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.

Westminster seems to be one of few workplaces with a heavy drinking culture. I’m told even journalists don’t drink to the excess of the past.
I wonder if they worked less anti social hours if that would begin to change the culture.
Also is there still a subsidised bar? There shouldn’t be

Ok, last word from me on this, if posters introduce sympathy real or fake into their reposte which suggests you have written a ‘nasty’ comment because of any personal woes, on a thread how would that make you feel

Oreo in answer to your question, this is how it would make me feel:

If I had openly expressed personal difficulties I was going through (albeit on another thread) I would appreciate a poster’s recognition that my current stress may have contributed to my ‘nasty’ comment.

I wouldn’t immediately assume that the poster’s empathy was ‘fake’. I find that a strange position to take.

I would view her empathy as kindness and understanding.

That’s how I would feel.

wyllow3 and lemonjam Politicians have always been taken to task over the way they present themselves. Off the top of my head I remember Michael Foot being pulled up for attending a Remembrance Day service wearing an old coat which some called a donkey jacket, Boris always received comments about his ungainly shape on which a suit never looked good. corbyn too got his share of headlines about his scruffy appearance, Rishi with his tiny designer suits, Theresa May with her chunky jewellery and animal print shoes.

No way was my post misogynistic - I did not comment on her gender, I called her a person. It seems anybody can comment on any politician except Saint Angela!

I know, before you say it, that it’s what a person does, not how they look but it really does matter. politicians, royalty etc should look presentable. Keir Starmer, Andy Burnham, Priti Patel etc all look professional and presentable.

I also know full well that this photo was in her off duty time but she never looks much better when she’s on official business.

If people are happy having her as PM then they will get what you deserve.

Starmer could still defeat his enemies in the party. He could resign and call a general election. Then the Burnhams, Anges and Weses would be deprived of the chance to become prime minister.

I had initially thought that Andy Burnham might be a reasonable candidate until I read that he would offer Angela Rayber and Ed Milliband places in his cabinet. Yikes!!

Thanks Wyllow for bringing the thread back to Burnham.

Replying to Lemon Jam’s post at 8:25

You only have to read posts on Gransnet to understand how unpopular [Starmer] has become.

I would never regard GN as an accurate barometer of public opinion simply because it is a very small platform with a demographic of mostly older women. It’s a demographic which traditionally favours the right as has been evidenced here by the repeated anti-Labour threads and remarks. It started on the very same day Labour won the election and hasn’t let up despite the very good things that Labour has achieved to date, not least rebuilding bridges with Europe that it predecessors and other opponents did their best to tear down.

Other social media has far more people showing support for Starmer (and thankfully there are some here too).

Labour lost the May 2010 General Election so Burnham's tenure ended and the Conservatives reversed many of his policies.

And that is precisely the danger if Burnham turns his back on Manchester right now, leaving it exposed to Reform in the hope (and it is by no means certain) that he could win a by-election to get back into Westminster to stage a coup. Presumably he would want a Manchester constituency. I wouldn’t say any of them are a slam dunk in these febrile times.

www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/area_nwest.html

If, as Wyllow says, there is a different manifesto developing which is more left of centre than surely that’s a matter for Conference which is only six months away. We are not far off summer recess now.

One of the criticisms of Starmer (c/f a very interesting discussion between Andrew Marr and Tom McTague on the New Statesman podcast some months back) is that change is happening too slowly and too conservatively under his leadership, that change needs to be happening faster and really should do with such a large house majority.

Nevertheless Parliamentary procedure is a slow horse. I’m thankful that we don’t have a system where much can be changed on a whim by executive orders as we see in happening the USA. Even if it's tried (through secondary legislation) there are still some checks and balances.

MaizieD

^It's easy to have high approval ratings with no responsibilities. We see this all the time, and so the rollercoaster goes on and in^

At least Burnham is well acquainted with parliament, MP and minister for 16 years, (which is more than Starmer) and has held down a significant political leadership post in Manchester. Apart from Milliband, who keeps counting himself out, I can't see that the other contenders have much of a record in that respect. (though I'd love Angela Rayner to get it )

I think it would take a miracle to keep Starmer in his current post.

At least Burnham is well acquainted with parliament, MP and minister for 16 years

Let us hope, if he ever does become part of Government again, that he has learnt from the disastrous mistakes from last time when he was Health Secretary. Although not directly responsible, he said he had acted on the advice given to him at the time - which is what Ministers and Prime Ministers do, or should do.

The idea of Angela Rayner becoming PM is laughable, but she must know she isn’t in with a shout.
I’m not even sure about AB but can see the possibilities.
The only reason KS hasn’t been replaced so far is that nobody can agree on his successor.

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.

Do those who know more about Burnham feel he has enough experience under his belt to make a good PM?

