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.

Everybody wants all those things you mention Wyllow3 they aren’t particularly very left wing.
Everybody doesn’t want a very left wing government.Tony Blair got two terms in power because he was a centrist. Corbyn was dissed by all.

They are all socialist policies Oreo, none supported by right wing parties, who pursue a capitalist model. The public might want the end results, but they won’t get them - witness the effects on public services of 14 years of Tory government.

But then, 2 years of socialist policies aren’t delivering either.
The natives are getting restless….

That's because they aren't socialist policies...

FriedGreenTomatoes2

But then, 2 years of socialist policies aren’t delivering either.
The natives are getting restless….

Except those that have never worked it seems

Actually FriedGreenTomatoes2, if you read beyond the sensationalist headlines, a lot of improvements are being made. However, it doesn’t make good copy when people expect miracles.

From the Institute for government, which is a non partisan independent think tank.
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/performance-tracker-2025/summary

FriedGreenTomatoes2

But then, 2 years of socialist policies aren’t delivering either.
The natives are getting restless….

I’d be interested to know how you define a ‘socialist’ policy.

It was me who originally said that, not FGT2, so here is a definition.
Socialist policies focus on reducing inequality through social ownership, economic planning, and wealth redistribution, aiming to move control of the means of production from private hands to the public or workers. Key policies include nationalising major industries, heavily taxing high wealth, providing universal public services (education, healthcare), implementing price controls, and strengthening workers' rights.

I read FGT’s short post as being all her own thoughts. Which bit of it did you say, Casdon?

I’m not after an official definition of socialism. I can find one any time I want. I’m interested in individuals’ interpretations of the term. Especially when it seems to be considered to be an undesirable doctrine.

I said that they are all socialist policies MaizieD, FGT2 was replying to me?

I would define them slightly differently now in 2026, because those policies, formed a long time ago depend on an individual nation actually having control over for example national industries or the utilities, which are now owned internationally.

Big firms outsource work to poor countries where labour is cheap. We don't have the powers to nationalise many endeavours. It the reality governments have to work with. Along with events like Covid, which had not been conceived of previously.

And we are really up against it with the Trumps of this world - shoving tariffs up or down at a whim, starting a war which will put prices up whatever we do. Which is why I believe in alliances like the EU, working with them for mutual interests, never mind our actual defence, which depends on a NATO we also belong to. And realistic policies, without losing in our hearts the basic principles, which is that wealth should be more shared out than it is, to provide the health and education and social care we aspire to.

Casdon

I said that they are all socialist policies MaizieD, FGT2 was replying to me?

Oh, apologies. I understand now. Sorry if my post sounded a bit agressive. It wasn’t intentional. 🫢

We do have the powers to nationalise. Water nationalisation would have been a very popular move, even if only one dire private company at a time, as with rail re nationalisation. So would have been putting more money into the regulator, Ofwat, to enable it to afford the necessary manpower and ability to prosecute. But Labour boxed itself in with its insistence on the economy being in bad shape and its ludicrous fiscal rules.

Various media outlets are discussing potential PM leadership bids following Thursday elections this morning. In the Telegraph, Nick Gutteridge reports:

'Burnham’s camp have asked some of Starmer’s top staff to stay in No. 10 if the “King of the North” finds his way in” and further “Burnham’s allies in Mainstream are preparing an event in Westminster to champion the “political economy of Manchesterism” in mid-May. The Manchester mayor is holding off on confirming himself as a speaker at the publication launch – but the preparations allow him a platform to swoop down to SW1 in the weeks after the electoral “bloodbath” if he chooses”.

westendgirl

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

Quelle surprise

Hmmm
How could we acquire the Utilities and rail etc without huge payouts then, Maisie?

The media are treating this as a game. It is not a game .... this is our lives! It just makes me feel very sad.

Never forget media is never our friend.

I learnt that locally once.
The host of our local news programe came to our area to cover something.
a. he was rude in the car before his appearance[I saw the "real" person not the smiling for the cameras one]
b. there were multiple mistakes in what was broadcast, including peoples' names.

I realised then and there that the media is an act.
It is not real.

They exist for their own ends.
It peobably was ever thus.

They dont have time[they would say] to make sure[or care in my opinion] that everything they broadcast/print is 100% accurate.

Wyllow3

Hmmm
How could we acquire the Utilities and rail etc without huge payouts then, Maisie?

One way might be by re regulating and franchising.

Burnham successfully brought Greater Manchester Bus networks nto local control by implementing a franchise system known as the "Bee Network". Through the Bus Services Act 2017 the GM Combined Authority took over setting routes, fares, service frequencies and ended 35 years of deregulation.

Burnham resolutely and successfully faced down legal challenges from Stagecoach and Rotala and a judge ruled his decision to move to franchising was lawful. So legal precedence on the statute books. Metrolink trams are also now also part of the network. The network serves a population of nearly 3 million. The majority of the population live within 400m of the bus and tram network.

His franchising proposal was backed by 9 of 10 local councils and cost an estimated £135m to deliver. It has promoted electric bus (and trams), supports clean energy targets and all fares are capped at £2. GM was the first region outside London to have local control over buses.

Burnham supports nationalising industries/utilities etc.

I don’t think rail is the issue, because they were all franchises, expiring over the course of this government, and as they expire are being brought back under government control?

In terms of priority, I was thinking more of utilities e.g. water and energy companies as 2 early priorities. But the principle stands.

The private ownership model has served the population poorly but shareholders well. The government could act as the "franchisor' setting performance targets, price caps and investment requirements whilst the private companies act as "franchises".

It could be broken into regional water and energy distribution networks with distinct regional franchises with 5, 10 or 15 year contracts. The state would have ownership and control and the franchise would manage the operations, be paid management fees and rewards for exceeding targets.

Possibly, but I think it would be better to get one or two services running efficiently than scatter gun many and not properly sort them out. If they can sort out the rail services, which are dreadful, it would be at least one concrete step forward.