Burnham: Is the Media Tempting Fate by Jumping the Gun?

It's obvious that he's not going to make Manchester the seat of power. Anyone saying that is either woefully misinformed or trying to create a climate of fear.

It's pointless though, as there will not be a GE, and it's LP members who will decide.

I can't see anything to worry about in the speech. He talked of guiding principles, rather than specific policies. There will be time enough for that when/if he takes power. I feel cautiously hopeful for the first time in ages.

If MPs disagree with what Burnham has visualised, there is still the opportunity to get enough nominations to stand against him. If they agree, so be it.

Whitewavemark2

Not clear that we in the southeast have any more power than say someone in Manchester. And ask a working class single mum what power she has living in London.

At present, the talk is of the "No. 10 of the North" not moving any of the parliamentary offices. Its looks more like the mechanism for devolution than the recipient of new constitutional powers. He's described it as the place that will "make power flow" around the country rather than concentrating it in Manchester itself. The real transfer of authority, if it happens, would be from Whitehall departments to combined authorities and regional governments, with No. 10 North acting as the engine driving that process rather than becoming a rival executive centre.

Burnham has spoken about:
Housing -stronger local control over housing delivery and a major expansion of social housing.
Skills and post-16 education –continuing the Greater Manchester model of devolved adult skills funding.
Transport –extending the kind of integrated transport powers already exercised by metro mayors.
Economic development –regional industrial strategy and investment.
Elements of welfare and employment support –building on Greater Manchester's experience of integrating health, employment and skills services.

These are powers for devolved authorities, not powers that would belong uniquely to No. 10 North.

PMs can do things that are not in the manifesto. The Institute for Government says that: Prime Ministers can legally and constitutionally pass policies that were not in their election manifesto. There is no legal requirement to stick strictly to manifesto pledges, and government decisions are guided by the needs of the moment, so no worries on that score.

As you say, we live in a democracy, and people elected their own MPs - it is up to the party members to elect the leader. We will know more when the leader has been appointed and is in post. So far, all AB has done is talk about what he might do. He has been criticised for keeping his ideas to himself, and now for sharing them with those who are interested.

He can't win, but I guess he's going to have to get used to that.

What AB is talking about appears to be a major reorganisation of government led by a proposed but not appointed leader. If it was a large comprehensive school and a new head was in the process of applying for the position and he began to describe ways of reorganising all classes and the way the school would run in future and what the students might or might not be expected to do and not a mention of the financial implications, quite a few of the students, staff, parents and governors would be wanting more than general statements of intent.

We live in a democracy for heavens sake, I don't think it's unfair to want to know more. If it's insider Labour Party business then they should sort it out in private before the proposed leader goes around shooting his mouth off. How does this relate to the last GE manifesto? Where's the acceptance via a vote from the people who voted Labour?

voting not vying

On that specific issue this was my earlier interpretation "He has proposed expanding Powers for Metropolitan Mayors and fiscal devolution to enable Local Authorities to gain more control over certain taxes like business rates".

It's nothing he hasn't said before as DAR sets out. Hes a contender at the moment. I view his motivation today in his speech- speaking to his PM vying electorate at the same time as trying to speak to the population as a whole who may now know what he stands for which has been a recurring theme in the press last week.

In the background no doubt he will working hard to work up the plans in more detail with allies in readiness.

Andy Burnham's not really saying anything he hasn't talked about before but we may begin to get more detail. What he says may be of interest generally but I would have thought he has to talk mainly to Labour Party members at the moment.

I'm sure AB can speak for himself better than me! We all interpret what he said today. At the moment he is a contender, not yet PM and I do not have an expectation his plans are fully formed, cabinet agreed plans that have been fully costed.

What did you hear AB say and how did you interpret what he said? I have set out my interpretation.

LemonJam could you tell me, is AB’s plan to give Mayors greater powers?

Granatlast007

LemonJam I think it's an Emperor's New Clothes situation, man not yet PM coming up with complex unsubstantiated plans with no clear example of how these might be financed or played out but if enough vague phrases are produced, eg power flow, brows will be furrowed in response.

Hasn't ANYONE stopped to think about the current local government reorganisation which is already altering 'powerflow'!! Never mind the cost of it. And how is this 'going to give people 'across the country' the same say as those in London and the SE (*Doodledog*? I thought the reorganisation was going to do that or is that now cancelled?

It's unfair to want it both ways- ie that AB has articulated some plans but not sufficient detail to satisfy you. Yet on the other hand you post "So many words from a man not yet PM!!*

AB, as a PM contender can't and will never be able to win with you with such a mindset and unfair, unrealistic expectations at this stage.

LemonJam I think it's an Emperor's New Clothes situation, man not yet PM coming up with complex unsubstantiated plans with no clear example of how these might be financed or played out but if enough vague phrases are produced, eg power flow, brows will be furrowed in response.

Hasn't ANYONE stopped to think about the current local government reorganisation which is already altering 'powerflow'!! Never mind the cost of it. And how is this 'going to give people 'across the country' the same say as those in London and the SE (*Doodledog*? I thought the reorganisation was going to do that or is that now cancelled?

As regards moving some things away from London, as others have said, communication is so different now since the pandemic, distance needn't be such a problem.

I have to go out in a minute but I just have to say that the discussion of the speech on this of this thread has been even tempered and respectful and enjoyable.

Ilovecheese

Whitewavemark2

Not clear that we in the southeast have any more power than say someone in Manchester. And ask a working class single mum what power she has living in London.

