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?

To be fair I think the conservative government started the North Sea oil fiasco ( not renewing licences etc)

Won’t last, like Starmer, he will be caught between a rock and a hard place, between what the PLP wants (benefits for everyone, take the knee, net zero) and what the population wants (economic growth, immigration control, defence)

Opening an office in Manchester is not going to change that.

There will be a GE and Kemi will win. Can’t come soon enough.

Hopefully until at least the next general election.

I really don't have much of a view either way on Burnham but massive instability and constant changing of government is Really Bad for the country. Far worse than any one or two policies any particular person doesn't like.

Ahhh. Yes - absolutely this. Now she is someone who doesn’t mind making tough decisions. Slowly slowly she is rebuilding the Tory party after the Covid and Brexit fiascos. Reform are turning into the SNP and self imploding through lack of governence. MPs like Danny Kruger who defected will be out on their ear and then begging to rejoin.

Yes - this!

I reckon he'll be there til the next General Election. Labour won't be bothering to put another leader up.

I feel like we’ve all developed a social media mentality when it comes to politics. Short attention spans and expect instant fixes to decades of poor policies, plus most people don’t want to pay the tax required to remedy this. It’s a no win situation.

This is helpful to see where they are:

https://fullfact.org/government-tracker/

I tend to agree with you.
Although some don’t agree with the policies in the first place and most voters (unfortunately) don’t read a manifesto.

If he wants a decent chance of winning a general election and having his own mandate, he needs to trigger it soon after gaining office and accept that many of his MPs will lose their seats and he will have a smaller majority. But he’d benefit from that early bounce and the fact Reform don’t have their act together right now. If he leaves it a couple of years, he will lose a general election for a whole host of reasons. As we’ve seen with Starmer, Labour are far less ruthless than the Tories. It’s much harder to unseat their leader, so I don’t think he’ll be replaced when things inevitably go badly.

I don’t think he is a decent man. Aside from his total lack of charisma, I think he’s a thoroughly unpleasant man whose instincts lack basic morality. The Chagossians who live near me think he’s evil. The veterans being pursued through the courts in the final years of their lives might not use such string language, but are certainly experiencing hell of his making.

Shorter than Starmer because the press will hate him even more because he has, in the past, been to the left of Starmer. Though he seems to be jettisoning all that now, but they won't let him forget it and will probably try to portray him as a crazed communist or something.

And sacking decent people to try and save himself.

On Burnham lasting, we’ll see but his own MPs are looking like a bear trap for him.

Burnham has studiously avoided explaining exactly what his policies will be, it’s all smoke and mirrors, as he tries to appease everyone. It’s far too early to say he’s jettisoning it,

Having a very large majority is often problematic, as the tail can wag the dog. We saw that with the attempt to make very modest changes to protect against projected benefits growth last year. Though I couldn’t help noticing that they changed that caused the rapid growth were made without ever going near Parliament. Until someone dissolves most of the quangos and re-empowers Parliament, nothing will change because no one can deliver on their manifesto promises.

*the changes

Having a very large majority is often problematic

This is a very good point - many MPs thought they had the right experience to be a minister but there just wasn't enough jobs going! You also had some previous ministers who had to step down - because of their own fault - and then had more time to look elsewhere. I'm thinking of Louise Haigh and Josh Simons, particularly. Look out for them in advising Burnham.

Oh yes the economy was absolutely booming when the Tories were last in??? Not. They had 14 years to improve things and they presided over the biggest own goal in British history: Brexit. Plus a failing economy and public services that were falling apart. We became used to not being able to get a hip replacement for two years. Not getting an ambulance even with an emergency situation and police just deciding not to investigate crime because they’re too busy. Pretending that you can have public services while cutting taxes and there’s some magical money tree is just nonsensical.

Starmer was starting to turn things round but people believe what they’re told that immigration is the only issue we have so will vote for any party that promises to solve it - something that the Tories didn’t solve either after 14 years. So I’d like to be free from another bout of them for a while and even worse Farage and his far right loomies.

Traditionally he should not veer too far from the last general election manifesto without going to the people to get a new mandate. The last manifesto was verse sparse, so it doesn’t give much direction. What there isn’t direction from the public for, though, is a hard left government. Most people thought, wrongly, that Starmer was fairly centrist and benign.

Starmer won on a record low turn out because he was not the Tories. He actually got fewer votes for Labour than Corbyn did when he was defeated by an 80 seat Tory majority. That’s why it was nicknamed the loveless lands light. A massive majority in parliament after a vast percentage of the electorate chose to express their dissatisfaction by not voting at all. Essentially, Burnham needs his own mandate.

He'll stay until the 2029 election, because the backbenchers know they can't force out a second leader in this parliamentary term. He's a good communicator, unlike his predecessor, which already counts for something. We never know how someone is going to perform as PM until they start the job. With Burnham, we'll know soon enough. He's got more experience as a Minister, shadow minister and mayor than any of his recent predecessors. What we do know is that the pile-on from the press and the public will be savage and swift. He knows it too. But he has the advantage of being able to learn from Keir's mistskes. So I feel cautiously hopeful but realistic about there being no easy answers to the problems the country faces.

His experience as a minister was being moved on every 12 months at a time when Ministers normally staying in place for years. He has a very poor ministerial record.

Louise Haigh Is a convicted criminal. To my mind, this should preclude anyone from ever holding any kind of public office.

Well she has been instrumental in replacing Starmer with Burnham. And so has Simons.

Please God!

Yes I think that's the crux of the problem.

I like to think that Andy Burnham will die on the hill that is telling Donald Trump to fuck off.