Andy Burnham has plan to return to Westminster ‘within weeks’. Allies sayGreater Manchester mayor said to have identified seats where MPs would step aside to allow leadership bid.

I think it’s another of those media initiated storms in a teacup. As far as I can see Burnham himself hasn’t said anything about this.

Luckygirl3

What an opportunist. He does not have the good of the country in mind, but simply bolstering his own ambition. Trying to trample his way to the top. A cynical man.

I’m finished with the Labour Party if that happens. He was the one that stopped being an MP because he found something better to do. If Labour were still in opposition he wouldn’t be doing this. He failed twice to become party leader and now thinks he can renege on his commitment to the people of Manchester and just step into the top job.

I noticed the Mail and Telegraph were stirring with their headlines this morning.

Casdon

I think it’s another of those media initiated storms in a teacup. As far as I can see Burnham himself hasn’t said anything about this.

Oh thankyou this is just what I was going to say!
Another media storm to stress people out just before the local elections.
I am a fan of Burnham and voted for him as leader seevral years ago.
However, his tenure as Mayor has someway to go and personally feel he should do the right thing and stay where he is instead of pandering to those in the party who don't like Starmer (who I didn't vote for either).
There may be some gains for Burnham in the short term but I do think the country has had enough of short termism. I could be wrong but I am disappointed if this has much more than a grain of truth in it.

I do think the country has had enough of short termism - exactly. How can we hope for stability and progress when people are dropped on a whim based on media campaigns?

Surely it's quite evident that the right wing press are in the business of getting rid of Starmer to bring in Farage. They are brainwashing and unfortunately people believe their biaised
articles.

Yes only guardian readers are able to make their own decisions, probably only they should have the vote.

You made me laugh there Galaxy, I’m sure I’ve read on here recently that Guardian readers are the indecisive fence sitters, now they are the decision makers. Which is it to be, or can one be both at the same time?

Glad to be of service Casdon

Hmmm, Galaxy. I regularly peruse the Mail and Express wherever I go, and Mrs Next Door gets nothing else, and doesn't go online at all. She believes every word and comments on it as it it were gospel. We got on just fine, I just never go near politics.

Everyone has the vote: and quite right too:

only some chose to engage with hearing other points of view than their fixed and forever one, based on what they are fed.

Yet, truly, one cannot make political decisions with so little information? It's not a class issue, there are those of all backgrounds who feel more comfortable with a fixed and unchanging view, who are not basically politically curious.

It's the same with say the very far left and right, who only read a very specific range of information.

The right wing press is owned by rich right wing supporters, and their views are daily paraded in some of the red tops. The Guardian/Observer is funded by its readers, who actually have quite a wide range of views, witness the Observer's recent critiques of our government, and requires more effort to take in.

In my experience, people of all political views can respect the fact that others disagree. It's tiresome to keep being told that this is not the case, and it's rather condescending to keep saying it.

If 'progressives' (I assume that includes the Greens and Lib Dems?) will be the end of us all, Labour and the Tories are finished, who do you think is fit for government, Galaxy?

If anyone who thinks their opinions are 'good' is automatically 'bad', what is the point of having an opinion at all? Does that mean that those whose opinions are 'bad' are actually 'good', or does the goodies and baddies analogy stop with those you don't agree with?

Luckygirl3

What an opportunist. He does not have the good of the country in mind, but simply bolstering his own ambition. Trying to trample his way to the top. A cynical man.

Agreed Luckygirl.

I’m a LP member but this would seriously make me reconsider that position.

A leadership battle at this time is not in the best interests of the country … it’s clear where Burnham’s interests lie.

westendgirl

Surely it's quite evident that the right wing press are in the business of getting rid of Starmer to bring in Farage. They are brainwashing and unfortunately people believe their biaised
articles.

Precisely. Whatever their agenda it isn’t for the good of the country .

Interesting comment in the Guardian article:

“However, his [Burnham’s] supporters said they hoped to avoid a formal leadership challenge and to engineer a process where Starmer would set out a timetable to stand down soon after next week’s votes for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and councils across England.”

So, not only does Burnham expect a serving Labour MP (in a safe Labour seat of course) to stand down for him, he also expects a straight path into the top job. Maybe he’s afraid of losing a leadership battle … yet again!

What an arrogant, self serving man!

Casdon

I think it’s another of those media initiated storms in a teacup. As far as I can see Burnham himself hasn’t said anything about this.

I agree with this as well. Burnham doesn't seem to have said anything himself but is getting a lot of flack for something he hasn't actually done.

I agree with this too- this stuff is just very boring and bad journalism.

LizzieDrip

Luckygirl3

What an opportunist. He does not have the good of the country in mind, but simply bolstering his own ambition. Trying to trample his way to the top. A cynical man.

Agreed Luckygirl.

I’m a LP member but this would seriously make me reconsider that position.

A leadership battle at this time is not in the best interests of the country … it’s clear where Burnham’s interests lie.

Going to write to my lovely Labour MP to tell her how I feel. I still want to support her even if I cancel my membership, although I must make an effort to get to the meetings. I have left in the past, though, because I’ve never been left wing enough for some of them.

Ilovecheese

Casdon

I think it’s another of those media initiated storms in a teacup. As far as I can see Burnham himself hasn’t said anything about this.

I agree with this as well. Burnham doesn't seem to have said anything himself but is getting a lot of flack for something he hasn't actually done.

He doesn’t have to say anything imo. It was obvious from that recent by election that he has an agenda.

Until he does, it’s just speculation though MayBee70, that’s my point. Perhaps it just brightens up a no news day.

Whenever people call those with different opinions 'stupid' I am going to challenge it, I don't really care how condescending it may appear.

Galaxy

Whenever people call those with different opinions 'stupid' I am going to challenge it, I don't really care how condescending it may appear.

And that's fair enough - I don't object to that, but assuming that anyone criticising the right wing press assumes that only Guardian readers should have a right to vote is a different matter, surely?

Rather than putting everyone down, why not say what you think?

The fact that the two party dynamic may be crumbling, doesn't necessarily mean those two parties aren't 'fit for government' , it means the electorate are sharing their vote more towards the extremes. Who I think is fit for government won't matter in the slightest.

Galaxy

Yes only guardian readers are able to make their own decisions, probably only they should have the vote.

😂

I was told off on here once for confessing that I was a floating voter!

Sometimes I look at the Guardian, sometimes the Mail, anything that's not behind a paywall. It's voters like me that cause all the problems in this country.

However, I will only float a short way until I swim back to the safety of the fence!

Starmer is a solid reliable PM. Not charismatic, I admit, but is charisma what we want in a leader in an unstable world? He is seen as a very respected statesman on the world stage.

If Burnham succeeded in becoming PM, the media would turn on him relentlessly after a brief honeymoon period.

Trump would probably force him to support his war plans, and the country would be in the middle of an unwanted war.

Really I can’t understand why anyone would want to be Prime Minister dealing with crisis after crisis, and on the receiving end of personal abuse from all sides.

Ilovecheese

Casdon

I think it’s another of those media initiated storms in a teacup. As far as I can see Burnham himself hasn’t said anything about this.

I agree with this as well. Burnham doesn't seem to have said anything himself but is getting a lot of flack for something he hasn't actually done.

It's called stirring the sh*t and everyone seem to be falling for it. Is it a case nothing to see here, folks?

There seems to be a lot of that going on at the moment.