The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Gloster]

I can’t see Burnham leaving his mayoral position or trying to win a by-election and do two jobs. He might decide not to stand again as mayor in 2028 as he will then have been there eleven years, which would leave him free to stand in the next general election if it hasn’t been called early. He would be in a good position to find a reasonably safe seat and then run the next time there is a leadership election.

To me it always seems that Starmer has a much too legalistic mind and insufficient gut feeling. The second can be overcome with good advisers (not blanks like McSweeney), but the first is a much greater hindrance. Politics is the art of the possible ( (c) Bismarck), not an interpretation of legal texts.

 

[Yew]

Is anyone really serious about Andy Burnham running for PM, I think to be honest he has already passed his level of competence.

On what basis?

 

[Acfb]

I can’t see Burnham leaving his mayoral position or trying to win a by-election and do two jobs. He might decide not to stand again as mayor in 2028 as he will then have been there eleven years, which would leave him free to stand in the next general election if it hasn’t been called early. He would be in a good position to find a reasonably safe seat and then run the next time there is a leadership election.

To me it always seems that Starmer has a much too legalistic mind and insufficient gut feeling. The second can be overcome with good advisers (not blanks like McSweeney), but the first is a much greater hindrance. Politics is the art of the possible ( (c) Bismarck), not an interpretation of legal texts.

My feeling for a while has been that the most likely exit date for Starmer is in 2027. If that is the case then the issue for Burnham might be standing down a year early rather and engineering a by election such as in Graham Stringer's seat. That said he's been in the position for 8 years so there's no reason why he couldn't stand down tomorrow and stand for a by election if it came up immediately but know doubt Starmer and his acolytes will do everything to block that.

 

[J663738]

On what basis?

This from 2017 leadership race: Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham says that, if he wins the contest, he will involve the left-winger Jeremy Corbyn in his team "from the outset"
It might be one thing running mayor of greater Manchester, when you don't need market confidence, but if he became leader of the Labour party and UK PM, then borrowing costs would go through the roof, as his record is hard left.

 

[AlterEgo]

This from 2017 leadership race: Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham says that, if he wins the contest, he will involve the left-winger Jeremy Corbyn in his team "from the outset"
It might be one thing running mayor of greater Manchester, when you don't need market confidence, but if he became leader of the Labour party and UK PM, then borrowing costs would go through the roof, as his record is hard left.

If Andy Burnham is hard left the term has lost all meaning.

 

[Gloster]

This from 2017 leadership race: Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham says that, if he wins the contest, he will involve the left-winger Jeremy Corbyn in his team "from the outset"
It might be one thing running mayor of greater Manchester, when you don't need market confidence, but if he became leader of the Labour party and UK PM, then borrowing costs would go through the roof, as his record is hard left.

So you would presumably prefer that he completely ignored somebody who was had enough support to win the leadership election. If nothing else it might be as good a way of dealing with Corbyn as any: he either refuses in a huff or has to be bound by collective responsibility. Although Corbyn would probably get himself sacked quickly, but he is liable to end up looking like the clown he is.

(I presume you mean the 2015 Labour leadership election.)

 

[Railwaycat]

This from 2017 leadership race: Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham says that, if he wins the contest, he will involve the left-winger Jeremy Corbyn in his team "from the outset"
It might be one thing running mayor of greater Manchester, when you don't need market confidence, but if he became leader of the Labour party and UK PM, then borrowing costs would go through the roof, as his record is hard left.

And what do you think will happen if farage wins? The markets like stability, and Andy Burnham is far more likely to bring stability than farage and his clowns.

 

[muz379]

This from 2017 leadership race: Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham says that, if he wins the contest, he will involve the left-winger Jeremy Corbyn in his team "from the outset"
It might be one thing running mayor of greater Manchester, when you don't need market confidence, but if he became leader of the Labour party and UK PM, then borrowing costs would go through the roof, as his record is hard left.

I personally don't think that Burnhams record is particularly hard left , he served in various positions in Balir and Brown governments.

I also don't think that such a pledge about including one of your opponents in your team during a leadership election is a particularly bad stratergy given the division that existed then and still today in the party. It shows perhaps that unlike Starmer Burnham is someone that could do more to try and reuinte the party.