While what you say is correct, the main threat of a Reform Govt. doesn't come from London. If the so called "Red Wall" seats can feel listened and respected, that is surely a good thing.

Yes, that's how I see it.

It's not about power, it's about being listened to. Someone in Westminster making decisions that will impact on those hundreds of miles away can war very thin.

I'd like to see stronger Mayoral links with Parliament. Not devolution - we are far too small a country for that, I think - but evidence that the people of the regions do have a voice.

Whitewavemark2

Not clear that we in the southeast have any more power than say someone in Manchester. And ask a working class single mum what power she has living in London.

While what you say is correct, the main threat of a Reform Govt. doesn't come from London. If the so called "Red Wall" seats can feel listened and respected, that is surely a good thing.

Not clear that we in the southeast have any more power than say someone in Manchester. And ask a working class single mum what power she has living in London.

Luckygirl3

The trouble with trying to shift the power base is firstly that in the end the vote has to be taken in the House of P in London, and secondly it will cost a load. The EU traipsing from one city to another fiasco springs to mind.

I don't think the idea is to shift the power base - just to give people across the country the same say as those in London and the SE.

David49

Devolution isn't new of course it's easy to give LAs more power, giving them enough money to change anything is another matter.

It's not LAs he's talking about is it? It's the CAs I think.

Luckygirl3

The trouble with trying to shift the power base is firstly that in the end the vote has to be taken in the House of P in London, and secondly it will cost a load. The EU traipsing from one city to another fiasco springs to mind.

The EU consists of many countries- would be unfair to hold all meetings in one city.

No votes currently take place as you describe Luckygirl in No 10 Downing Street.

The cabinet traditionally makes strategic executive decisions in No 10 Downing Street on overall party policy, departmental strategy and crisis management which are then binding on all government members. AB is proposing a second no 10 in the north for this.

Conversely votes in the Houses of Parliament are legislative decisions to pass new laws, approve taxation and formally scrutinise the government- AB is not proposing that to change as far as I understand.

I would imagine there are already mayoral/municipal offices locations in Manchester- that may be able to house 'Number 10 in the North" if number 10 in the North is entirely office based and does not involve any hybrid working or hot desking.

Further meetings can take place virtually, e.g. by Microsoft Teams- to link cabinet colleagues in London No 10 to cabinet colleagues in No 10 of the North. May have no additional costs at all....

Wyllow3

One can never win.

For years there were moanings about "Latte woke Islington Labour Party"

And now we have a possible PM who wants to take just some power up to the North of England and there are moans again.

Agreed, Wyllow.

And a lot of discontent has come from people in the regions, who have felt ignored in favour of London for as long as anyone can remember. If this helps to dispel their concerns that can only be a good thing, IMO. Mind you, Manchester isn't really 'North' - there is a lot of England north of there - but we have to start somewhere, and the principle of being inclusive and listening to the people he represents (or ay come to represent) is sound, I think.

Luckygirl3

hoomee29

David49 and MayBee70

I agree with both of you. It seemed to me that KS was used as an acceptable face to get elected whereupon he would be pushed aside in favour of one of the far left candidates apparently cleared out of the party but standing in the wings.
AB has three years to either rescue the economy or completely trash it. I can't see how a socialist can rescue it. Look at Venezuela with all its natural resources. Ruined by left wing ineptitude and corruption. Who will then walk in to make hay is anybody's guess.

Don't panic - you will not get anything remotely left wing - more's the pity.

Burnham and Purnell were very much Blairites I believe? Didn’t Purnell try to stage a coup against Brown at one time? I knew politics was dirty but never realised quite how cut throat it is .

The trouble with trying to shift the power base is firstly that in the end the vote has to be taken in the House of P in London, and secondly it will cost a load. The EU traipsing from one city to another fiasco springs to mind.

AB is not even PM yet and so much moaning! Last week there were posters saying they didn't know what AB stands for. Today, so many words and he's not even PM yet inferring he should say less or nothing.

Whoever ends up as PM- most likely AB, some appear to expect either instant outcomes or predict failure. Crikey.

It's three years till the next election- if you don't like what AB says or what the next PM achieves everyone will have the opportunity to vote for an alternative party.

Granatlast007

LemonJam

David49

Devolution isn't new of course it's easy to give LAs more power, giving them enough money to change anything is another matter.

AB is not proposing devolution in his ideas speech- power will continue to rest with the government.

A No 10 office is to facilitate power flow similar to other EU countries, shown to be effective and result in higher wages over the country as a result.

Power flow? Where is the money coming from and how much?

As others have said, local authorities have been stripped bare since the days of George Osborne. So are they to be reorganised as is happening at exactly this moment into new administrative bodies which will take time to settle and in many cases, local power will be removed as in the disappearance of Parish Councils.

Or will new regional authorities be created, God help us. And how is any of this to suddenly produce a 'flow of power:, new jobs all over the country? In industry? What kind? What else? Will people be sufficiently educated to fit in this new Jerusalem or will they need skills training? The universities are busy letting go scores of academics? What training is there for unemployed graduates?

So many words from a man not yet PM!! Maybee and David49 I very much agree with your posts, it's devolution all over again. I also agree with those who highlight the circling media vultures. It feels to me like an alarming moment of chaos full of fine words. Where is this power that is suddenly going to save us all? Starmer had plenty of power until the knives came out, it's all quite Shakespearean!

Grantalast007. Would you prefer AB has said less words because he's not yet PM

Or would you have preferred he used more words so you could understand where the money is proposed to come from over government term and more detail of his plans if elected PM?

Or do you feel he should say nothing at all until if and when elected PM?