightening in its implications for society.

I think it's interesting the anger is all focused on governments and immigrants when actually we are undergoing fundamental economic and technological changes which concentrate power and resources in the hand of a tiny number of tech magnates who are not interested in the greater good.

Why don’t you tell us you know nothing about French history.

By your logic BoJo was also a small town mayor.

Look at how that turned out. A shit PM.

He had a lot to manage, simultaneously, in one term. I'd like to have seen how other PMs would have navigated their way through it.

Better than him. He was the worst possible PM to have at a time of crisis. May would have been far better.

A lot to manage like buying wallpaper at £800 per roll funded by the tax payer.

He has been nothing but point scoring.

North v South
Grandmothers house
Thatcher

I haven't seem much in the way of policies that reward working, spending and saving, give people a realistic chance to get out of poverty, own a home/ rent securely and build security or polices which which help reduce the socialised cost of personal responsibility (parenting, worklessness, health etc).

All that seems to be happening is that ordinary workers are being lined up as the wealthy because the wealthy are hard to get at. These strawmen are and will be paying more tax on their "wealth" and taking on more debt, while investors/ corporates receive disproportionately more of their hard earned assets and income. We will also be footing the bill for a commitment to more public sector spending even though this doesn't have enough to cover its current commitments. As for devolution - public sector and local government have a poor track record for negotiating deals which maximise value creation, minimise costs, or even that protects taxpayers.

So I am not convinced that avoiding a general election is worth the price of giving this government more time.