The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[J663738]

I thought his driving conviction was for speeding on a section of motorway with a temp speed restriction of 40mph in force.

Ok, maybe its google 'helpful' auto fill, and driving came up after drink. seg-wayed into articles, it makes you think what you have looked for. But he does wear a lot of make up on his nose for some reason?

 

[WesternLancer]

Ok, maybe its google 'helpful' auto fill, and driving came up after drink. seg-wayed into articles, it makes you think what you have looked for. But he does wear a lot of make up on his nose for some reason?

Because that’s what tv camera crews do?
Because you can have a shiny nose under bright camera lights?

I doubt many of us on this forum have any reliable knowledge of his alcohol consumption levels.

 

[J663738]

I doubt many of us on this forum have any reliable knowledge of his alcohol consumption levels.

Perhaps, some do?

Anti binge drink minister Andy Burnham was in student boozing club

The minister in charge of clamping down on binge drinking and teenage alcohol abuse was a popular member of a student society dedicated to getting drunk. As Culture Secretary, Andy Burnham, 38, has

www.thetimes.com

 

[BAFRA77]

I see the tiresome ad-hominem attacks have begun.

Why not criticise him on his actual record in office than just default to the “play the man, not the ball” nudge-nudge pub bore style schtick?

 

[AlterEgo]

Look everyone, a 55 year old man got drunk at university in the 1990s!

 

[J663738]

I see the tiresome ad-hominem attacks have begun.

Why not criticise him on his actual record in office than just default to the “play the man, not the ball” nudge-nudge schtick?

Ok, he left Westminister to become Mayor of Manchester, so he's obviously not happy where he is and he is doing the media rounds, resulting in him annoying not only most of the country, but most of the PLP as well, the week before their party conference, how to win friends and influence people....NOT

PS. Andy reminds me of a Boris Johnson type figure constantly nagging until he gets power, then it goes completely to his head.

 

[brad465]

What Burnham supporters don't realise is that trying to shoehorn him both into parliament and the leader of the party, at a time the government is polling poorly, is likely to backfire. There is no guarantee Burnham will win a by-election right now, even in a supposedly safe seat, and one has to factor in that the clear motive of getting him in to become Labour leader is only going to increase turnout amongst Labour opponents.

It's actually in his supporters' interests to help the party right now to try and improve their polling, then maybe try and get Burnham into parliament in the next election, by which point he'll have finished his time as mayor anyway, plus the wider campaign will dilute his influence. The other alternative is cultivate someone who is already an MP and thus doesn't have to make a desperate attempt to enter parliament before becoming leader.

 

[WesternLancer]

What Burnham supporters don't realise is that trying to shoehorn him both into parliament and the leader of the party, at a time the government is polling poorly, is likely to backfire. There is no guarantee Burnham will win a by-election right now, even in a supposedly safe seat, and one has to factor in that the clear motive of getting him in to become Labour leader is only going to increase turnout amongst Labour opponents.

It's actually in his supporters' interests to help the party right now to try and improve their polling, then maybe try and get Burnham into parliament in the next election, by which point he'll have finished his time as mayor anyway, plus the wider campaign will dilute his influence. The other alternative is cultivate someone who is already an MP and thus doesn't have to make a desperate attempt to enter parliament before becoming leader.

IMHO a sound analysis.

 

[Harpo]

What Burnham supporters don't realise is that trying to shoehorn him both into parliament and the leader of the party, at a time the government is polling poorly……..

……..is a terrible way of highlighting the complete lack of leadership talent amongst existing Labour MPs.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The idea that nobody gets discriminated against and that everyone is treated equally is, thankfully I should add, very widely supported in the Britain.

Is it?

If you ask someone "do you disagree with discrimination" then the vast majority of people will say that they do disagree with discrimination. The social expectation is that they say that, so they say that.

But once you start drilling down into how people actually act, suddenly it isn't quite so conclusive after all. Women get paid 18% less than men. People with autism are significantly more likely to be unemployed than the average.

And that's before we even get into the age old argument about whether we should be treating people equally (everyone gets the same) or equitably (those who need more help get more help).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Sep 2025 ==

What Burnham supporters don't realise is that trying to shoehorn him both into parliament and the leader of the party, at a time the government is polling poorly, is likely to backfire.