I don't agree that his experience of being Mayor of Greater Manchester doesn't require "market confidence" . In fact quite the opposite, whatever side of the political fence you sit on Burnham has as GM Mayor managed to attract massive investment into Greater Manchester , the skyline of the city of Manchester and salford has changed massively over the past 8 years , the growth in the region has bucked all national trends to become the largest city region economy outside of London , Leads nationally on productivity, twice the growth rate of jobs nationally and lots of these jobs are highly skilled well paid jobs. All that against a national backdrop of over a decade of Austerity,and lacking investment in infastructure from national government.

Wether people like or agree with the vision or not, you cannot say that Greater Manchester doesn't have a clear trajectory now, more foreign investment,more skilled jobs,better public transport infastructure with the expansion of metrolink and further integration of trains into the bee network, trying to end the ridiculous situation in the Taxi trade with taxis licensed miles away operating. And even for the people of Greater Manchester there is a policy on ending rough sleeping, improving health outcomes for everyone and better adult education. And Burnham is a huge ambassador for that vision.

And that for me is the issue with Starmer, if he has a vision nobody knows what it is.

Yes he does have some baggage from his last time in government, and his attempts to introduce a clean air zone type system in Manchester buckled under huge opposition. But that just doesn't seem to follow him round as much. And ultimately at least for now he cannot immediately challenge Starmer because of his lack of a seat in parliament and the difficulties he might face getting there.

 

[whoosh]

The issue is, who is any good. Where's the person with vision and character to take it through? Like I said, apart from Reform it seems distinctly lacking in all politicians at the moment and that's not a good thing.

The country voted for change and Labour had the majority to deliver that but there squandering currently....
...I don't like Trump one bit but he makes sure he gets plenty of airtime everyday promoting what hes doing whether you like or not. Yes things dont look much better one year on but they need to promote what they've changed and how that will improve things in the future.

Biggest protest march today for a long time; including Musk, via video link. Next week Trump is back in the UK on his second state visit to put the boot in.

 

[Darandio]

Biggest protest march today for a long time; including Musk, via video link. Next week Trump is back in the UK on his second state visit to put the boot in.

Depends what the protest is about. There's probably been at least ten that were way bigger in the last decade.

I note there is a lot of talk on social media about there being 'millions' there today. There wasn't.

 

[Yew]

This from 2017 leadership race: Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham says that, if he wins the contest, he will involve the left-winger Jeremy Corbyn in his team "from the outset"

That is 8 years ago, and perhaps more importantly, when Jeremy Corbyn was a principled just a principled backbencher.

It might be one thing running mayor of greater Manchester, when you don't need market confidence, but if he became leader of the Labour party and UK PM, then borrowing costs would go through the roof, as

Is there any clear evidence of that, when we compare left-wing European governments internationally to the global average at the time? Or perhaps you are trying to present opinion as fact?

his record is hard left.

Why do I get the feeling that you'd say that about anyone to the left of Thatcher?

 

[Harpo]

Why do I get the feeling that you'd say that about anyone to the left of Thatcher

Difficult to find more than one leader to the right of TFW.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I also don't think that such a pledge about including one of your opponents in your team during a leadership election is a particularly bad stratergy given the division that existed then and still today in the party.

It’s better to have the likes of Corbyn and Sultana inside the tent and urinating outwards rather than outside the tent and urinating inwards.

Blair- a genuine statesman and leader, whatever you think of him- understood this. He gave Corbyn room to mouth off on the back benches and he kept the likes of Dennis Skinner on speed dial.

Clearly McSweeney believes that the left-leaning voters have nowhere else to go and so he can upset them with impunity. I think he’s making a grave miscalculation. If they stay at home, Labour lose. Upsetting the people who voted for you in order to chase the votes of people who will never vote for you is an interesting strategy…

 

[Yew]

Clearly McSweeney believes that the left-leaning voters have nowhere else to go and so he can upset them with impunity. I think he’s making a grave miscalculation. If they stay at home, Labour lose. Upsetting the people who voted for you in order to chase the votes of people who will never vote for you is an interesting strategy…

Indeed, I think a Dennis Skinner type person would be very useful right now in combatting Reform, focusing on the economic impacts in those communities.

 

[philosopher]

This from 2017 leadership race: Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham says that, if he wins the contest, he will involve the left-winger Jeremy Corbyn in his team "from the outset"
It might be one thing running mayor of greater Manchester, when you don't need market confidence, but if he became leader of the Labour party and UK PM, then borrowing costs would go through the roof, as his record is hard left.

