PM Andy Burham: what next for women's (and children's) rights?

[BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp]

There didn't seem to be an appropriate existing thread, so -
Given that none of us voted for Andy (I know, I know, Labour won the last election, vote for party, he is new leader...blah blah) -

Any predictions for how bad it could get (puberty blocker trial, Conversion Bill, etc.)? Anything positive to look forward to?

New backing from MPs mathematically guarantees Burnham's coronation

27 more Labour MPs have nominated Andy Burnham to be leader of the Labour Party - making it mathematically impossible for any other leadership contender to challenge him.
^^
349 Labour MPs have now nominated Burnham, up from 322 on Thursday.
A candidate needs 81 nominations to stand - so there now aren't enough Labour MPs left to nominate anyone else.
^^
Burnham will still need the backing of three affiliated organisations and trade unions.

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-burnham-starmer-labour-tories-badenoch-farage-12593360#12052134

The thing about HNH is that, despite being paid by the government for allegedly being experts on "extremism" (a very elastic term; their definition of "far right" seems to include anyone to the right of Penny Mordaunt), they also function as a rather effective deniable dirty tricks department of the Labour Party.

Also, the Conservatives being in government for 14 years had no impact on their state funding, which tells you something about the state.

I think he knows it’s last chance saloon for Labour and has picked up that it’s not a vote winner to override women.

I think he’ll just park it mostly and ignore it all.

Maybe it’ll flare up again so could be wrong.

I really hope this is true. The way she was treated was appalling.

Yeah, I don't like extremism, of any ilk. Hope not Hate's website, what I've seen so far, is just full of sweeping statements about "far right extremism." That's fine, but I wonder if they realize that it's not just the "Right" who can be extreme.

Most real life is lived in the middle, not at the extremes. I hope someone on Burnham's team will be able to rein all the extremists in, when necessary. And I sincerely hope that these advisors remember that Burnham isn't now just one of their woke-bro flunkies, but PM of a country (as of Monday).

From the various things I've read about Burnham going on about his dislike of Thatcher and how he wants to nationalise and extend devolution, and Manchesterise the country, I'm not sure Labour's really meeting the people where they live.

The country is on its knees: the social welfare bill is extremely worrying (and I have no problem in people receiving help if they need it but this level of welfare spending is unsustainable), the majority of voters are living very close to regular use of overdrafts and credit cards to cover basic living expenses, roads are cratered with potholes, bins aren't being emptied regularly, councils do very little for the upkeep of the local communities, hospitals have impossibly long waiting lists and old infrastructure, water companies are turning the coastline 1970s brown again, and in every part of life there is more and more 'computer says no' bureaucracy from national and local government.

Private sector businesses are champing at the bit to cut staffing because in their dreams AI and robots will do everything they formerly paid humans to do, successive governments have basically outsourced all manufacturing to China so we're at the mercy of a rival power if we want even basic supplies, we still buy fuel from Russia even though we know they're using the profits to continue the war in Ukraine, and we haven't even begun to deal with the excessive numbers of illegal migrants coming here and making life difficult for people living in working class areas.

We don't need an Andy Burnham 1970s-Labour tribute act, we need a government that actually tries to tackle the major issues negatively affecting the country rather than tinkering around the edges and scolding people for using social media in a way that Labour MPs find uncouth.

We don't need an Andy Burnham 1970s-Labour tribute act

I don't know a lot about him yet, but, from what I've read of what he has said so far, he's a "local" guy. Thinks local, deals with things locally, likes being "the nice guy in politics who still uses public transportation." Like Biden, but with a lot less experience. I'm not convinced he has the experience or knowledge to work at the international level, and everything he has said so far is about "stuff" - building houses, especially social housing; fixing ferry and other public transportation contracts; nationalizing services. It's, as you say, very Old Skool 1970s "stuff." That's fine for this weekend, but I hope he puts his Cabinet together over the weekend, because he is going to have to start working on Monday. Dealing with Iran/US, fixing our present and future economic potholes, and doing SOMETHING with the NHS. I don't think he's ready, and I worry about these advisors he's going to be leaning on.

Expanding devolution is quite clever. It will give Westminster less to do, and he can wash his hands of problems he doesn't want to deal with.

I'm concerned where women's rights will fall in all this. We are going to need something between "the law will take care of it" and "women don't deserve rights." Just fence-sitting like Keir and saying nothing is not going to cut it. He can't just ignore it and hope it all goes away. Women are already having to go to court, just for the courts to say "well, of course you have rights." It would save a lot of time and money if the Government would just come out and say "Just stop. Women have rights and we support them. Find some other grievances to occupy your time, and get over it.". That's what I want to hear from Andy.

Another worry of mine is that Burnham seems to be deliberately doing all of his (so far rather twee) communicating via social media and actively avoiding questions from the press, plus Labour MPs have blocked Burnham being questioned by opposition MPs in parliament for the time being.

I don't like this, it strikes me as lacking in accountability and prioritising spin, and I'm already annoyed at Labour anointing him as the new PM without any contest within the party.

I have a bad feeling about this new PM: I wasn't impressed by Burnham when he was part of the previous Labour government, and I was right in predicting, during the the 2024 election, how Starmer would behave on the topic of women's rights when in government.

Press release politics won't last long. Precisely because of the lack of accountability.

