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?

I agree with you both here.

Ah yes. Russell Brand, that well known voice of reason. From a quick search:

Russell Brand has increasingly promoted conspiracy theories and misinformation on his YouTube channel since the COVID-19 pandemic, aligning his content with far-right and anti-establishment narratives. His theories often frame mainstream media and government institutions as part of a globalist elite seeking control, a narrative he leveraged to defend against sexual assault allegations published in 2023.
Key conspiracy themes promoted or questioned by Brand include:

• The Great Reset: A theory that the pandemic was a plot by global elites to strip people of freedoms and rebuild the economy.
• COVID Misinformation: Claims that vaccines were not properly tested, that ivermectin was an effective treatment, and that lockdowns were exercises in social control.
• Ukraine War Narratives: Promotion of Kremlin-aligned disinformation, including false claims about US-funded biolabs in Ukraine and questioning Western support for the war.
• 9/11 and Elites: Expressions of skepticism about the official 9/11 narrative and frequent attacks on figures like Bill Gates and Big Pharma for alleged profit-driven agendas.
• Extraterrestrials: Discussions suggesting aliens may be "Gods" we have been communicating with, often featuring UFO researchers.

Following the 2023 allegations, Brand claimed the accusations were a coordinated attack by mainstream media to silence his free speech and critique of these institutions. This defense found support from figures like Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, and Tucker Carlson, who argued the allegations were politically motivated due to Brand’s anti-establishment views. Experts describe Brand’s approach as "just asking questions," which allows him to spread disinformation without explicitly endorsing it, thereby building a loyal conspiracy-driven fanbase.

I'm not really sure @Wineoholic I'd be giving his views much credence.

I’m judging him on the disgusting content you posted.

Thankfully swiftly deleted by MNHQ.

If they could have been made aware of it they probably wouldn’t have kept going, as in the end they lost their jobs. The end result of their approach was being ousted in return.

So yes it was felt widely enough for a Labour leader to go, when up until recently many said, including on here, that Labour didn’t do that and it wasn’t likely to happen.

I wasn't on Mumsnet then, so I don't know what was and wasn't said about Starmer on here. I personally didn't find him or Reeves especially divisive in their rhetoric - apart from Starmer's island of strangers speech, I suppose, which I did find uncomfortable.

I still think in a conversation about divisiveness, it seems odd to single them out in particular.

The proof is in the outcome, enough people felt the same way and the three mentioned below are no longer in their jobs.

I don’t think I am as invested in the fortunes of the Labour Party as you seem to think I am. I’m also not sure Reeves and Starmer were ousted for being divisive, per se. I think they -like Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Theresa May before them - were ousted because their unpopularity was dragging their party down, and getting in the way of their ability to legislate.

All I’m really interested in is getting back to a style of government that is about pragmatic, evidence based policy making for the long term good, with less of divisive, populist, knee jerk rhetoric. Speaking as someone who has not really seen any politician - from any political party - as capable of delivering that for quite some time, Andy Burnham does make me feel hopeful that a different kind of politics is possible.

This does feel quite a circular discussion, though, so happy to agree to disagree (although I’m not quite sure we even do disagree as I might be being dense, but I still don’t think I fully understand your point!)

It does. I’m answering your questions and showing that many felt similarly.

Andy in the library with a candlestick, one year from now

I can totally see why Andy Burnham's style and empathic emotion laden speeches give people hope in a new approach. But I can equally understand how Starmer's style of a more honest (even if slightly dull) grown politician was appealing to many voters after the personality / emotive style politics of say Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.

However Starmer came undone because he was unable to enact any real change or growth because he couldn't cut spending, couldn't increase debt and increasing taxation slowed the economy.

And Burnham will face exactly the same problem and will come undone in exactly the same way.

This is true. There is an initial response to personalities, but the lasting judgement is what they get accomplished or not. Sadly the things that will yield real results take patience. And the electorate is not reasonable pr patient it would seem.

It looks like lower AI regulation here is helping v the EU which is slowed by it. We should keep that advantage and grow it.

Also sadly the things that will yield real results such as cutting Government spending involves pain that voters are unwilling to accept.

So in short and in another analogy voters want to lose weight in under a week and still be able to eat what they want. Or to get fit in under a week and not do any exercise.

Exactly so.

Nice analogy

I think that is fair but the government needs to at least take action. We had Starmer telling us to lose weight by getting fitter (growth) whilst at the same time feeding us cake. The actions need to move towards the outcome at somepoint.

He is not capable of anything more. All jokes, good vibes, bread rolls and promises for the working families...the working families are ok, who is going to keep funding his foreign friends?

Correct. All eye brows and a tee shirt with a bit of sexual dynamic innuendo sent by Kemi - give this nation its carrots, sticks and bread

exactly....the same and worse is happening in France

Well Starmer did try and take action by attempting to cut spending (PIP welfare payments) but was blocked by his Labour backbenchers because they wanted to keep their seats at the next election.

Of course Starmer tried to push the magic solution of "economic growth " but then did exactly the opposite by increasing employer NI.

The reality is that voters want results in an unrealistic timeframe and are unwilling to accept any pain (except if it is in other people) in order to get there.

That only leaves a "slow managed economic and social decline " as the default result.