Are parties pursuing power over the country’s needs and leadership quality?

[WizdomE]

Andy Burnham is not qualified nor prepared for PM role. It’s been an opportunistic power grab. The political parties of this country are more interested in gaining power than serving the needs of the country & are willing to sacrifice the needs of the country as long as they are in power. The country is screwed.
get ready for more tax, more debt, companies and hence jobs leaving the country.

@WizdomE Spot on. I listened to Any Qurdtions on R4 earlier, the Labour politician from Sheffield just talked about his charisma and how well he managed people. It’s absolute twaddle. He’s no experience of any issue facing us right now. He’s pulled together movers and shakers in Manchester but this isn’t the same as dealing with Putin or our huge debt. Most of Labour won’t face up to the issues and, if they do, they think smarmy PR man Burnham will persuade us he’s fixing things and there’s “change”. They are low level politicians who simply aren’t good enough.

The MPs only see their job as representing the constituents who voted for them and thats usually a minority. No one else is considered at all. Their job is NOT just to do this. It’s to consider legislation that their party has put forward and not derail it. Plus they have no vision. All these years and no ideas! It’s woeful. However the pay doesn’t attract the best, career politicians like Burnham never work at anything meaningful and they never ever understand business!

Hard agree OP.
But what’s needed (proper health insurance and social care insurance systems, cutting the benefits package and linking it to contributions made, cutting PIP for mental health conditions, making sure UC isn’t inadvertently subsidising split families and family breakdown), properly funding the criminal justice system, won’t keep anyone in power so they won’t do it. Reeves fell at the first hurdle.
Also our media are truly terrible - instead of reporting and analysing facts they hone in on personality/conflict stories. No one gave two shits about Mandelson, it wasn’t the issue a PM should have died on.

Oh dear - autocorrect - Any Questions

I think the media has analysed Burnham quite well. It’s the Labour Party that’s failing and people just reading headlines and SM. Our electorate want their living standards improved according to mp today. Fat chance of that with taxation at a very high rate, high energy costs, high borrowing costs (and markets could be jittery again) and defence spending that’s needed. Milliband for Chancellor anyone? I’d trust his brother but ….. he’s not up to it.

To quote the OP :" Andy Burnham is not qualified nor prepared for PM role. "

What qualifications are needed to be PM ? And what preparation in needed ?

The Male Sea Lion is back! How’s life in the Far East?

Rather than forcing ppl to justify themselves, why don’t you tell us why you think he is qualified, and we tell you whether we agree or not?

Huh ?

Huh is the word.

Well, the OP said "Andy Burnham is not qualified nor prepared for PM role."

I actually asked about that because I don't know. Did you consider that before your "Male Sea Lion" comment ? I have no idea what that means either.

When you read posts like the OP you wonder why the poster even bothers to stay in this country.

Then you read her other posts about being a landlord, extensive foreign travel and 7tcw gold bracelet and think.......ahhhh, she's frit of Labour.

Well the immediate learning from the Starmer years, sorry, months, is that it’s key to have a plan before you come into government, and not make it up on the hoof once you’re in…. Hopefully Burnham has learnt that at least. But I’m sure it’ll be fine now the grownup are in charge 😂😂

That's not really answering my question to the OP. We can narrow it down a bit too. What qualifications are needed for being PM ?

@RedTagAlan No, we don’t need to narrow it down. The key question is what policies will appear. What planning has been done? Burnham has had no handover meetings with CS. He’s not prepared. Everyone talks about his personality and getting things done and listening. Putin won’t care about him listening to Labour MPs who will stab anyone in the back to save their own skins. They don’t listen to everyone either! They exist in their own echo chamber.

By the way, the richest 1% pay around 28% of the income taxes in this country. Vast numbers pay next to nothing. Yes, the 1% should be listened to - we need them! Without them it’s cuts all the way!

No qualifications are required.

It answers the preparation part of your question quite clearly I think :)

I didn’t realise it was necessary to address both questions or not reply at all - perhaps I am woefully under qualified to post on Mumsnet ;)

Who or what is CS?

You could always research emoji use as part of your preparation.

In what way is Burnham not qualified? @WizdomE

Also, who is more qualified to be PM either within the Labour or from other parties?

That's still not answering the question re what qualifications are needed to be PM.

Sorry if I am replying to the wrong person. I just asked the question up thread and seems to be a small flood of non answers.

Well, Starmer has said there will be a handover, and the civil service are pretty much used to doing inductions for new PMs and ministers. And new MP's too.

I have no idea what Putin or tax has to do with my question.

Civil Service.

Thank you. I'm so used to people misspelling Keir I though they meant him.

Putin or tax are always churned out as the modern day equivalent of reds under the bed and the spending other people's money.

On the subject of the civil service, a trend that I don't like in recent years is the blurring of distinctions between political advisors and the CS, and the way PMs are starting to involve the CS in political stuff.

It seems to be going towards the US system, where the CS are being used politically, instead of being neutral.

I can't quite put my finger on it to explain very well unfortunately.

In theory the best preparation for being prime minister would be serving in the cabinet for a few years in one or more of the big three jobs. However, neither Thatcher nor Blair did that and they were the longest serving, and arguably most effective prime ministers in recent years (whatever you think of their policies).

I hope someone stands against Andy Burnham in a Labour leadership contest. Not particularly because I don’t want him to be prime minister, but because I dislike the way that he has become an MP and think he will have no legitimacy at all as PM without a proper process being gone through. Starmer has become very unpopular, and I still don’t entirely understand why, but at least he has legitimacy.

And yes, of course parties are pursuing power over the country’s needs. I don’t think that’s anything new though!

@RedTagAlan The other trend is PMs “sacking” top Civil Servants. They are not employed by the PM and I’m glad some are fighting back.

The public is very fickle and has a short memory. We had “intelligent” showman Boris - ex Mayor of London. Desperate to “get Brexit done” after rather stoical Teresa May. Look at that mess. Now we want PR guru and self publicist Burnham. Similar profile. A mayoral role is lobbying - for more money, devolution and power. Now he’s PM elect, will he devolve power to the regions?

There are very few people in this country who don’t think our defence and security is a priority. Funds are needed. The defence review has been pretty clear - we are poorly equipped and not ready for anything much. NATO leadership is being squandered.

We knew what we were getting with Thatcher. She was nothing if not clear. Blair had worked far more diligently on what Labour would do when he was elected. New Labour had dispensed with the left wing. Starmer thought he had, but they’ve been re-elected as over 100 MPs and now the tail wags the dog. Hence they didn’t like Starmer and the public doesn’t want steady Starmer . They want more money in their pockets and benefits maintained. So how do we pay for this? Most economic commentators think that’s impossible. Burnham has virtually no chance of making people better off and risks making us worse off by spooking the markets and the cost of borrowing goes up. We are in an economic mess and Labour is silent.