When & how will Burnham’s honeymoon come to an end?

[Theblueyonder]

Burnham’s leadership has been relatively free of drama, so far, and certainly when compared to his hapless predecessor.

What do we think will represent Burnham’s first real test? The budget, or something else?

In the link you have posted, it literally says:

As well as opposing the government, the opposition also facilitates some aspects of its work, for example to ensure that legislation is passed.

It also says: Party leaders and whips from both sides communicate through the ‘usual channels’, behind the scenes agreements and compromises designed to ensure the smooth running of parliamentary procedures.

And it even says the exact words: the opposition helps the government govern,

And also within the link it makes this very important point: the government has been given the mandate to govern by the public and it could therefore be unpopular for the opposition to disrupt parliamentary procedure instead of providing constructive opposition.

Our Parliament works best when the opposition are providing scrutiny, of course. But they are absolutely not there to oppose everything just for the sake of it.

In my opinion, the problem with modern politics is parties behaving like they are constantly fighting an election - this obsession with the polls is clearly part of that. The opposition are there to provide scrutiny, to ask rigorous questions from a different ideological stand point. They are not there to score party political points in the hope of winning an election in several years time.

Totally agree but KB offered help with the reforms to the welfare bill and it was rejected? They do already work together on some national interests. Ie. Ukraine, intelligence, counter terrorism, national security, nuclear deterrent, keeping defence, industrial strategies with our close allies Australia and USA.

They do work together on national interests already? The holder of this office appoints a shadow cabinet and shadow ministers, who develop policies and scrutinise the activities of each government department. They sit on the frontbench opposite government ministers in parliament. The opposition is sometimes referred to as a ‘government in waiting’.

What is the role of the official opposition?
Historically and constitutionally, the opposition is understood to have three main roles: ‘to oppose the government, to criticize it and to seek to replace it’.
It is an alternative government in waiting, hence the term ‘loyal opposition’. Historically, opposition MPs were an alternative government the monarch could look to if the government were failing. In the past, if a motion of no confidence passed in the House, the opposition could have been asked to attempt to form a government if a general election was not appropriate.
The opposition is also expected to scrutinise government policy. It does this through the various scrutiny functions available in parliament: asking questions, sitting in committees, and chairing select committees. It will also scrutinise and challenge the government in the media.

Opposition MPs may seek information or demand answers to hold ministers to account through other forms of parliamentary questions, for instance written questions which are submitted and replied to in writing. When granted by the Speaker, urgent questions require a minister to give an immediate answer in the Commons. Business questions to the Leader of the House can be used to influence the agenda of the Commons but can also cover wider issues.

Sorry don’t think they are scoring party points by asking questions you may not agree with, but agree they are hoping to win the next general election.

Thankyou, but I’ve read the whole article, including the sections I highlighted in my reply.

I obviously don’t object to the opposition asking questions I disagree with - I object to them asking questions that I don’t believe they agree with. The triple lock adjustment is a clear example of that. Right wing economists agree it needs adjusting. Privately, I imagine most conservatives agree too. So, why object just for the sake of it?

It is not party political for me - I would object to any political party using their time in opposition purely to point score. One of the reasons David Cameron was a strong leader of the opposition, is he knew when to be collaborative and when to work effectively across party lines on issues like education and climate change.

If you’re genuinely interested in the role of the opposition and how governments could work more effectively, Why We Get the Wrong Politicians by the journalist Isabel Hardman is a really great book.

I personally would actually go further in advocating for a more consensus driven politics - that’s why I’m in favour of electoral reform.

Are there any policies that the opposition are proposing that you think Burnham and Labour should adopt?

Absolutely - the first one that springs to mind is the N.I cut for young people to help support them into work. I would love to see the opposition and the government working constructively on how to solve the NEET crisis, once the recommendations from the Milburn report are available.

I genuinely believe in consensus politics, as do plenty of centrist voters, most of whom
are not that ideologically wedded to one party or another, but who want pragmatic, evidence based policy that will actually work.

Thank you, that’s really kind of you. ❤️

I’m fine. I seem to have provided an evening’s entertainment to a gang of playground bullies so I hope they enjoyed themselves. I’m a tough old bird and I’ve survived and risen above a lot worse than that. If anything like that happens again I’ll definitely be taking it up with MNHQ. It was flagrant flouting of the MN guidelines.

It’s a shame Starmer / Reeves and co stirred such division and sneering plus just general blame for those two years. Mostly at the last gov but at anything.

Thankfully their time is over. Rehashing Brexit will be divisive, especially after declaring to Makerfield it wouldn’t happen, so there’s that hurdle now. It’ll be interesting to see if the red wall Labour MPs feel confident.

