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.

Burnham seems an amiable enough sort of chap, but to me a tad lightweight.

Although imo most of our PMs of late have been lightweight, - certainly since zBrown - making ridiculous decisions without the weight of intelligent thought behind them.

Overall though I do think people like John Major and others with a greater historical perspective, are correct in calling for a period of stability and stop just for a few years continually calling for a change of leadership when the going gets tough.

I'm another "on the left" of center. I know I'm maybe odd but I liked Brown and liked Milliband. But Brown is gone and Milliband would be torn apart (again) because he always tried to explain the complexities of things and "people" want easy solutions. He is disliked because he's wanting to move more on global warming too. And is he charismatic? And he would always say well, it's not quite as simple as that... and assume we all wanted to hear the complexity and nuance...and then most of the public would tune out...

This opens the door for Farage and Badenoch.

Would I want Burnham - no, I wouldn't. He is out for himself it seems to me. I think a man of strength and significance would serve his term as Mayor.
He would worry me whilst the world is in such chaos.

Better, as Graphite says, to let things ride for now, in my opinion.
I wish the actual manifesto achievements were better known about.

Boris Johnson went from London Mayor to PM- so there is precedence. ... oh dear! ... not very reassuring!

Do those who know more about Burnham feel he has enough experience under his belt to make a good PM? Is this a good moment to rock the boat? Is it OK to manipulate roles for personal ambition rather than see his existing commitments through? Is this fair on those who voted for him in GM?

It all feels a bit cynical to me at a time when LP members should be publicly getting behind Starmer to provide some national stability and get us out of this unstable pattern that leads to short term policy planning when something more long term is what is needed.
I am very concerned about the way these shifts in fortune seem to be media led ... they have such power. I find it rather scary to be honest.

Luckygirl3

*Boris Johnson went from London Mayor to PM- so there is precedence.* ... oh dear! ... not very reassuring!

Do those who know more about Burnham feel he has enough experience under his belt to make a good PM? Is this a good moment to rock the boat? Is it OK to manipulate roles for personal ambition rather than see his existing commitments through? Is this fair on those who voted for him in GM?

It all feels a bit cynical to me at a time when LP members should be publicly getting behind Starmer to provide some national stability and get us out of this unstable pattern that leads to short term policy planning when something more long term is what is needed.
I am very concerned about the way these shifts in fortune seem to be media led ... they have such power. I find it rather scary to be honest.

Many LP back benchers were forced, by whip to get behind Starmer on the vote, which they resented. That things are unstable at the moment for Starmer surely is also by his own doing. You only have to read posts on Gransnet to understand how unpopular he has become. I do agree the right wing media has been very negative and undermining of Starmer from day 1 of his premiership- but that isn't going to change any time soon.

Does Burhma have enough experience under his belt to make a good PM. Many would/might say yes. Definitely more experience and more political achievements than Starmer. Burnham has been in politics for many years so some of us do know him, his style, strengths and achievements. I have worked in the NHS for many years and I remember Burnham when he was Secretary of State for Health. He was well regarded compared to those before and after. He launched the Mid Staffs enquiry. He proposed a National Care Service designed to offer social care free at the point of use and passed the Personal Care Act 2010 in support.. He championed the NHS Constitution that strengthens patients rights. Hospital infections rates fell during his tenure. He reversed policies of competition, making the NHS the preferred provider rather than contracting out to the private sector.

However Labour lost the May 2010 General Election so Burnham's tenure ended and the Conservatives reversed many of his policies, most notably the social care free at the point of use policy and encouraged free market competition.

MaizieD

^Oh, not Raynor please, we'd have another trouser thread.^

I think a trouser thread would be the very least of it

Don’t worry, I think she has very likely learned from her sartorial mistake.😁

Luckygirl3

*Boris Johnson went from London Mayor to PM- so there is precedence.* ... oh dear! ... not very reassuring!

Do those who know more about Burnham feel he has enough experience under his belt to make a good PM? Is this a good moment to rock the boat? Is it OK to manipulate roles for personal ambition rather than see his existing commitments through? Is this fair on those who voted for him in GM?

It all feels a bit cynical to me at a time when LP members should be publicly getting behind Starmer to provide some national stability and get us out of this unstable pattern that leads to short term policy planning when something more long term is what is needed.
I am very concerned about the way these shifts in fortune seem to be media led ... they have such power. I find it rather scary to be honest.

I agree with all this.
At first I thought you might be using Johnson as a model for political expediency!
I came to say he was no model for any politician.

I do think that most MPs are behind Starmer, and as a member I am behind him as I have been all LP leaders even though I never voted for any one of them!

The stability of the country comes first- of course Starmer will get things wrong and those wrongs should be addressed, but to say he should go?

I agree that most of this is stirred up by the media which seems incapable of introspection and seeing its own role in this constant unsettling of the political landscape, creating storms here and there when there is no need at all. They are like Shakespeare's Prospero- creating storms from nothing to serve themselves.

Yes, we give them far too much power and it is scary but when we see it for what it is (let's be honest, most people are too lazy to care) then we can begin to think for ourselves.

I can’t see that AB would be any worse than Starmer but I guess we will see.
The worry is that Rayner or Miliband will be be the choice.😲

^ The stability of the country comes first- of course Starmer will get things wrong and those wrongs should be addressed, but to say he should go?^

Why do people keep saying things like this when ‘the country’ is anything but stable?

