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.

Honoured to draw so much of a following. Keep it up.

Any chance of an explanation why you think Burnham is not qualified @WizdomE ?

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...No one gave two shits about Mandelson, it wasn’t the issue a PM should have died on.
👏🏻
Can I vote for you?

AB is not qualified simply based upon scale and his self interest (vs genuine leadership values). You never hire a leader of 150 people managing a budget of £30m per annum to lead 15,000 people with a budget of £billions.
(note figures are not accurate just a representation of scale).

Leaders cannot always scale, which is why being tested as they progress into bigger roles is important. He has leapfrogged to the top, and has not been truly tested yet on the international stage. So if he gets into the top role, do we want this to be where he is tested?

I have no idea what you mean with 'scale'

Can you give an example of a PM who can scale?

@hedgeknight We have had PMs who have been Chancellors, Home Secretaries and other big cabinet posts. They have had much bigger responsibilities which is much better prep. The scale of these jobs is much bigger than a City mayor which is far more about PR and advocacy for your city. We cannot pretend Burnham had done much on the national stage.

He was in government before he was Mayor

Yes OP. None of the parties fit what the country needs . It seems to be all about ego’s not sensible centrist policy .

Are you advocating a move towards the Chinese (PRC) model of what they say is meritocracy, but is really more of an aristocracy ?

Their system is to select a large amount of Princelings at a young age, and "nurture" them through the Party. They do a few years here, a few there, working their way up through the Party system till there is a "top group", who then decide who from among them will be the leader.

It's similar to the old UK system of Dukes and Lords. That they were bred to lead.

Is that a better system than any Tom Dick or Harry standing for elections and winning ?

Even if he was the best PM, he needs a good cabinet to support him. I don't see the calibre of talent there to support him. I don't see anything changing much tbh.

@hedgeknight He did next to nothing in government! He had 3 cabinet roles between 2007-10 and stayed nowhere to do the job properly. Not really his fault but then failed to be leader twice. Not that the Labour Party chose wisely on any of those two occasions snd he smelled the coffee and went to Manchester. Manchester mayor is not great prep as the role is completely different.

@Fluffyholeysocks I agree, Labour is woefully short of good people with vision. They just stick to party lines and don’t come up with anything new and certainly no solutions. They have no idea that economic growth needs to be nurtured via business. They just see business as a tax cow. Burnham has no idea and too many are anti profit and anti business so there’s not much hope of growth and better wages.

None of that means he is not qualified.

Can you give an example of a PM who meets your requirements?

Liz Truss

I preferred steady kier. I think the mess left by the tories will take a long time to sort and can't be done without encouraging growth.

There is no appetite for reversing it but Brexshit was the worst act of economic self harmony drained our clout on the global stage. I don't want to go there either but it's such a shame Cameron fucked the country.

Burnham probably won't be given enough time to turn around the mess in the same way that they turned on Kier they will turn on him.

The Tories and Nigels bunch of racists are not the answer. I think a PR elected cross party coalition could be the best way to get us out of the mess without playing party politics all the time.

We now hear Burnham is going to work part of the week in Manchester and commute! How can this work? There’s no civil service in Manchester! Are people being forced to move? How much will this cost? It’s bonkers! Are we getting Assylum seekers living at Chequers?

Quote : "There’s no civil service in Manchester! "

Are you sure ?

If you mean there is no Westminster CS then fair enough. But does location really matter in this WFM era ? Does it really have to be Westminster CS who print reports out.

How on earth does any PM manage when they go to Chequers, or abroad ?

@RedTagAlan I’m near Chequers and a few CS people facilitate what they do there - of course! That’s not the same as moving people up and down to Manchester and the cabinet office at the highest levels is not WFH. There’s not the top CS people heading up departments in Manchester - so they either move or the whole thing is handed over to Burnham acolytes, yes people and SPADs. Any why Manchester? What about everywhere else? The seat of government is Westminster. Devolution is blame game time!

You are saying Chequers has full time CS staff, to look after the PM when he is there ?

What do they do for all the time he is not there ?

I suspect Manchester because he has a team there already. And it's really as easy to phone a Ministry from there as it is to phone from number 10.

On a lighter note, if Burnham is about to crash housing prices, perhaps the London CS will jump at the chance to sell their South East houses and buy cheaper in Manchester area. Cash in before it all collapses.

I hardly think it's a deal breaker. People in the private sector often have to move to where the work is.

@RedTagAlan No! I clearly didn’t say that. I am talking about talks with world leaders, important meetings with key ministers etc. There are top civil servants there if required. It’s only 35 miles from London and is a well oiled machine wuth their own dedicated police and security.

Burnham is planning to work in Manchester some of his time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ey985nyqpo

So don't worry about him packing up Westminster and move it to Winterfell

I think the mess left by the Tories will take a long time to sort and can't be done without encouraging growth.
Burnham probably won't be given enough time to turn around the mess in the same way that they turned on Kier they will turn on him.
I agree it will take a while, but having thought about the problems Andy will come in with a plan. Which Keir did not have. Arrogant Keir thought that being Labour was enough, they were obviously so much nicer.

No PM can work in two places effectively. Manchester will just be his SPADs and a few mates. How on earth is this be effective or cost effective? What about security? It’s just about PR - again!

His constituency is in Manchester. Decent MPs already spend three days out of seven in their constituency. Perhaps Burnham won’t use Chequers.

Andy Burnham isn't setting up No 10 North because he can't be arsed move to London! Successive prime ministers have complained that a mouse-ridden 300 year old Townhouse it is not suitable as the hub of a modern government, and that day to day operations end up swamping work on strategic vision - it makes sense to separate the longer term and day to day operations. No.10 North will have a specific purpose – clearly focused on the prime minister’s priorities of devolution and economic growth. And of course it makes sense for that to be in Manchester - it's where Andy Burnham already has a successful team, it's near his constituency and there is already a site where thousands of civil servants will be moving to over the next couple of years (already agreed by the treasury). And it's symbolic too: in a good way, why should anyone who wants an important meeting with the Primeminister have to trek to London? We are one of the most fiscally and polictially imbalanced nations in the developed world - successive governments have talked and talked about changing that, maybe Andy Burnham and No 10 North will finally make it happen.