Being mayor of a metropolitan area and PM of the UK I suspect require very different skills. Andy Burnham currently does not really have to try a balance a budget as the Greater Manchester Combined Authority receives most of its funding from central government. It does not from what I gather set its own taxes, it does get some money from council tax, but individual councils still set the taxes.

Andy Burnham therefore may be great at raising the profile of Greater Manchester and convincing central government to devolve some government functions to the Greater Manchester but he may have little skill on how to achieve the best balance between taxes and spending that is the most popular.

For example, I gather he really wants an underground high speed railway station in Central Manchester. As mayor whether he is successful here or not would be whether he is able to lobby central government to give him funding to do this, who in turn would have to deal with the financial implications of such a project. If he was PM he would have either raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere to achieve this, so he would have to deal the downsides of initiating such a project.

Plus he would be governing for the entire country, so a largely Manchester focused project could go down badly in the rest of the country unless he was to agree to spend similar amounts on infrastructure in other parts of the country, which of course would require further tax rises or spending cuts elsewhere.

 

[Yew]

It’s better to have the likes of Corbyn and Sultana inside the tent and urinating outwards rather than outside the tent and urinating inwards.

For the purposes of our Andy Burnham discussion, Sultana wasn't an MP in 2017

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Sep 2025 ==

Being mayor of a metropolitan area and PM of the UK I suspect require very different skills. Andy Burnham currently does not really have to try a balance a budget as the Greater Manchester Combined Authority receives most of its funding from central government. It does not from what I gather set its own taxes, it does get some money from council tax, but individual councils still set the taxes.

That sounds like he has to balance a budget, he still has to bring the councils expenditure in line with that it can afford. He doesn't have some of the levers available to them, but that sounds like more rerlevant experience than Blair, Cameron or Thatcher had before coming to power.

he may have little skill on how to achieve the best balance between taxes and spending that is the most popular.

The same could be said for almost any politician, perhaps the only recent candidates would be Brown and maybe Johnson.

For example, I gather he really wants an underground high speed railway station in Central Manchester. As mayor whether he is successful here or not would be whether he is able to lobby central government to give him funding to do this, who in turn would have to deal with the financial implications of such a project.

It could also be a negotiating tactic, setting an extreme anchor to get a compromise for other improvements.

If he was PM he would have either raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere to achieve this, so he would have to deal the downsides of initiating such a project.

That's quite a simplistic view, state level macroeconomics is, no matter what David Cameron said, like a household budget.

Plus he would be governing for the entire country, so a largely Manchester focused project could go down badly in the rest of the country

You said a high speed rail line, which presumably would not be limited to just Manchester.

unless he was to agree to spend similar amounts on infrastructure in other parts of the country,

Indeed, our country is in great need of infrastructure investment. We've recently had some high profile life sciences companies pull out of the UK due to our lack of investment, so not investing also comes with costs.

which of course would require further tax rises or spending cuts elsewhere.

Again, this shows quite a simplistic understanding of macroeconomics. Indeed, it makes a fundamentally flawed assumption that all infrastructure investment is inherently wasteful, and delivers no benefits - which is obviously wrong.

 

[muz379]

It’s better to have the likes of Corbyn and Sultana inside the tent and urinating outwards rather than outside the tent and urinating inwards.

Blair- a genuine statesman and leader, whatever you think of him- understood this. He gave Corbyn room to mouth off on the back benches and he kept the likes of Dennis Skinner on speed dial.

I think that ship has sailed now though, and to a degree I don't hold Starmer soley responsible for that. As a huge part of that has been caused by the difficulty over the question of what position to take towards Israel ,such a toxic topic at the minute. Would Blair have faired any better with that issue we will never know. Although what we do know is part of the pressure that eventually led to Blairs resignation was because of his failure to call for a ceasfire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006.

Clearly McSweeney believes that the left-leaning voters have nowhere else to go and so he can upset them with impunity. I think he’s making a grave miscalculation. If they stay at home, Labour lose. Upsetting the people who voted for you in order to chase the votes of people who will never vote for you is an interesting strategy…

100% agree, if a large proportion of the base voters don'tturn out it will be catastrophic at the next General election.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Sep 2025 ==

Being mayor of a metropolitan area and PM of the UK I suspect require very different skills. Andy Burnham currently does not really have to try a balance a budget as the Greater Manchester Combined Authority receives most of its funding from central government. It does not from what I gather set its own taxes, it does get some money from council tax, but individual councils still set the taxes.