I don't get the impression that Burnham really wants to be leader.

What I get is the impression that Burnham is happy to be used as a stalking horse to put more pressure on Starmer and, more importantly, the pretty much universally despised Morgan McSweeney.

 

[Citybreak1]

I heard if Andy Burnham was leader he would win next election any thoughts on this? I know he’s not an MP but could things swing that quickly and reform don’t win?

 

[WesternLancer]

I heard if Andy Burnham was leader he would win next election any thoughts on this? I know he’s not an MP but could things swing that quickly and reform don’t win?

Just polling based on a theoretical scenario. May or may not reflect what would happen in reality.

 

[Topological]

I heard if Andy Burnham was leader he would win next election any thoughts on this? I know he’s not an MP but could things swing that quickly and reform don’t win?

Burnham would be better at stabilising the Labour vote in the constituencies where Reform would be beating Labour.

However, I cannot see that he would command enough of Middle England, so Burnham is more likely to let the Tories win.

I would prefer that, because the disconnect between Labour and the traditional Labour heartlands is the rift that creates so much unrest in the UK. The same applies for all the centre-left parties across the west. The median voter in most countries is further to the free market side (hence Labour trying to appear responsible in front of the markets and the criticisms Kier's people have put out about Burnham), but politics works better when there is a genuine voice reminding us that we do not have to be so beholden to the market.

Labour should be making a strong argument to Middle England about why the higher tax, higher spend solution with nationalised industries actually makes things better.

 

[Purple Train]

I heard if Andy Burnham was leader he would win next election any thoughts on this? I know he’s not an MP but could things swing that quickly and reform don’t win?

Given Reform weren't even really in the equation this time last year, yes, things can "swing that quickly" whoever leads the Labour party. Never underestimate the capacity of people at the ends of the horseshoe to start an argument, as Corbyn and Sultana are showing us. And even if he does get in, Farage's showing in opinion polls after a couple of months will make Keir Starmer look like Mary Robinson, judging by the fact that he has pretty low ratings already despite the privilege of not having to do anything.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Labour should be making a strong argument to Middle England about why the higher tax, higher spend solution

The trouble there is that we already have high levels of taxation, and yet the standard and range of public services has declined over the past few decades. It is unsurprising that people object to paying high levels of tax when they don't appear to be getting much in return.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The trouble there is that we already have high levels of taxation

Compared to other countries with high quality public services and no other unusual income stream (e.g. other Western European countries) no we don't when you look at the tax burden of individuals (including things like health insurance as a proxy for tax). Tax as a proportion of GDP doesn't give you a useful measure of the effect on individuals, it's a wider economic measure.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Compared to other countries with high quality public services and no other unusual income stream (e.g. other Western European countries) no we don't when you look at the tax burden of individuals (including things like health insurance as a proxy for tax). Tax as a proportion of GDP doesn't give you a useful measure of the effect on individuals, it's a wider economic measure.

While we don't have Scandinavian levels of taxation, we have way, way below the level of public services which they have. Successive UK governments have looks for ever more ways to tax people, and the people see little benefit as a result.

There might be more enthusiasm, particularly among voters on the left, for a higher tax / higher public services system if they trusted the government to deliver. But by and large there simply isn't this level of trust. What many would expect to happen is a load of tax increases, a load of empty promises and repeated failure to deliver what was promised.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While we don't have Scandinavian levels of taxation, we have way, way below the level of public services which they have.

Those two facts are connected. You can't do Scandinavian style public services on USA levels of taxation (which, when you add in health insurance, is where we are).

Indeed, not including health insurance in the calculation means we are paying a lot less than most think - this is usually at least a couple of hundred a month for an average adult in many countries. There are almost no countries in the world where health insurance is fully included in general taxation, yet we keep it in when comparing our tax burden with other countries.

There might be more enthusiasm, particularly among voters on the left, for a higher tax / higher public services system if they trusted the government to deliver. But by and large there simply isn't this level of trust. What many would expect to happen is a load of tax increases, a load of empty promises and repeated failure to deliver what was promised.

We clearly do not know that until it is honestly and openly attempted, and an honest and open conversation is had about just how much incapacity benefits, care provision and pensions with the triple lock are now costing. I'm not saying we should cut those things, but with an ageing and less healthy population if we want them we do need to be willing to pay more just for those things, or we switch to means testing them (but the Boomer middle class voters will moan).

