Andy Burnham blocked from re-entering parliament.

I agree about the media and Reform. The media like the drama.

MayBee70 Thu 29-Jan-26 15:26:02- "So why did he walk away from being an MP?"

See centreforcities.org "Why Andy Burnham is swapping Westminster for Greater Manchester" 19 May 2016 by Ben Harrison for some answers. Labour were in opposition in 2016 so some might say it was a wise move.

According to the article he put himself forward for mayoral election because "the emergence of mayoral government across England may mean the national stage will cease to be the "be all and end all" for ambitious politicians seeking to make a difference to the country. Yesterday, Andy Burnham announced he intends to run for the mayoralty of Greater Manchester and there are a number of factors that mean he is unlikely to be the last big hitter in Whitehall to chose to run for office in 2017.
1) A fast track to a bigger, national profile
2) Opportunity to Govern
3) The chance to make a real change in people's lives..."

Arguably Burnham won three elections and by all accounts has been successful in Manchester, named "King of the North" by some. It could reasonably be said achieved all 3 of those goals during the years 2016 to 2026 as Mayor, and whilst Labour was in opposition for 8 of those years. Some might say that compares very favourably to those currently in cabinet who do not have his experience, have not successfully governed a large region for 10 years, and are unable to demonstrate a 10 year track record of making positive change as a result to people's lives.

It demonstrates he is good at being the big fish in the small pond I think.

I agree it demonstrates he is good at being a big fish. Both Andy Burnham (Greater Manchester) and Ben Houchen (Tees Valley) have often been given "Big Fish" status. Houchen known for using mayoral development corporations to take control of major industrial regeneration projects in Tees Valley. Burnham widely seen as a figure who has used the role to become a major political player, sometimes acting as a counter weight to Westminster.

I accept you personally view the mayoral regions - London, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Tees Valley, North East, West of England et al- as "small ponds".

You seem to infer there it maybe somehow lesser in having 10 successful years, winning 3 elections, by being a "big fish" Regional Mayor in a "small pond" region compared to other central Westminster politicians- and of course you are entitled to such an opinion.

He is untried in the one area where Starmer has proved he can operate effectively, ie the big pond of international relations, LemonJam. The dynamics of Westminster is also very different to the regions, the Mayors have more personal autonomy, and a smaller scope of power. That’s what I meant.

All first PM contenders ( unless they have been a PM previously) untried as PM on the world stage.before they come into office. Any and all of Starmer's successor will have to grapple with the national stage side of the role when elected. I agree that Starmer is generally perceived as capable, calm and a pragmatic operator on the international stage. He often appears more at ease in diplomatic settings than domestic settings.

This reputation comes with a significant trade-off however and has been noted to undermine his popularity at home, leading to a "mixed bag" evaluation where his successes abroad are contrasted with low approval ratings domestically.

Nothing is easy in life and trying to get an effective balance between the 2 roles and be successful domestically as well as on the international stage eludes some PMs.

I think Burnham is viewed by many to also be calm, capable and pragmatic- though he won't get the chance any time soon to transfer his set of skills and test them out on the world stage for sure.

Just as an aside. Please don'r compare or equate Burnham with Houchen. There have been some extremely dodgy dealings in Teesside under his direction, verging on the criminal.. The promised jobs an wealth are very slow in materialising while a few people have made an enormous amount of money.

I haven't seen any such occurrences associated with Burnham

I agree MaizieD- no such occurrences aledged against Burnham. Mentioned merely as he is also described by the media as a “big fish” in response to Casdon.

Andy is popular in our CLP. He was a regular support here for our now mp during the last election campaign. My impression is he’s a calmer, more grounded and experienced individual than when he previously ran as leader

I wish he’d been allowed to stand. Labour would probably have won Gorton, he’d be a good mp for that constituency. He would be an asset to the party. Who knows, he might have done what he promised and supported the leadership

Just had our CLP Iam it was clear where sympathies lied as regards the future.

Biding time.

(I'm still not sure about the timing, because of the Reform threat, btw, but I know where I want it to go eventually)

Starmer's true colours have been revealed by the exposure of his connection with the disgraced solicitor Phil Shiner, and his collusion with him in persecuting British soldiers who fought in Iraq. He is now repealing the Act brought in by the last government so he may prosecute veterans from their time in Northern Ireland. It is very clear that his allegiance does not lie with the British people but to the ECHR , and his determination to drag Britain back under their legislation.

He is skilled in using the law to gain his own ends, witness his prevention of Burnham's attempt to rejoin parliament, his prevention of local elections because he fears Reform, his refusal to prevent the building of the enormous Chinese Embassy,and very near the beginning of Labour's election, his use of parliament to goldplate his own pension arrangements.
He won't step down no matter what, because he has no concern for the principles of government, simply the furtherance and imposition of his own ideology, not necessarily in line with that of the Labour party.

That is a lift from the Telegraph, just in case anybody was wondering. It’s another right wing smear attempt.

ThanksCasdon I couldn't read the whole article but having read up on the case IMO it's yet another biased stitch up of Starmer based on absolutely no wrong doing at all. There's no suggestion that Starmer acted improperly, illegally or to make personal gain. Lawyers and barristers work with what they are told and in the Phil Shiner case, Shiner encouraged victims and witnesses to tell lies. There is absolutely no evidence that Starmer was part of this fraud.
Briefly the case was about obtaining compensation for alleged victims of torture and abuse by British soldiers which was found to be untrue Anyone who thinks the actions of our military should be above the law should acquaint themselves with the current case of Jasley Beck and all the other cases of abuse by members of the military over many years . Perpetrators have been protected from prosecution by the military. Does anyone else see comparisons with the behaviour of ICE in Minnesota?

foxie48 comparing the U.K. armed forces to ICE in the USA is a flaming insult 🤬🤬🤬

Casdon

That is a lift from the Telegraph, just in case anybody was wondering. It’s another right wing smear attempt.

We I’ll no doubt get the lies that he was responsible for Saville not being prosecuted, as well as lack of action on organised sexual exploitation of children.

Xposted there with foxie and grannygravy- agree with foxie but not in comparing our military with murderous ICE

I should have made myself more clear, I am comparing the Trump government attempted cover up of ICE operatives wrongdoing with the many examples of the British military covering up the misdeeds of some of it's soldiers etc. Having reread my post I realise how it might have been understood.

foxie 🤙

foxie48 👍

If Starmer is being smeared by the Daily Telegraph article linking his pro bono legal advice to Shiner, should Starmer sue the DT for this smear?

He'd never be out of court if he sued everyone who smeared him. It's become a national hobby.

There needs to be some way Starmer can clear his name? Just saying a right wing newspaper is smearing him isn’t real evidence?

No, it's not - you'r right. But is having numerous court cases a good way to spend public money? Maybe a law saying that media sources have to fact check any articles accusing people of doing things (and publish the fact check)? I don't know. I an very much in favour of free media, but am also very concerned at the way the MSM is behaving (and even more so at some of the nonsense on platforms such as X and YouTube).

Well Trump seems to have the time, money and energy to sue and pursue the BBC. Isn’t it important for Starmer to rebut serious accusations but in a tested and reliable way? Just saying that the DT is right wing doesn’t cut it.

A measure of the man - he had filed 4,000 law suits up to the point he won his first presidential term. I think he’d sue somebody who looked him the wrong way.