Andy Burnham therefore may be great at raising the profile of Greater Manchester and convincing central government to devolve some government functions to the Greater Manchester but he may have little skill on how to achieve the best balance between taxes and spending that is the most popular.

Not necessarilly sure I would fully agree with that . I mean Burnham has been in government before he knows how government works.

And really it is the chancellor that "balances the books"

I mean really nobody has experience at the job of PM until they have been the PM.

 

[thenorthern]

I can’t see Burnham leaving his mayoral position or trying to win a by-election and do two jobs. He might decide not to stand again as mayor in 2028 as he will then have been there eleven years, which would leave him free to stand in the next general election if it hasn’t been called early. He would be in a good position to find a reasonably safe seat and then run the next time there is a leadership election.

To me it always seems that Starmer has a much too legalistic mind and insufficient gut feeling. The second can be overcome with good advisers (not blanks like McSweeney), but the first is a much greater hindrance. Politics is the art of the possible ( (c) Bismarck), not an interpretation of legal texts.

He can't be Mayor of Greater Manchester and an MP at the same time as one cannot be an MP and Police and Crime Commissioner at the same time. In Manchester the Mayor is the Police and Crime Commissioner. It's also the case in West Yorkshire as Tracy Brabin had to resign as an MP when she was elected mayor of West Yorkshire although realistically she would have resigned anyway when elected mayor of West Yorkshire regardless.

 

[J663738]

Keir Starmer was only elected because he wasn't Jermey Corbyn, if left leaning people think Andy Burnham is the new Labour Party Messiah and the answer to all problems, then I'm afraid the country has got one more screw loose than I thought.

 

[thenorthern]

Keir Starmer was only elected because he wasn't Jermey Corbyn, if left leaning people think Andy Burnham is the new Labour Party Messiah and the answer to all problems, then I'm afraid the country has got one more screw loose than I thought.

You have to remember back in 2020 there was a choice between Keir Starmer, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy. Lisa Nandy wasn't very well known at the time so was never going to win. Rebecca Long-Bailey for a time lead the opinion polls and seemed a realistic choice but then went on the Andrew Neil show (the BBC One show not the GB News show or the Channel 4 show) where amongst other things it was brought up that in 2015 when first elected she claimed she became a solicitor to "defend our NHS" when in reality it was pointing out she was a solicitor for a private company working in a department who helping write up PFI contracts to sell off the NHS to a Luxembourg investment company. After this her popularity plummeted. The Andrew Neil interview was never going to be east as he is a tough interviewer but she was genuinely awful.

To be honest at times there seemed to be more debate and discussion in the 2020 Labour deputy leadership contest than the main leaderhsip contest which wasn't ideal.

Totally agree about Andy Burham not being the Messiah that the left of Labour want. It all reminds me very much of Joe Biden in 2020 when many people of the left thought he was the messiah when in reality Biden is very much on the right of the Democrats. It's a similar situation with Macron in France.

 

[KevinBrum12]

Keir Starmer was only elected because he wasn't Jermey Corbyn

Plus the country had been through a run of the worst Prime Ministers in decades, thanks to the Tories. Remember them talking about "strong and stable" Government? So "strong and stable", they might as well have stuck the Tardis in Downing Street given the frequency of the Prime Ministers regeneration.

if left leaning people think Andy Burnham is the new Labour Party Messiah and the answer to all problems, then I'm afraid the country has got one more screw loose than I thought

At one point they thought Corbyn was that!!! I would say though the only person who thinks Andy Burnham is the answer to all the problems in the country...is Andy Burnham.

It might be one thing running mayor of greater Manchester

The Mayors appear as if they will end up suffering the same fate in my view as the old Metropolitan County Councils. Not because they are ineffective but because the posts give potential rivals to party leaders power-bases. This may explain why the Labour Mayor for the West Midlands Richard Parker, a Starmer loyalist, has all the charisma of a wet sock. He was a candidate imposed on the West Midlands by the national Labour Party mafia. Had West Midlands Labour members been given the freedom to choose their own candidate....they may have gone for a Starmer clone...or Starmer could have found himself having two dragons from Birmingham and Manchester breathing down his neck right now.