It worries me that there is a general assumption that Starmer should go. I cannot see good grounds for this - except of course the media are telling us this should happen.

He has achieved a lot behind the scenes - he gets his head down and gets on with the job.

Heaven forbid we fall into another rollercoaster of constantly changing PMs when they turn out to be human. It stands in the way of real progress. The cult of personality is never a good thing.

Johnson had plenty to personality - look what a mess that all was.

👏👏👏*Luckygirl*.

Boris Johnson is so not any kind of political role model!

It doesn't matter what Gransnetters assume about whether Starmer stays or goes as PM. That decision rests with Labour MPs (unless Starmer decides himself to resign) and the Conservative Party. Eg If 80 or more Labour MPs wish for a vote of confidence in Starmer as PM, he will face a no confidence vote- which he may win or lose. The official opposition party, ie Conservative can also trigger a motion of no confidence, by way of expressing lack of confidence in the government if the May election result are dire for Labour. To do that only 15% of Conservative MPs (not a huge number currently!) write letters to the 1922 Committee. Badenoch is currently on the war path against Starmer so this is a possibility following the May elections.

If Starmer loses a no confidence vote, the government will then have a 14 day period to form a new government or face a General Election.

These scenarios may happen without any intervention whatsoever from Burnham if the May election results are bad for Labour.

Burnham, it is reported, plans to publish his "manifesto" plan for the Labour Party to turn around its current low fortunes directly after the May elections. If seen as "credible" that might mitigate the appetite and need for a no confidence vote. So one way to look at it, if credible, is that Burnham presents a potential solution. Another way to look at it is Burnham's plan is unforgivable, naked ambition and opportunism, so matter how good or bad or how credible his manifesto/plan is, it will be rejected out of hand regardless.

If that is the case, Starmer is on his own and will stand or fall at the hands of his Labour MPs.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Nobody is talking about "a rollercoaster of constantly changing PMs when they turn out to be human" or the "cult of personality" Just what might happen, and if and whether Burnham plays a hand in what comes after- if Starmer faces a no confident sway after the May elections.

Poor results for Labour in those elections won't be down to Burnham (though watch this space in the Greater Manchester area results- I suspect they will be favourable for Labour comparatively) , it will be down to how the general public feels the current Labour Government, lead by Starmer is performing.

I feel that the media are manipulating the voters to give Starmer a bloody nose this month with no regard for the stability of the country. They just like the power.

In the same way as Farage, who is a mere footnote in parliament in reality, is talked up just for the fun of it.

Balance is non-existent.

Wyllow3

Primrose, that is sheer nastiness, in my opinion, not you as I know better, and the pressures you are under, which I greatly sympathise with:

but the words of your post. Especially the choice of photo where as a woman she clearly isn't looking her best.

I'll be direct - wasn't starting the trouser thread enough for you - picking on a woman for how she looks, what she is wearing?

Didn't I say that a trouser thread wouldn't be the worst of it?

Wyllow3

Primrose, that is sheer nastiness, in my opinion, not you as I know better, and the pressures you are under, which I greatly sympathise with:

but the words of your post. Especially the choice of photo where as a woman she clearly isn't looking her best.

I'll be direct - wasn't starting the trouser thread enough for you - picking on a woman for how she looks, what she is wearing?

She chooses to look slobbish, to get the worse for wear through drink and her tax evasion, not me. just telling it like it is!
She is not fit to represent her Party and anybody who thinks she is, is deluded.

Clearly you are right. No one has chosen to mock a male MP like that. I'm very 😡.

I don't want her as a politician, and could find many words to say why. But not that.

MaizieD

Wyllow3

Primrose, that is sheer nastiness, in my opinion, not you as I know better, and the pressures you are under, which I greatly sympathise with:

but the words of your post. Especially the choice of photo where as a woman she clearly isn't looking her best.

I'll be direct - wasn't starting the trouser thread enough for you - picking on a woman for how she looks, what she is wearing?

Didn't I say that a trouser thread wouldn't be the worst of it?

It wasn’t me who reminded us of the green trouser suit thread! 😉

Winston Churchill had a whiskey and soda at breakfast, champagne and wine with his lunch and dinner, each finished with a brandy. 🥃 🍷🥂- plus more besides. Every day. Evidently, as a man, his drinking may not somehow be perceived as negatively as for a woman. However the country did not hold it against him.

As Hannah Spencer said earlier this week- Westminster is awash with a culture of alcohol drinking- no particular reason to single out AR.

That sounds suspiciously like another politician who I seem to remember you defending Primrose53. What goes around comes around.

No Primrose not good enough. You dont wiggle out like that, what you've said, and posted, says quite enough.

I feel she is unreliable as a person for a substantial role, I dont feel comfortable with the way she operates - she would not be my choice for prominence - isn't that enough?

Vindictive, misogynistic, bias.

Indeed, Lemonjam.

Wyllow3

Primrose, that is sheer nastiness, in my opinion, not you as I know better, and the pressures you are under, which I greatly sympathise with:

but the words of your post. Especially the choice of photo where as a woman she clearly isn't looking her best.

I'll be direct - wasn't starting the trouser thread enough for you - picking on a woman for how she looks, what she is wearing?

Please don’t do insults to another poster under the guise of appearing caring, and don’t bring what is known about the poster’s private circumstances onto the thread, it’s just not on.
I don’t want a future PM to drunkenly barge into doors either but that’s only one aspect as she would be a disaster on all fronts.