I don't know that some of his schemes are 1970s. They make economic sense to put things on national debt upfront rather than to do things through pfi which merely kicks the cost down the road at larger expense with little oversight.

This doesn't necessarily look great on the books but long term it's much more financially literate and cheaper for tax payers.

So I don't think that some of these proposals are hard left. They are just old fashioned common sense rather than fudging for political reasons.

Yes, if he starts doing online versions of "Biden's Basement " then there will be no accountability and women will never get their voices heard. His recent Q&A on Reddit was a bad start to this.

He's married to a woman so clearly knows they exist, but whether he realizes we are 51% of the population, time will tell. I am not optimistic.

I, too, am annoyed at the "annointing" of a new PM that we don't know the majority wants, but in British politics, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Now we have to make him act like a PM, force him to make decisions, and be accountable.

He'll last until the next election, unless Labour have several, successive, disastrous by-elections in a row. But if he does nothing more than chat online, make the right noises in donors' direction, and maybe start one popular economic scheme that never needs to be finished (and, therefore, never needs to be judged), then we'll have a Reform minority government by 2029.

The very fact that he avoids journalists' questions for two weeks, then gives an interview to a footballer turned crisp salesman who doesn't exactly press him hard...

I think he expects the same Pravda-style coverage the MEN has been giving him as mayor, and that's not going to happen.

He's a good communicator and great at vibes based politics, but as PM you have to make hard decisions. There's a relatively recent case of a big city mayor, who was a good communicator with a knack for vibes based politics, who thought being PM would be easy.

He's going to be in for a rude shock I suspect. The honeymoon won't last long.

rather than to do things through pfi which merely kicks the cost down the road at larger expense with little oversight.

Agree. PFI was a disaster. The "old-fashioned common sense" thing, perhaps. If they work. When they don't work, it just looks like incompetence and stealing money from taxpayers.

So, we shall see. As you say, it's just started. He has some time to show what he's really like and what he's capable of. It's not that I don't care about the economy, etc. It's just that if you disregard the rights of half the population, you'll always be looking over your shoulder and fire fighting. And nothing ever gets done.

The drain on the taxpayers from all the tribunals has to stop, for one thing. Does he realize? Has he followed any of the tribunals? Does he care that the Civil Service is not just an ideological mess, but actually can be a mentally-harmful place for a lot of women to work?

We shall see.

Renationalising the transport system in Manchester has had huge benefits. That took a lot of guts.

So he does have this behind him.

I'm fairly familiar with a number of nonsensical decisions made in my own local authority which defy logic and economic sense. The gains are there to be made through good decisions - that unfortunately is where I question it as I know some utterly terrible decisions were made here which have had huge consequences. Our local council debt isn't because the council is insolvent. It has been due to incompetence.

PFI is terrible in that sense but loading more debt now is really not good either. Our debt serious incredibly high, over £100bn Pa.

so hopefully Andy Burnham will listen to him.

I do hope so, as well as listening to others who know a lot about this, and can remind him that politicians (and their RSOH advisors) are not above the law.

I genuinely hope you are correct Red

I’m fed up with public policy vacillating between short-termist tinkering via targets/quangos or cutting govt spending to fund tax cuts.

Shabana Mahmood is tipped to be chancellor, isn't she? Having her close to AB will be good news as she is GC.

Yes, I read that somewhere. She's been forthright about a few things, and there is hope there, as long as she doesn't turn into a "Yes Man" and end up caring more about her career than she does about her principles.

ps. Sorry, that sounds really pessimistic when I read it back! I'm afraid I just think all politicians are snakes 😬

I don't think that's likely. She seems to stick to her principles, even when it makes her unpopular. She supports Labour Women's Declaration and gets stick for it, but has never backed down.

After seeing so many posters on FWR genuinely excited by a Labour govt 2 years ago and then seeing them increasingly disappointed by Starmer & Co, I understand your frustration and concern regarding this change of leader.

As for myself, having seen Burnham dancing to New Order on stage after being enthroned as the new Labour leader, I’m increasingly feeling like we’re about to be governed by that character from The Fast Show in the hat & shell suit who thought all things Northern English were ‘Brilliant!’

He looked a little alarmed when Chris Mason asked him a soft ball question in an interview earlier today - as if being fielded with a mildly crictical question was not something he was used to.

Andy Burnham is a 'nice guy', but he does have a tendency to resemble Robbie Willaims in the video for 'Let Me Entertain You' in more than one press photo.

I think that would be a shame, and for her certainly. She's doing a good job at the Home Office.

And that's precisely why it won't fly.

Burnham has to connect with voters.

He has to win over the red/blue wall voters. It's the only way he wins an election. At the same time he has to not lose as many seats to the greens in the south.

So looking like a cheap rent-a-northerner, just isn't going to be good enough. He actually has to rewrite a lot of the narrative and have a credible alternative.

Sound bites and PR are PRECISELY what has alienated huge numbers of voters looking for an alternative to that - who have gone to Reform and the Greens.

And he has very little time to manage to PROVE he can make a difference.

Being decisive rather than fence sitting is one thing voters are looking for. The flip-flopping generally of politicians has been a huge issue for the Torys AND Labour.
Another is substance and being able to hold a conversation about difficult subjects.

If the alternative is Ed Miliband as it seems to be, I’d rather Shabhana takes over from Rachel Reeves.