Burnham - does he know what a woman is?

[Dragonasaurus]

Just that really - we’ve had Starmer prevaricating, fence sitting, “most women don’t have a penis” in fact women don’t have a penis’ but somehow I’m going to let Phillipson sit on the guidance which would ensure women’s single sex spaces (some of them anyway)…..

Would Burnham be any better? Does anyone know what his position is?

That’s the one thing I’ve seen suggested that I agree with. Miliband as Chancellor is a horrifying prospect.

Joshi of The Mill was on the Spectator podcast the other week describing what he sees as Burnham's strengths and weaknesses, from what he's observed in Manchester. I'm paraphrasing but it went a bit like this

Joshi: He's got lots of virtues, he's a great communicator, connects really well with people, has emotional intelligence, has the ability to act quickly on instinct. He lacks a clear ideology but lots of people would see him as embodying the party's values. But he's too anxious to be liked, he's not a details man, he's surrounded himself with yes men who confirm his positive outlook on life rather than tough people who will challenge him to make hard choices

Tim Shipman: To me you've just described Boris Johnson

'So it’s the 80s. It’s all leg warmers and Wham! Are you with me? I was born in the winter of 82, in Salford. As a teenager I lived next door to the McVities factory – which just so happens to be right next to a little known constituency called Gorton and Denton. I still remember waking up to the smell of chocolate in the mornings, wafting down the street. Look – it wasn’t perfect, but we had everything we needed.'

Zack Polanksi.

https://greenparty.org.uk/2026/03/18/zack-polanski-lays-out-plans-to-back-the-caring-majority-in-major-speech/

And yes I will keep wheeling out that quote at every opportunity.

It’s great, isn’t it.

Yes, he's going to be grilled relentlessly on everything that Starmer has already been grilled on. Though, of course, that will include his attitude towards protected eingle sex categories, 'child transition' and puberty blockers. He'll respond in the same way that Starmer did, which was to waffle and prevaricate so as not to upset anyone. He won't be able to say "no" to his backbenchers.
We'll be turning the clock back two years. He simply won't be able to deal with the level of scrutiny he'll be under.

Wes Streeting could do him some further damage by demanding a debate on policy proposals and details.

The socialist campaign group are not Burnham's main power base (he's soft left, not socialist) but to them he's the lesser of two evils (or three, if you include Streeting). Remember that Starmer - after being elected to the leadership on a promise of continuity Corbynism - abruptly declared all-out war on that wing of the party, ruthlessly purged many of them, arranged selection procedures to minimise their number in the 2024 intake and of course expelled their most high profile figurehead.

It's pretty hard to imagine a candidate that they WOULDN'T prefer over the one who has made it his personal mission to completely demolish their wing of the party's supposedly "broad church".

Burnham notably didn't join in with the PLP's project to undermine Corbyn after 2015, the chicken coup etc. That probably counts for something.

.

According to the Times, a longtime supporter of trans rights, Burnham criticised last year’s Supreme Court ruling that defined “sex” in the Equality Act as biological sex.

He has argued it makes daily life and access to public facilities more “confusing” for transgender people. He has advocated for a new consensus rather than strict legal exclusion.

Mandated?

Blair went to Fettes.

That means absolutely nothing though. It's a total fudge in the manner of Kier Starmer. The consensus is already established - and that is single sex spaces refer to biological sex.

If establishments want to offer a third 'neutral' faclity they can; and in fact some already are. There need be no confusion at all. But Burnham simply creates more confusion because of his refusal to be clear about the details .

There is no 'consesnus' on some men being in women's protected spaces, and there never will be.

Yes, she suggested there needed to be a study into the efficacy, along with recorded data. This was a mandate from a clinical professional that the activists have now launched upon.

Mandated implies it's compulsory whereas it's more correct to say she recommended further research not mandated it.

She has effectively mandated the trial though, hasn't she? Everyone can, and does, now use the excuse that it is necessary. You can quibble abiut semantics all you like, but that is the net effect.

It feels like Streeting has withered away into the background by now, is he biding his time still? It was all a bit of a damp squib when he resigned.

I don't think Cass was in a position to ‘mandate’ anything, but yes, she suggested that research was necessary to establish whether puberty blockers made these children’s puberties more bearable, and the medical establishment has stepped up.

I also don’t think it’s activists, or even activists within medicine.

It’s worth listening to Stella O’Malley’s latest Beyond Gender podcast where she and Mia interview Dr Louise Irvine, of the Clinical advisory network on sex and gender. They discuss this very point, and remind us that while the ‘law fare’ aspect of challenging genderism is largely successful, the medical side continues in its merry way, setting up puberty trials, setting up clinics and hubs etc etc.

In doing so she validated the concept of the trans child, though...rather than simply a distressed child led astray/validated in a delusion/false premise - by those that should know better.

It is naive not to be aware that there are activist doctors and others involved. You might call this. " stepping up" but I'd call them activists. Someone who has embraced the idea ( and the wider ideology) that there is such a thing as a 'gender identity' and that some children might benefit from having a perfectly natural part of their development halted, and subverted.

I suspect he'll make himself known fairly soon. Even if he stands no chance of winning any leadership election, he can certainly pose some important questions when it comes to future direction and firm policy proposal.

Oh. I posted a link to the odds of next PM on a betting site. Didn't realise that wasn't allowed.

Heh! A few other contenders worth considering, surely?

I guess Farage is high because they think there’s an outside chance Starmer will call a general election asap?

Well papers today say Starmer stepping down.

Not sure if it’s just a headline but I’m incredibly angry though not surprised. As one caller on R4 said yesterday, a single constituent has now been able to vote in the entire country’s PM so how is that democracy?

And every time life isn’t going well, one MP can just step down, call a by election and vote a new party leader in? It’s manipulative and shoddy politics. Burnham’s only done it at a time he was sure Starmer was done for, but hadn’t put himself forward in a fair fight, had he.

Plus, it probably takes a year to settle into the role, he’s going to ditch Reeves, who I never liked but the bond markets did, more disruption as new cabinet ministers learn their brief, and we’ll have more market chaos.

All because of Burnham’s ego in being another man seeing himself as a white knight saviour charging in to save the UK. We may regret losing Starmer’s more cautious and incremental technocratic approach but I guess we’ll find out.

I fear you’re being too optimistic @Shortshriftandlethal in assuming that the consensus can’t be ignored, side stepped, manipulated or legislated against. The SC ruled on the law, but laws are dictated by government. A Burnham govt requiring the support of backbenchers cannot be trusted. Who knows what the crazy party will do next.

And I thought Labour under Starmer was beginning to have a chance at the next election as it felt things were starting to go in the right direction. However as others are saying, Burnham may well run up against monetary and fiscal realities. Where will the govt get the funds to nationalise utilities? Fund defence? He’s already indicated going after capital gains, the market won’t like that. Burnham may end up consigning Labour to being an irrelevant player like Johnson did to the Tories. Shall we bring back the monarchy as rulers?

*single constituency lol