Andy Burnham blocked from re-entering parliament.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

An article in the Times today said how awful Lammy was at PMQT yesterday. I didn’t see it myself but my partner came round yesterday afternoon and the first thing he said was how good Lammy had been. The media have got it in for Labour while giving Reform a really easy time.

Starmer is frequently misrepresented in the newspapers. Not because he is Starmer, but because he is Labour.
Any Labour leader will be treated the same, and so all 'news' about him should be scrutinised before accepting it as 'accurate'.

A pole taken January 2027 ? Reminds of the poles re Corbyn, he would storm the country. John MacDonall,thought he would, he thought the same of Burnham 2 days ago.

Yes

So why did he walk away from being an MP? Sour grapes because he didn’t become leader of the party? And why has he continually criticised Keir since Labour won the election. I don’t look on him as a team player I’m afraid. He reminds me of the union leader that was high profile a couple of years ago that was always criticising Starmer, Mick Lynch.

I am sure in 6 months the poll data will change in some or many ways. It may poll worse for example. But the voting public did make their views clear on 27 January. It provides a bench mark going forward...

On 27/1/25, 47% of the voting public across the country believed on 27th January 2026 that it would be a good thing if KS was replaced as PM NOW, the only minister they feel would make a better job is Burnham, and that 44% of the public feel KS made the wrong decision by blocking Burnham in the by-election. Those are high percentages across the voting public.

This will be tracked and if deteriorate for KS will embolden those MPs vying for his position- eg. Raynor, Streeting and Mahood.

Casdon I agree with you. I was working in the NHS during the period Burnham was Health Minster 2006-2007 then Secretary of State for Health 2009-2010. He was well thought of and in my experience the best minister ever in my adult life time.

Waiting lists, patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, commissioning decisions, quality and safety standards, funding allocations etc all improved during his tenures and have not been sustained at such levels ever since.

That autocorrect made me laugh (while I’m procrastinating on filling in my tax form) I think I’d make a better PM than Keith Starmer too!

I think it’s the heat of the moment following the furore, in terms of who would make the better Labour PM though, if the same question was asked in six months time the answer could be very different, and might not be either of those two.

Don't take my word for it- see what the country's voters believe:
Yougov.co.uk poll 27 January 2026:

"1) 40% of labour voters believe Andy Burham would make a better PM than Keith Starmer
2) 34% of Britons ( ie all voters) have a favourable opinion of Burnham, up 5 points since December compared to 20% seeing Starmer positively
3) 47% of britons ( ie all voters) , including 38% of Labour voters believe it would be good for the country if Starmer were replaced as PM and Labour leader (compared to 26% who said it would be a bad thing and 27% don't know)
4) Briton's tend to believe Labour made the wrong decision to block Burnham's candidacy for the Gorton and Denton by-election by 44% to 12%.
5) 47% of the country feels it would be a good thing if KS was related as PM and Labour leader NOW (compared to 26% a bad thing and 27% don't know)
6) Burham stands out among senior labour figures in terms of personal popularity. 34% of the country have a favourable opinion of B compared to 20% of the public seeing S favourably.
7) The public are more likely to believe the other leadership contenders would do a worse job than Starmer, e.g Raynor (37% to 12%), Mahood (22% to 8%) or Wes Strreting (22% to 8%) etc etc"

We on Gransnet as a demographic are not representative of the Briton's voters. According to this polling data from UK voters, the time is more right than not right to change the PM at this time, and Burnham is seen as the best contender to replace him and the ONLY contender who is considered will do a. better job than Starmer.

I know there are very few who agree with my views and thats ok. But I feel Labour's best opportunity to secure a 2nd term with the best placed leadership successor has been lost by blocking him from standing in the by-election.

I was in the NHS at the time, and he was generally very well thought of, probably the best Health Minister in my career. He led a period of great improvement, waiting lists were at their lowest for a number of years, and patients satisfaction was at its highest. He did have quite a few run ins and make some major mistakes of course, but there has never been a Health Minister worth his or her salt who hasn’t.

I’ve always had a lot of time for him, I just believe he should have kept his powder dry over the last year and picked the right moment, nearer the election if he wanted to return to Westminster.

He was, as I recall, reasonably competent in his brief Ministerial roles, but never exactly stellar.
Not as Health Secretary. Mind you, it was rather a questionable time for the NHS under that Government.

Lemonjam how can people compare Burnham to cabinet members when he is not in the cabinet? He was, as I recall, reasonably competent in his brief Ministerial roles, but never exactly stellar. He always seemed to be a career politician and as others have said, failed to win leadership elections. No doubt he is a good Mayor, but it is a bit of a leap to assume he would be a wonderful Prime Minister.

My thoughts were that Burnham has a 10 year success record track record of growth in Manchester and the highest personal poll ratings of everyone in cabinet including Starmer - by far. Much more popular and less bombastic than Streting for example.

Plus it would be some time anyway before Burnham could actually contend for PM position as he has to be MP first and after that secure a government position and demonstrate some success. So it would by definition not be now- but some time in the future. So the "not at this moment" PM change is not on the table as far as Burnham is concerned. If other PM contenders make their strike later this year- next or the following unless Burnham has an MP position he is out of the running- the most popular person for leadership with the public. Starmer knows that.

Plus meanwhile Burnham, in my view would be the most likely successful contender for Gorton and Denton by election. I really hope Labour don't lose that as a result.

With Trump only just completed his first year of a 4 year term- the world most likely will continue in a 'critical state of change" for the duration of this government. I'm not sure the message of Starmer's policy decisions, implementation and direction is reaching the public and that is a fundamental part of Labour's current problem I feel.

I hope you are all right 🤞🤞

He says Starmer has never supported him but I read that he supported him in one of his leadership bids? And would assume he supported him for the Mayors position?

Whitewavemark2

No I am not willing to stick with Starmer through thick and thin, but just at the moment it doesn’t seem the right time, particularly as I haven’t heard a single Labour politician with either the message or fire that I think is needed to bring the policies needed.

You are right LemonJam, there will need to be a reckoning for Starmer. Now was a completely inappropriate time for a leadership challenge to be mounted though. It’s too early in the government’s term, the world is in a critical state of change, the domestic policies are being put in place but the effects are not yet being felt, and the Labour Party, as other parties, needs to unite to out manoevre Reform and its ilk. In my opinion it was very heavy footed of Burnham to make his personal ambition a major topic now. I can’t forgive him for that I’m afraid.

Would Burnham be wanting to give up his mayorship to become an MP again I’d Labour were still in opposition and there wasn’t a chance for him to be PM? WhatI’d like to know is who is funding Reform and, whoever they are, are they the sort of people that want to help the poor? Imo Burnham should fulfil his commitment to the people of Manchester then become an MP at the next election.

No I am not willing to stick with Starmer through thick and thin, but just at the moment it doesn’t seem the right time, particularly as I haven’t heard a single Labour politician with either the message or fire that I think is needed to bring the policies needed.