How long do you give Andy Burnham as PM?

[AndyBurnham2L]

Build ‘em up.
Knock ‘em down.

Short honeymoon and then the grumbling will start. It will all be over for him by Christmas.

So, who’s next?

Do you mean Burnham is interested in getting back to 1986? When Thatcher was in?

Kemi had a dodgy start to her leadership, there was lots of talk about her holding the position until someone better came along and how she’d never outshine Farage. Give her a year and she’s doing a good job. I would never vote Tory but I can see when someone is doing a good job of leader of the opposition scrutinising the government.
She’s a bit too abrasive for my personal taste but if I was a Tory I’d probably think she was brilliant.
See - I’m of the left - but I can’t differentiate personalities and politics. I think leader of the opposition is a vital job and I want the person doing it to be good. In the same way I thought Sunak was a good PM, even when I didn’t agree with him

I’ll say it again, as a community we need to consider policies and stability and not rush to judge personalities and demand a new shiny person every ten minutes. We need to put some effort in as an electorate if we want good politicians.

The crime stats thing is interesting. Khan keeps saying murders are down and at their lowest ever level, apparently this is true, but it’s due in large part to advances in emergency medicine. People get stabbed but live.

If stating that Burnham wants a return to the ‘70s is a ‘lie’ then absolutely every bit of rhetoric ever uttered by any politician is a lie.

And, anyway, he can hardly complain after his pandering to the Labour left: he wanted to create that impression, because he thinks the muddle-headed members on the left of his party approve of it.

Is such a bizarre criticism. He cited Thatcher as a key piece in his speech. He didn’t mean he wanted to go back to 1986 when she was in power.

He didn’t correctly state years since pre Thatcher.

I’ve not heard the direct quote, but like all things the 70s weren’t all bad. We had the greatest ever levels of social mobility, some massive victories in social equality and there was a consumer boom in things like colour TVs. Going back to that would be positive.
You will then point out the Winter of discontent and TU abuse of power, very true.
One does not discount the other, both are true. Moving back to better social mobility and decreasing the economic gap between rich and poor would be something we all want.

That would have given Reform or Restore an easy win at the next GE. The damage to the country caused by Starmer and Reeves would have been far too great.

Yes, the timing is off. They haven't got a good handle on their brief - I know it is early days but it is best not to make these extravagant pronouncements if they don't know what they are talking about. Example: Labour “now building prison places at 40 times the rate of the last Conservative administration”. (Emma Reynolds on Today programme), But it wasn't comparing like with like.

Very unsatisfying to have so many statements that aren't bearing up.

The thing is we have to stop this constant attempt to undermine our government. We need them to run their term and you challenge the government on policies as they pass through parliament.

The fact we have had so many PMs is a sign that things aren't working

We need to more than challenge, we need to call out when they cause damage, the issue is the parties don’t change policy, they change the prime minister and keep on with the same crap.

Labour knows full well it’s their policies. Burnham has come in, spent money he doesn’t have, made daft promises and ignored the elephant in the room.

There was a time in the history of benefits when a single mother was allowed to receive Income Support until her youngest child became 16. The law has changed since then. When one woman's youngest child became 16 SHE COULD NOT BELIEVE that the government of the day expected her either to sign on and look for work or be sick and provide sick notes. She imagined that she could just sit on her backside for the rest of her life and someone else would keep her. I don't know what she did, A cynical employee of the Dept. for Social Security told me that some women 'got pregnant again' when the youngest was about 15, so they could stop on benefit.
I am willing to believe that there is only a small percentage of people in this country who are taking the grafters on 12-hour shifts for a ride, but I am not willing to believe that there aren't any.
I don't read the Daily Mail.

Anyone wondering what today’s new policy will be? So far we’ve had 85p a week off energy costs and an optional fare cap on buses, neither of which are funded. Then there is business rates relief for pubs and restaurants, seemingly funded by piling additional rates on vape shops. It should be obvious that a lot of vape shops will simply close under those circumstances, giving us reduced revenue and vacant shops. Burnham has been preparing for government for decades and yet has absolutely nothing of any substance to offer.

Think he’s too busy spending tax payers money on setting up his number ten on the north, Manchester, so he doesn’t need to move.

wonder how much that’s costing us.

Many vapes are sold under the counter from dodgy mini marts - the revenue from the additional rates on vape shops will probably total about £23

He's been referred to as the Martin Lewis PM.

I hope the press actually dig into that and reveal what the true cost is. In any event it’s a complete gimmick. Let’s just hope any space and infrastructure can be repurposed once we get a sensible government in place.

There is a very difficult decision to make re: prisons. This would be the same for anyone who had taken over in 2024 - hence the early release scheme. The BBC says:

Had the releases the Starmer government ordered not taken place, the courts would have had to stop sentencing newly-convicted offenders - and that in turn may have meant the police would have had to slow down charging suspects they knew should be behind bars while they wait for trial.

You don’t need the press, most Mancunians could tell you. The civil service is already building a large new centre in Ancoats, Manchester. The new number 10 will be in a building already being built, already planned for the civil service. The rooms used could be repurposed back into civil service offices if the next PM doesn’t want a no10 north.
Just to reassure you further, it’s being built on a brown field site in an up and coming area that used to be poor. It will probably help develop adjoining areas like Beswick that is still very poor.
Not a gimmick at all really.

Why Manchester?

He loves spending money doesn't he. Now let's see how he proposes to generate it.

I was wondering about the weekend properties - Chequers and Chevening. If his closest ministers and the PM are in Manchester ready for the weekend - is the country still paying for all the staff there? They would have to come down south again to avail themselves .... at least they won't be able to go off with the bathrobes like Liz Truss 😀

They have absolutely no idea how to generate money, only how to spend it.

Not long. The rot will set in once he’s stopped all the fluff and has come clean on how he is going to stop the small boats.

He’ll want an equivalent of Chequers near Manchester. At least that won’t cost much.

Quite! And why have another number 10 at all?!