Former:
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality) 🤔 best forgotten?
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Secretary of State for Health

So I would say he has had more experience than others who might be contenders.

Is this a good moment to rock the boat?
No

Sorry if this has already been said.

It's always worth acknowledging the betting odds. On the most recent Gary's Economics. He tells us that the betting market suggests there is around a 50% chance Starmer goes before September and about a 66% chance he goes this year. Gary Stevenson added that he thinks they will keep him on a little bit longer (and he made and makes his living by picking the right bets). Obviously we don't know but it does suggest no immediate resignation.

The local elections will probably decide who next Prime Minister will be but not necessarily immediately (apparently).

My vote had already gone when I saw this but he is recommending that voters who want wealth taxes, want to stop inequality from growing, you should vote for the Green Party (no suprise there).

Primrose, Michael Foot was not wearing an old jacket, his wife Jill bought a short overcoat because of the weight of his full length overcoat following the injuries received in a car accident,she showed it to me.

Well, what do we make of this?

Allira

Let us hope, if he ever does become part of Government again, that he has learnt from the disastrous mistakes from last time when he was Health Secretary. Although not directly responsible, he said he had acted on the advice given to him at the time - which is what Ministers and Prime Ministers do, or should do.

V

LemonJam

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.



I'm happy to go with the person who actually worked in the NHS when Burnham was in office...

Anniebach

*Primrose*, Michael Foot was not wearing an old jacket, his wife Jill bought a short overcoat because of the weight of his full length overcoat following the injuries received in a car accident,she showed it to me.

I was about to mention you in connection with that coat. Ab

It just goes to show how very sticky journalist's mud slinging can be...

Wyllow3

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.

No one has chosen to mock a male MP like that
Oh yes they have!!
Whether right or wrong, it happens.

I'm sorry, but I prefer someone like Starmer to represent me "on the world stage".

Your sideways swipe at Primrose did you no favours btw.

I don't want her as a politician, and could find many words to say why.
Why do you not want her as a politician, Wyllow? It would be interesting to know your reasons. Me neither and I need to clarify why I my mind.

MaizieD

Well, what do we make of this?

Allira

Let us hope, if he ever does become part of Government again, that he has learnt from the disastrous mistakes from last time when he was Health Secretary. Although not directly responsible, he said he had acted on the advice given to him at the time - which is what Ministers and Prime Ministers do, or should do.

V

LemonJam

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.



I'm happy to go with the person who actually worked in the NHS when Burnham was in office...

So someone who may have an insight into why so many people died needlessly there?

And rather than someone who has connections to Stafford Hospital.

Indeed, Annie.

Foot's jacket is now in the People’s History Museum in Manchester:

Current visitors can admire another famous coat, worn by Labour leader Michael Foot at the Cenotaph for the 1981 Remembrance Sunday service. Derided by the rightwing press as a “donkey jacket” more suitable for a building site than a site of national mourning, the dark brown tweedy number was in fact bought by Foot’s wife from Harrods especially for the occasion. But the press – then, as now, largely owned by wealthy supporters of the Conservative party – portrayed it as deliberate disrespect for the nation’s war dead from the pacifist Foot. Visitors are invited to conclude that Donald Trump did not invent the concept of “fake news”.

More here from the museum:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBWOFnSP0qY

And - in some ways it did not improve there either
😡

I think it's a good idea to write Manifesto's ideas around now: conference, as has been pointed out, is not that far away in terms of political life.

Bear in mind we only have the news it's "his own" Manifesto from a mainly right wing press. Who tend to see "Battles" between individuals not within communities, which the LP is. There are actually a great deal of others involved, and there will be a lot of discussion on L party meetings and internal forums as to policy and in the Unions as to the shape and form of alternatives.

No, of course Gransnet is not a group from which we can gain a general "zeitgeist". How can we be? Age wise has been referred to, and it very significant: age brings a different outlook on life and family life -for a start, we are not really multicultural, which our society is: and whatever our origins although by no means all - probably we would be described as middle class.

Graphite

Thanks Wyllow for bringing the thread back to Burnham.

Replying to Lemon Jam’s post at 8:25

You only have to read posts on Gransnet to understand how unpopular [Starmer] has become.

I would never regard GN as an accurate barometer of public opinion simply because it is a very small platform with a demographic of mostly older women. It’s a demographic which traditionally favours the right as has been evidenced here by the repeated anti-Labour threads and remarks. It started on the very same day Labour won the election and hasn’t let up despite the very good things that Labour has achieved to date, not least rebuilding bridges with Europe that it predecessors and other opponents did their best to tear down.

Other social media has far more people showing support for Starmer (and thankfully there are some here too).

Labour lost the May 2010 General Election so Burnham's tenure ended and the Conservatives reversed many of his policies.

