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.

Well yes, and many people wanted Thatcher out. It is the nature of leading the country that people will oppose your ideas and highlight blunders which cause them concerns.

LemonJam

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.

I have no idea how or why.

I didn't work for the NHS as you did - you tell me how it came about that so many patients died unnecessarily? And why they were so neglected?
😡
Best I hide this thread.

Allira

^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.

I agree the NHS has over a million employees. I agree all those who live in the UK will have experience of being a patient or have relatives with a tale to tell where the NHS did not perform as well as it should.

There were 163 Clinical Commissioning Groups at the time the Francis Report was published. The statutory bodies held a budget and was authorised to commission (buy) all NHS healthcare services for their designated area. So you could reasonably infer there were 163 people, with lead responsibility for ensuring quality and patient safety, in all those services, in their area across the country. You could infer those 163 people had very close scrutiny and insight into the performance and merits or otherwise of the patient safety culture prevailing in the health services, in their area as they worked so closely with them.

Allira

LemonJam

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.

I have no idea how or why.

I didn't work for the NHS as you did - you tell me how it came about that so many patients died unnecessarily? And why they were so neglected?
😡
Best I hide this thread.

I have stated the summary reasons in an earlier post- ie neglect and a culture in the hospital that prioritised financial targets over patient safety targets.

The Francis Enquiry report was over 1800 pages long. It made 290 recommendations- feel free to google read as I don't propose to type them out.....

No excuses.

Back to Burnham

My point was, as I said previously, that all politicians make mistakes, some hae far-reaching consequences but not a single one is without some background of misdemeanors or errors of judgement.

We know about the Francis Report of 2013.
Not interested in discussing that any more. Please stop.

I think that "the powers that be" in the past were far less likely to be challenged, that many incidences of poor practice existed, but these days both the mainstream press and Social Media bring far more into the light, and far many more people feel empowered to stand up and shout.

This is often, even usually for the good, but sometimes demands are made that sadly are just not realistic. It is realistic of course, to call to account and to examine "why" so it is not repeated.

Also - the NHS is under pressures that they were not before, and its not just the longer lives of baby boomers, but the increasing range of treatments available and the expense of those, naturally everyone wants the latest drugs or surgery the before didn't exist, and seemingly impossible choices have to be made.

Who is to ge the latest Alzheimers drugs?

Real life example - Can my DGD go on the Ormond Street Trial for very severe epilepsy - maybe involving a quite major brain operation - when so many want it? Who will pay expenses if you don't live in London, and so on. How do you weigh this against proper end of life treatment? We can't.

Allira

No excuses.

Back to Burnham

My point was, as I said previously, that all politicians make mistakes, some hae far-reaching consequences but not a single one is without some background of misdemeanors or errors of judgement.

It is true that all politicians, indeed all humans make mistakes.

Starmer, Sunak, Boris, Truss, Cameron, May provide examples as recent PMs etc etc.

Whether or not Starmer's mistakes and judgements will lead to a vote of no confidence remains to be seen and is irrespective of Burnham. Whether or not Starmer remains in PM role, it appears Burnham still seeks to get back to an MP role.

Allira

LemonJam

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.

I have no idea how or why.

I didn't work for the NHS as you did - you tell me how it came about that so many patients died unnecessarily? And why they were so neglected?
😡
Best I hide this thread.

You did ask me to tell you how it came about that so many patients died unnecessarily at mid staffs and why they were so neglected. I took the time to answer.

I have no need to provide you with any further explanations as you have now clarified in your subsequent 13.04 post that you are aware of the report and in that you will find all the answers you need. 😊

Wyllow3- there is no doubt the pressures on the NHS have increased- post Covid and in context that the populations health has declined and the elderly population is growing.

I look forward with great interest what his forthcoming "manifesto' includes about plans for the NHS.

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.

If you have a connection you haven't made it clear. You didn't make it explicit that you were referring to a particular case, either. I took your post as a blanket condemnation of Burnham's time as Health minister, which did appear to contradict what I had read about that time (which was an exterior source, not Lemonjam's post).

I'm not altogether sure how he is being held responsible for the Mid Staffs Trust disaster. Did he ignore warnings and evidence and have to be forced into setting up an enquiry?

I thought Allira was inferring she had connections to Staffordshire Hospital. not exactly sure what she means if not that.

