No 10 North

[Arewethereyetarewe]

I have just seen this on the news. The building and meeting with some regional mayors.

Is this a good move or a gimmick?

I want to be positive but I am not sure 🤔

I think this is all a bit of a tangent, because somebody up thread pointed out that Burnham would be spending every Friday in the Northwest anyway, and in response someone said, “That would make him the first prime minister in history who had the luxury to personally be able to spend time on his own constituency”

Several of us pointed out this wasn’t the case as there is plenty of precedent for a P.M still doing case work & being regularly in their constituency.

I don’t think anyone has at any point suggested a P.M might not have more support from staff to help with constituency work or that they do the exact same amount as a back bench MP.

Just that it is not in any way unusual for a P.M to not be in Downing Street every day of their working week.

Bollocks. That’s in your head. Nowhere else.

If he's doing it to make constituency work easier then he should say that and own it rather than trying to present it as an innovation.

It's already making me think he's all about spin rather than substance.

Anyone can read the thread and draw their own conclusions. 🤷‍♀️

Absolute nonsense.

Surely he isn't expecting his constituents to trek into central Manchester to see him. It's not that close...

Fair.

But it is bonkers to suppose that ‘No 10 North’ is somehow a good idea because the Prime Minister can be driven to his constituency more easily.

There weren’t extra No 10s in Finchley, Huntingdon, Sedgefield, Kirkcaldy, Witney, Maidstone, Uxbridge, Norfolk or Richmond because the PM of the day would benefit from a short ride home.

If No 10 North is an important sign of regional recognition then so be it (it isn’t, it’s a gimmick, but people can differ on that). But there is no justification for it on the basis that Burnham’s a Manchester MP.

Thanks for the list - interesting to see 3 of the PMs were quite a bit further north.

Angela Raynor has a severely disabled son ( born very premature). He lives in her previous house which she has put in trust for him. She shares his care with his father so when it is her days of the week she lives there.

He isn’t just moving staff - he’s hiring more.

But no one is saying that it’s a good idea because he can be easily driven to his constituency, are they? The point that has been made - several times - is that it is not unusual for a P.M to spend a considerable amount of their working week away from Downing Street, both at Chequers and in their constituency.

I personally don’t think it’s a gimmick - I think it’s a powerful mission statement and a smart way to separate the day to day operations of No 10 from the bigger picture strategic vision work the Primeminister also needs to do. But we can all agree to disagree on that, and at the end of the day, the proof will be in the pudding - but what is frustrating about this thread is the amount of straw man arguments and misunderstandings / misrepresentations of how Primeministers spend their time.

Yes, they are saying that. From this thread:

”MPs, as anyone who knows anything about UK politics rather than the froth generated by the media, usually work from their constituencies on a Friday.
Therefore, working from an office close to the constituency, and having meetings with other people who are based up there on a Friday seems quite a sensible idea - rather than dragging everyone down to London.”

And:

”Friday is constituency day. Burnham’s constituency is in Manchester. He should be there on Fridays, not in Westminster.”

For example.

The only straw men are the arguments that No 10 North is somehow an efficiency because Burnham can be close to home.

We’ll have to disagree about the worth of No 10 North. I’d say it’s a ridiculous bit of transparent gimmickry. And I’d lay good money that it will fade away very quickly.

Burnham does seem to be doing his best to peddle gimmicks and folksiness.

And I was just saying the above. 🔼

Ridiculous. Imagine anyone applying for a job then taking the whole company to their hometown as they don’t want to relocate. If he shifts more and more…where does it sensibly stop? Will all the ministers starts selling their second homes and buy up north? Will they all regularly be getting private jets for their one day a week up north etc? Next PM comes in and they sell up again and buy further south and an in rested cost to us all?

He can’t rebuild parliament up North. Meanwhile he continues to act like a Mayor. If he didn’t want to move he should not have applied for the job.

Private jet once a week will cost us all a fortune. The train would too but imagine the carbon footprint. Remind me why we can’t open the North Sea again?

No I do not live in London at all.

On the positive side he’s a far better spokesman that Kier.

On the positive side he’s a far better spokesman that Kier.

He is more touchy-feely certainly, with Kuenssberg: "My strength is remaining close to people, close to the public, that will not change as prime minister."

I don't find him as fluent as I would have thought - I keep noticing the next "uhh". Which makes it hard to listen to him for long.

Also, he does a wavy arm inviting you closer to agree with him motion - which triggers me scrutinising what he says more carefully!

Devolution of power and in many cases federalism happens in lots of countries. It’s not a gimmick it’s a legitimate way of running a country with power closer to the people. No one is suggesting parliament in the North just some decisions are best made closer to the places they happen. Germany and the US are both federal systems.
Just because we haven’t done it before in the U.K. doesn’t mean it isn’t sensible or a gimmick.

having an office in a different place is nothing to do with devolution though.

Of course it is.

It’s a clear demonstration that power can move. AB represents power and he has moved. He can’t introduce devolution in a week by he can make his work pattern a symbol of what he wants.

I wouldnt mind but there are large parts of the south east that are hugely deprived, public transport deserts, unemployment hot spots, terrible services and NHS provision whats going on for us?

Yes there are the Isle of Thanet!

Yes there are, the Isle of Thanet!

Devolution is what’s going on for you. Mayors all over the country are getting more power and more money to improve local areas. It’s a move that’s been welcomed by Tory mayors as well as Labour ones, that’s highly unusual.

Bonkers and unnecessary. Aren't there Labour MPs already representing constituencies in the north, who should be working in their interest? Tremendous waste of money and I can't see many northerners agreeing with it now they see the cost (and the cost of the new proposed hq to be built by 2030 something, when Labour won't be in power anyway). If they do want to address neglected areas of the country, I would say as a northerner than they need to be looking outside Manchester to Cumbria, Midlands etc.

Power is vested in the person, (actually in the job). not the location.

The power remains exactly the same whether it is delivered by that person sat in Manchester or in London.

There are strong arguments to say it will be more difficult to deliver outside London, but that's by the by.

No power has moved to Manchester just because Andy and some civil servants are there.