 

[dangie]

Keir Starmer was only elected because……

He was elected not because he was probably the best for the job, but because he was probably the least worst. Unfortunately this is the state of UK politics as a whole.

To be fair, this is probably true for politics the world over.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Clearly McSweeney believes that the left-leaning voters have nowhere else to go and so he can upset them with impunity. I think he’s making a grave miscalculation. If they stay at home, Labour lose. Upsetting the people who voted for you in order to chase the votes of people who will never vote for you is an interesting strategy…

Its a terrible strategy and Johnson made the same mistake with Cummings ceding too much policy and day to day running to him. These advisers are all cut from the same cloth which is they have a self belief that they know better than anyone else what needs to change for the greater good and its not a matter for the electorate. Starmer isn't cut from that cloth but hes got sucked into the trappings of high office and maybe is only now realising whats going on. Hes need McSweeney out before the conference and then uses that as a platform to relaunch his leadership and be clear that with the majority they have show how they will use this once in a generation opportunity to fix Britain.

 

[Railwaycat]

Keir Starmer was only elected because he wasn't Jermey Corbyn, if left leaning people think Andy Burnham is the new Labour Party Messiah and the answer to all problems, then I'm afraid the country has got one more screw loose than I thought.

And your solution is?

 

[J663738]

And your solution is?

Well, If Kier Starmer could show some real leadership within his party, just like he is doing on the foreign stage it would be a start. It's being reported that he has set up a No.10 team to directly manage Rachel Reeves as they don't have confidence in her but also can't get rid of her. What a bizarre situation? His problems basically stems from the two U-turns, on winter fuel payment and the benefits. This has resulted in a total lack of respect both in the PLP and more worrying for UK PLC on the bond markets as well. While I don't share the same politics as Starmer, I wish him well as he is the current captain and we are all on this ship together.
As the Tories found, ditching your captain half way through the voyage never ends well.

 

[Railwaycat]

At one point they thought Corbyn was that!!! I would say though the only person who thinks Andy Burnham is the answer to all the problems in the country...is Andy Burnham.

How do you know that he even wants the job?

As I said, at the Fringe the speaker, and the audience (a number of active Labour Party members were present), thought that Andy Burnham would be the ideal candidate. This country needs a left of centre government (not too left of centre as in Corbin, although he would probably moderate his views if he actually got in to power) - we've had too many right of centre governments, and I include Tory Blair in that, we need to accept that we are a small nation that's no longer a major power, not live in the past. We could start with defence - get rid of those two ridiculous sitting duck aircraft carriers (that tie up the rest of the fleet to protect them) and spend that money on a first class air defence system.

 

[Tezza1978]

We could start with defence - get rid of those two ridiculous sitting duck aircraft carriers (that tie up the rest of the fleet to protect them) and spend that money on a first class air defence system.

Getting rid of the aircraft carriers is a complete non starter politically and I disagree - they are militarily useful. We do need investment in a proper air defence system I agree.

I think Burnham would be a great PM and and given the forum we are on (!) hugely in favour of investment in rail across the UK. Under him its obvious that NPR and the rebadged 2a/2b line get built. Once those are approved I'm pretty sure he'd support and fund DLR extension, Bakerloo extension at a minimum also.

 

[AlterEgo]

we need to accept that we are a small nation that's no longer a major power

Britain enjoys significant soft power and is not some third rate country. We aren't a superpower any more but we still exert an above average level of influence for our size.

Not live in the past. We could start with defence - get rid of those two ridiculous sitting duck aircraft carriers (that tie up the rest of the fleet to protect them) and spend that money on a first class air defence system.

Our aircraft carriers are some of our most important military assets. They help keep navigable waterways open and that has global economic and humanitarian benefits. Britain should have a much larger navy than it does.

 

[Falcon1200]

What does it say about the talent pool of all those Labour MPs that the prime candidate under discussion to replace Starmer is not even one of them?!!

 

[brad465]

What does it say about the talent pool of all those Labour MPs that the prime candidate under discussion to replace Starmer is not even one of them?!!

Same with the Tories, there are voices saying Boris Johnson needs to come back. As I said in an earlier post, good competent people don't go into politics as, among other reasons, pay is higher and responsibility + public visibility lower in many other professions.