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?

Lots of people wanted Burnham and very few want another GE. Your opinions don’t represent the entire population, much as you might wish they did.

The folk north of the border seem to be saying that it is odd that "Number 10 of the North" is still in the south of the UK.

Manchester is in the North West of England. The North. I’m not sure why people are suggesting it’s in the south.

Because it's not the north of the UK, of which he's PM.

"The country doesn't want Burnham, the country wants a GE"

Which country is that, Russia, US?

Burnham won the Makerfield by-election. He was elected by the voters.

And then he won the leadership election, unopposed.

The Labour Party want Andy Burnham, it is them who chose him. Not the country. I’ll be happy to see him do well, provided he sticks to the manifesto on which the Labour Party were elected. The one we voted for.

Because Andy Burnham is the Prime Minister for the whole of the UK, not just England. .

Honestly, google is your friend, it will stop you getting things wrong constantly.

Manchester is not getting ALL the investment the civil service has opened offices across the UK. Darlington has some major new offices, as does Leeds, Birmingham and Nottingham. The plan is for 80% of civil service to move to the regions - all the regions.

This isn’t sudden it’s been happening for years, perhaps you will support the move if you realise it started under Theresa May. An excellent plan by a Tory PM.

All this mention of AB being parochial is the exact type of snobbery Theresa May was trying to stop. We need to value all the regions and draw on the skills of the whole population. In lots of countries Mayors become leaders, it’s very common for regions or cities to act as policy laboratories. The only people being small minded and parochial are those who don’t realise that we are simply doing what many, many other countries do. Open your minds.

Since ONS moved to Newport the quality of their output has fallen massively. Delays to reporting, frequent significant corrections…

If you strip it all back, Labour promised to focus on GROWTH above all else. Starmer and Reeves made anti-growth choices, probably forced to do so by their backbenchers.

Strip away the noise and the chatter about superficial floof, like Starmer’s voice, Reeves’ look, etc. and this is why the public lost faith in them and they lost power.

Burnham can be a real fun charismatic guy and still fail if he can’t address the key issues. Yapping about the cost of living and a few retail giveaways won’t cut it. We have deep issues, financially we are in debt and paying a premium; culturally we are riven by immigration; militarily we are hollowed out.

It will take time. But the public aren’t stupid. They can tell the difference between sticking plasters and deep reforms.

The economy is growing, just not fast enough for many voters.

The Iran war is not helping growth.

If it was unopposed it wasn't an election. This is why people are saying strictly, he is unelected. He was elected for his Makerfield seat, yes. Al Carns, who would be a better PM, might have doubted he would get the number of supporters to stand against Burnham, the populist PM.

Burnham is not the first MP to win the leadership contest unopposed.

He has lost leadership contests as well. He is an experienced politician.

Carns is still very new and didn't have the support. There is no way you can say he would be better. You preferred him, that you can say.

As you prefer Burnham.

Over Carns? Yes.

I am willing to give Burnham time.

Strictly speaking he became PM via a parliamentary system, he followed all the rules needed in a
parliamentary system. Strictly speaking in a presidential system he would not have been elected.
Elected unopposed is absolutely a valid result - strictly speaking.

This discussion made me go and listen to Carns' reason for turning down a different ministerial position in the current administration. He is very impressive in his integrity over the defence spending. I hope they will sort that out and he will be able to take another role:

I can't understand the thinking of Streeting in this role and the demotion of Dan Jarvis except for it being very partisan.

Well he's in now and got his dream of being PM. His mayoral populism will get him so far in running the country. Big problems equals big decisions.

Carns’ integrity over defence spending would have been a hell of a lot more impressive if he’d taken a role and contributed his undoubted expertise instead of taking his bat and ball home. It’s easy to stand and heckle from the backbenchs.

Yes, strictly speaking. But we the members of the Labour Party voted against having him as leader twice. He has conspired with the PLP to dodge having to face another vote. It is all ‘by the book’, but I am struggling to find it particularly democratic.

He couldn't be more impressive, and currently unusual, in his integrity. He wasn't offered a position in the Defence team. He is better at explaining it himself:

Need To Know Birmingham & Black Country - Selly Oak MP turns down ministerial offer - BBC Sounds

“Yes, strictly speaking. But we the members of the Labour Party voted against having him as leader twice. He has conspired with the PLP to dodge having to face another vote. It is all ‘by the book’, but I am struggling to find it particularly democratic”

Hear, hear.

How are we supposed to trust this man and the PLP? They have basically shat on the LP grass roots membership - of which I am one.

And of which I was also a member for almost 30 years until I resigned the day that Burnham deposed Kier. It was despicable.

Out of interest, what is the feeling generally among the Labour grassroots about Burnham’s takeover? Do you have a sense of that?

What the fuck is this absolute bullshit?

https://x.com/andyburnham/status/2080675959770935563?s=46&t=wjgj9AHysRwn3YQi4vJFdw