And that is precisely the danger if Burnham turns his back on Manchester right now, leaving it exposed to Reform in the hope (and it is by no means certain) that he could win a by-election to get back into Westminster to stage a coup. Presumably he would want a Manchester constituency. I wouldn’t say any of them are a slam dunk in these febrile times.

www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/area_nwest.html

If, as Wyllow says, there is a different manifesto developing which is more left of centre than surely that’s a matter for Conference which is only six months away. We are not far off summer recess now.

One of the criticisms of Starmer (c/f a very interesting discussion between Andrew Marr and Tom McTague on the New Statesman podcast some months back) is that change is happening too slowly and too conservatively under his leadership, that change needs to be happening faster and really should do with such a large house majority.

Nevertheless Parliamentary procedure is a slow horse. I’m thankful that we don’t have a system where much can be changed on a whim by executive orders as we see in happening the USA. Even if it's tried (through secondary legislation) there are still some checks and balances.

I agree that Gransnet is not an accurate barometer, just one barometer. I also said that it won't be Gransnetters that decide Starmer's fate after the May elections- I posted regardless of Gransnetter's views, it would be Labour MPs and/or the Conservative Party that may propose a no confidence vote.

Burnham has been a successful GM Mayor for many years, elected three times. Firstly in May 2017, secondly in May 21 and three years later in May 24. It's reported that he has worked towards and has now found a credible successor if and when he leaves. Greater Manchester residents may well be happy with said credible successor and speculation that it will left "exposed" may not come to pass. Burnham's successor way well go on to win a further term in the next Mayoral election that may take place in May 2027.

I don't share your view that anyone choosing to leave one job to seek another after many years service is "turning their back" on those that they previously served. The expectation that a person must stay in a job, even after many years and not be able to choose their own career moves doesn't sit well with me. To find a credible successor seems fairly responsible to me. Burnham does not seek to leave serving Labour voters or the L party, he seeks to leave one role to continue to serve in another role and has been open and transparent with his party. Unlike others that have defected from one party to another surrepetiously.

I agree it is by no means certain Burnham would win a bye election. It appears that is the risk he is willing to take and it will be up to the public whether they vote for him as their preferred candidate.

I have not set out in any of my posts to undermine Starmer. Starmer's position is as it is; he has his detractors and supporters and may or may not face a no confidence vote, irrespective of Burnham I have also posted.

I am also thankful we in the UK have a government with more checks and balances on executive power that in the US.

Thank you Maizie and Graphite

Allira

MaizieD

Well, what do we make of this?

Allira

Let us hope, if he ever does become part of Government again, that he has learnt from the disastrous mistakes from last time when he was Health Secretary. Although not directly responsible, he said he had acted on the advice given to him at the time - which is what Ministers and Prime Ministers do, or should do.

V

LemonJam

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.



I'm happy to go with the person who actually worked in the NHS when Burnham was in office...

So someone who may have an insight into why so many people died needlessly there?

And rather than someone who has connections to Stafford Hospital.

Bunham launched the Mid Staffs enquiry whilst. in office. The inquiry was led by Sir Robert Francis and understandably took several years to complete as it was far reaching. I recall it dropping into my inbox in 2013, whilst still under press embargo, vividly and my sadness when reading.

There were systemic failures at multiple levels and evidence that hundreds of patients had died prematurely. Very detailed reasons were given (that would need a post of its own) but in summary the patients prematurely died due to neglect and an NHS culture that prioritised financial targets over patient safety. Something Burnham had been seeking to change.

No, I don't have any connections to Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust, that was subsequently dissolved. I worked for another NHS Trust.

I'm happy to go with the person who actually worked in the NHS when Burnham was in office...

Approximately 1,094,907 people worked in the NHS when Burnham was Health Secretary.
There must be many others on this forum who did so at that time and probably even more who had experience of being a patient or had relatives who were patients at that time too. All may have a different tale to tell, some distressing. One person's word (citing a few facts) does not tell the whole story.

There can not be a politician in the country who has not made at least one mistake of one kind or another, some more serious than others. Starmer is one of them but this is the wrong time for a leadership challenge and change of PM.
This is not the right time for a leadership challenge.

If Allira, you have connections to Mid Staffs Trust/stafford Hospital you are much better placed than I to explain how such a culture at Mid Staffs was facilitated allowed to prevail for so long.

My job was elsewhere in the country. At the time I was in a role with responsibility to ensure the Hospital Trusts, Community Trusts, Prisons etc, in fact all health services commissioned for my county, were safe and had a culture primarily focused on patient safety. I lead local investigations when things went wrong, though they never went wrong to the extent they did in Mid Staffs.

Frankly, I cannot think of any party leader for the last - starting with Thatcher? Didn't make some appalling blunders? Find me one?