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 🤔

It all boils down to there isn't any more money. Burnham just talks about "reprioritisation". Why doesn't he build a new prison instead of Strangeways. What about the Defence budget Healey resigned over.

Don't let the wool be pulled over your eyes.

When Burnham sits in No 10 North in Manchester he’s making decisions about the UK. I’ve never heard anyone say that No 10 North will only deal with matters concerning ‘the north’, any more than when he’s in Downing St he deals only with matters concerning London.

I cannot see any suggestion of devolution at all in this gimmick. Power hasn’t moved anywhere. It’s in the hands of the PM wherever he happens to be. Devolution is about transferring decision-making power away from the centre, not having the centre riding around in planes or catching trains.

There could be devolution, of course, as with the nations. But No 10 North has nothing to do with that.

It’s symbolic a demonstration of intent, hopefully to be followed by devolution legislation.

@Portakalkedi It’s not bonkers - whole other countries do this. As I’ve mentioned time and again Germany, Austria, Canada and the US are all federal nations where power is spread across the country rather than held in one place. It’s not bonkers or a gimmick it’s different to how we’ve traditionally worked.

Yes, but he wasnt elected in general elections.

Nor was Starmer or any other PM. We don’t have a presidential political system.

I think the more Whitehall and Westminster engages with other regions the better. But I hate the name. I'm already bored of the word Manchester, calling it No 10 North just sounds like Andy Burnham can't imagine anywhere in the world being better than Manchester and the whole country needs to be reshaped in its image. Try telling that to someone in Plymouth, or Rhyl, or anywhere in the UK that isn't a post-industrial city and does not feel any connection with 'The North'.

No Prime Minister ever is.

So why did Burnham call for a GE when the Tories changed leader mid-term?

Why did Rayner say the Tories had 'crowned' Mr Sunak. She added: 'He has no mandate, no answers …

For the same reason the Tories called for a GE when Brown replaced Blair. It's the nature of politics.

TBF, they were playing the game like all politicians do, regardless of party.

People are entitled, and right, to be very, very cynical about Burnham’s path to Downing Street, but I don’t see any stronger reason for a GE now than at any point in the past.

In that way Burnham’s problem isn’t constitutional legitimacy; it’s that everyone can see that he’s a thoroughly self-interested and untrustworthy man.

People are entitled, and right, to be very, very cynical about Burnham’s path to Downing Street

This is what people are expressing on various threads. People have varying knowledge about how the constitution works - but Burnham and Rayner know how it works. Burnham, and his close associates, have worked cynically within this system.

Posters are sometimes expressing their disdain at this skulduggery. That is all. It is posters of various political sympathies, or none. But it is understandable that this should be expressed.

Just factually, that isn't what EVERYONE sees - because if it was, Andy Burnham wouldn't have a significantly higher net favourability rating than any other party leader, and he wouldn't have won the Makerfield by-election with more votes than all the other candidates combined, or 3 Manchester mayoral elections with over sixty percent of the vote each time.

There will be more money. Healey will take a knife to the welfare bill and now Labour backbenchers know they have no choice but to support - they can't have another leader before the election.

Depends if they choose to look. He’s already generated fire from within his own party, and not from the fringe left.

Because being a hypocrite is part of the job description of being an MP.

Which is interesting as it is two of Burnham's closest plotters that orchestrated the scuppering of the welfare bill last time. Haigh and Midgley were the brains behind organising the PLP.

I think you might have a point about the name. I personally really like it - and I have to admit I quite enjoy how much it has certain commentators absolutely frothing at the idea of a bit of power being based outside of London - but I think it might be a distraction from what No10 North actually is, which is a strategic hub, working specifically on the Primeminister's central (and IMO long over-due) vision for increased de-centralisation and re-distribution of power across all of the regions.

I don’t think any commentators are frothing. They just see No 10 North for what it is: a gimmick.

What I think you mean is, you think he is a self-interested and untrustworthy man and you're hoping more people will come around to that view. But factually, that is not the majority opinion of him - and crucially, it's not the opinion of the people who've worked closely with him, including regional mayors of all political leanings.

I think a key mistake Burnham's opponents will keep making, is to keep under-estimating his personal qualities. He just is a very likeable man. His opponents are going to have to work harder on their attack lines, I think.

It does concern me that this is what the voters will conclude. I hope that the devious machinations of Andy Burnham will not put people off voting. Not every campaign will have acolytes (who should have been serving their own constituents?) that live in an AirBNB for a month to get people to vote, as in Makerfield.

Ugh! If true that’s disgusting.

Oh for goodness sake. He came from Glasgow. He’s been in post 3 days and you’re already hating on him. That’s why politics in this country is broken.

Its been 3 days. 3 whole days. Why not wait and see?

Do you think Farage is a good egg, trustworthy and all that, what with his favourability rating having been much higher than Starmer’s for two years. And his very large majority in Clacton?

I don’t. I think Farage is a prize shit. But then I don’t think favourability ratings or election results tell us anything about a politician’s character.

I think what you mean is that Burnham obviously plotted against and deposed Starmer - while telling any audience what they wanted to hear along the way - but that you’re happy with that. Fair enough.

I think many people aren't as superficial as saying I'd like to test snacks with him at the pub so lets give him an easy ride. Ultimately we all want to see a reduction in welfare spending and and improvement in our net disposable income. If he can achieve that then great. But he will need to actually make some of the difficult decisions everyone talks about rather than just sprinkling the sweeties around.