I also thought she was inferring she had insight into why so many people died needlessly - but then she asked me to explain to her. And then she told me to stop mentioning the Francis report 🤷‍♀️

Can you now desist, please?

This is beginning to feel like a pile-on.

Instead of personal tit for tat perhaps we could all just agree that even if a saint were to become leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister, that the media would still find some way to vilify him or her.

As far as I know, Burnham has made no public statement about another move to return to Westminster. As I wrote upthread, The Guardian article from which the opening post is copied is full of:

is understood to have … is said to be … believed to have been … strong possibilities of …

It’s all just speculation unless Burnham goes on the record.

GB news, an hour ago, reported that Andy Burnham had cleared his first hurdle to be elected as an MP. That previous Starmer allies on the NEC ruling body are no longer willing to stand in Burnham's way.

I would imagine Burnham is intentionally keeping his powder dry until after the May elections. He doesn't need to go personally go on the record right now. Media speculation and allies comments are doing a fair job of carrying things forward.

I would imagine his focus is on getting his ducks in a row, first off to get elected as an MP and also be part one of those that promote the reported forthcoming "manifesto" after the May elections.

Why have I, a labour supporter in Wales, received a ‘vote Labour’ from Burnham, his interest is - his daughter is studying in Wales

I would imagine … I would imagine …

A. GB News is not a credible news source. I’m not sure any mainstream channel of newspaper can be trusted at the moment, but least of all GB News. Did they give a source?

B. Earlier this year, journalists were briefed that there was a 5-4 NEC majority in favour of Burnham … who then lost the vote 8-1.

It's all just speculation until Burnham says otherwise.

I agree, GB news is not a credible source. The Telegraph has also reported the same story. Slightly more credible. Time will tell.

I agree it is speculation at the moment, though fascinating nevertheless. It is necessary and part and parcel of politics to speculate such matters when PMs find their position weakening and subject to so much chaos as Starmer has faced recently. It would be naive, foolish and remiss of any government, of any party, not to discuss behind the scenes what to do in such a scenario and what to do in the face of a possible motion of no confidence in their PM, either internally or by the opposition Conservative Party. That scenario may transpire if the May election results are dire for the Labour party so many are necessarily getting their ducks in a row. Twas ever thus.

If Starmer faces and fails to win a vote of no confidence in his leadership, Burnham, Streeting and Raynor are those most referred to as successors.

A recent Yougov poll resulted as follows:
1) 34% of Britons think Burnham would do a better job as PM than Starmer
2) 18% of Britons think Rayner would do a better job as PM than Starmer
3) 13% of Britons think Streeting would do a better job as PM than Starmer
4) 13% of Britons think Miliband would do a better job as PM than Starmer- though he has ruled it out.

So that is also something many Labour MPs will be considering ahead of potentially casting their votes in the near future.

It is going to be quite difficult to give the sources/information that is frequently requested if no mainstream channels or papers can be trusted. Quite a challenge.

GB News and The Telegraph each rely on a NEC source reporting on the NEC mood change. ie that they thought it was worth protecting Starmer 3 months ago so decided to support Starmer in block Burnham to stand got G and D bye election but "that ship has now sailed".

Streeting will move very quickly after the May 7 drubbing.

Burnham probably won't be an MP in time (even if a sitting MP does stand aside for him next week) to be able to throw his name into the ring.

Then it's likely it'll be Rayner vs Streeting vs Milliband (and maybe Cooper).
Of those, and I'm sorry to say this, I think it'll be Rayner.

I've never heard any talk of that, FGT. None.

I would have thought in terms of electoral success Streeting would be more likely to cut through, but my last judgement on a labour party leader wasn't particularly on the money.

The media is getting a lot of blame but what isn't being mentioned is social media. Most young adults get their news from SM and that's just how it is these days. MSM gets a lot of its input from SM!

The press were hardly positive towards the Conservative Party when they were in power. Politics has changed so much thanks to the Internet. It's a very different ball game.

Starmer is loathed, no doubt about it. And it's not just because of the media, it's because of his behaviour and poor record since L came to power.

I would like to see Burnham at the helm. At the very least he can engage and discuss without looking utterly petrified.
Younger generations will prefer him.

If Milliband took the reins I'd not be happy at all.

As for Angela, I've always had a soft spot for her. She actually has a personality, she's engaging ... to some. I've no interest in what she wears, I don't mind if she has a drink or 2. She'd be better than Starmer, that's for sure.