I do find it slightly odd that when, only yesterday, a supposedly main stream politician pulled a publicity stunt press conference calling for mass deportations, it is Reeves and Starmer you single out for being divisive. Especially given the Chief of MI5 was very clear in his security briefing yesterday about the growing dangers of anti migrant and Islamophobic rhetoric.

But I agree Andy Burnham has a much better tone than his predecessor in terms of talking about unifying our communities, and standing firm against those who seek to isolate and divide us.

It can’t be that odd given Burnham said similarly only a short while ago. Makerfield:

Burnham said: ‘My view is that Brexit has been damaging, but I also believe the last thing we should do right now is re-run those arguments.’
He added: ‘I am not proposing that the UK considers rejoining the EU.
‘I respect the decision that was made at the referendum and it is going to undermine everything I have said about strengthening democracy if we don’t respect that vote.’

Obviously that lasted for a by-election not longer, but FOM will be required and red wall Labour MPs may feel less confident in that.

Why?

Yes, and this kind of thing is why Burnham has been labelled as a ‘weather-vane’ and ‘people pleaser’.

Net result being - many of us simply don’t believe a word he says.

It’s a major flip. Plus he admits it undermines everything he’s said about strengthening democracy.

My point was about Farage’s rhetoric being far more divisive than any other politician’s and it therefore seeming odd to me that in talking about sewing division and fuelling polarisation you would single out Reeves and Starmer in particular, when they are clearly far from the worst culprits in that regard. It doesn’t seem massively controversial to me to say that the most divisive politician of current times is Nigel Farage - Kemi Badenoch herself said in her (very strong) conference speech that the kind of hate he peddles in has no place in our politics, and many centrist and centre right voters were glad to hear it.

On Brexit, it is not inevitable that a discussion about our future relationship with Europe is toxic and divisive - it is up to us to choose the tone in which we discuss any controversial politic issue. But I have to say, calling the Prime Minister a weather vane or a people pleaser or a u-turner or whatever else for opening the door to a serious debate about the best deal for our economy doesn’t seem a great way to start a good faith conversation.

A couple more polls and a council by-election result. No cigar for Reform in any of it. Nigel will be fuming I hope. It does seem like some of his voters are drifting back to the Tories.

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 28% (-1)
CON: 24% (+3)
RFM: 21% (-3)
LDM: 11% (+1)
GRN: 7% (=)
RES: 5% (+1)
SNP: 2% (=)

Via
@Moreincommon_
, 9-12 Oct.
Changes w/ 3-5 Oct.

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 29% (+3)
RFM: 23% (-2)
CON: 22% (+2)
LDM: 10% (-1)
GRN: 9% (-2)
SNP: 2% (=)

Via
@tweetfreshwater
, 9-11 Oct.
Changes w/ 4-6 Sep.

9h
Rodborough (Stroud) Council By-Election Result:

🌹 LAB: 47.0% (+13.2)
🌍 GRN: 31.7% (+1.5)
➡️ RFM: 12.9% (New)
🌳 CON: 6.9% (-3.9)
🔶 LDM: 1.5% (New)

No Ind (-25.2) as previous.

Labour HOLD.
Changes w/ 2024.
electionmapsuk
@electionmapsuk

Such an odd obsession with Reform.

Ikr.
Reform are not it government. I'm far more interested in what the governing party are doing.

It’s not particularly odd. They’re many people’s worst nightmare.

Did you object to the questions that were asked when Conservatives were the ruling party?

With regards to the triple lock and Kemi, she said and I quote: “I have said that the triple lock is our policy and it remains our policy. I don’t think going after pensioners is the right thing when there are loads of people who can work, who won’t work.“I have said that we are keeping this policy, but if they take that money and they spend it on something that we can’t get it back from, then it would be difficult for me.

I would think that the point for her objection would be that the whole benefit system needs to be reformed. Don’t forget Starmer had to U-turn again, when he wanted reform benefits. Kemi offered to work cross party on this. The whole benefit system is unaffordable. So why remove the 2 child cap then penalise pensioners? That seems like point scoring and vote chasing.

I think I know how opposition parties are supposed to work. Thanks for the suggestion but I don’t need to read a book on Why we get the wrong politicians. I don’t agree with having convicted criminals on the front bench that is disgraceful! Many employees have to have a DBS check which should apply to politicians.

Again, no do not agree at all with consensus politics? Are you really advocating that everybody follows the same political philosophy?

So no we will have to agree to disagree, that to me is what debates are about.

Its odd, especially given a number of posters have completely dismissed their electoral prospects.

Banging on about Farages woes etc.

Their electoral prospects were looking very healthy for a while when they were riding high in the polls. It’s only very recently that they’ve started to drop.

How do you know? You’ve only been here for two days.

Classic.

Search function.

You are familiar with it.