Indeed the fundamental problem is dishonesty. We need honest and open conversations about the taxation/public services ratio we should have.

 

[Harpo]

Compared to other countries with high quality public services and no other unusual income stream (e.g. other Western European countries) no we don't when you look at the tax burden of individuals (including things like health insurance as a proxy for tax). Tax as a proportion of GDP doesn't give you a useful measure of the effect on individuals, it's a wider economic measure.

In microcosm, for the many unable to get a NHS provider, dentistry is already demonstrating that principle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In microcosm, for the many unable to get a NHS provider, dentistry is already demonstrating that principle.

Certainly in microcosm - even if we consider that NHS dental doesn't exist, which for most it in practice doesn't, full health insurance as the NHS provides with cover for any and all pre-existing conditions is an expensive thing - in effect each average adult would be paying £1200-2400 a year more for that on top of tax. A typical dental plan is maybe £40 a month which is expensive but nowhere near that expensive.

I was once looking at relocating to Switzerland for work, and worked out the taxation including health insurance, and once you brought in the latter I would be paying pretty much exactly the same as in the UK. Yet people call Switzerland a low-tax country - it isn't - it's just that the UK includes health insurance in tax and almost no other country does, apart from a few cases where the taxpayer funds those of very limited means e.g. US Medicare/Medicaid.

Perhaps if Reform does get in and move us to a European style insurance system (one of their few policies I advocate fairly strongly, though I'm not sure I trust them not to go for a US style commercial one instead) we will be able to have this conversation honestly and note that in fact our personal tax burden* is really rather low, yet we try to have a high range of public services from it, and wonder why they are largely of poor quality.

* Again, GDP is not an appropriate measure of this, as GDP has no real impact on what individuals earn and pay on that granular level, it's a very rough measure of the country overall.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

I was once looking at relocating to Switzerland for work, and worked out the taxation including health insurance, and once you brought in the latter I would be paying pretty much exactly the same as in the UK. Yet people call Switzerland a low-tax country - it isn't - it's just that the UK includes health insurance in tax and almost no other country does, apart from a few cases where the taxpayer funds those of very limited means e.g. US Medicare/Medicaid.

But for that specific payment, presumably residents of Switzerland can get medical care when they need it in a timely manner?

That isn't the case in this country. I've been battling with the NHS to to try get help for a particular condition for nearly three years now - they are absolute experts in delay, deflection, avoidance, one waiting list after another, and in some cases outright lying. In a market situation such as most other European countries have for healthcare, any provider behaving like this could expect to lose most of their business.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The trouble there is that we already have high levels of taxation, and yet the standard and range of public services has declined over the past few decades. It is unsurprising that people object to paying high levels of tax when they don't appear to be getting much in return.

Privatisation is the root cause of this.

Obviously the water industry is the poster child for privatised greed- why invest when you can asset strip- but the issue is right across government.

Look at the "migrant crisis". Look at how much it costs. And then look at how much of that money is going to private companies such as Serco and CTM. CTM get £1.6bn from the government just on that one contract. CTM's CEO, Michael Healy, was given an OBE in 2021 by the Conservatives for services to the Conservative Party repatriating government staff during Covid. Serco's CEO was, until recently, Rupert Soames, the grandson of Winston Churchill, a member of the Bullingdon Club and the son and brother of senior Conservative politicians.

Labour are, in all honesty, no better.

The whole lot are corrupt.

 

[WesternLancer]

Privatisation is the root cause of this.

whole lot are corrupt.

In the way that nationalised industries in the past / public bodies now, never have or had close confidents of politicians / ministers etc appointed to serve on their boards or such like.....?

I suspect the remuneration was lower perhaps but....

 

[gg1]

But for that specific payment, presumably residents of Switzerland can get medical care when they need it in a timely manner?

Annual Swiss healthcare expenditure per capita is significantly higher than in Britain 8,049 USD compared to 5,493 in 2022, so I would expect it to be better. Having said that, in the case of the USA, expectation doesn't match reality here, US per capita spending is the highest in the world by far at 12,555 USD, more than double the figure we pay in Britain.

https://www.oecd.org/en/publication...t/health-expenditure-per-capita_735cda79.html

 

[TravelDream]

But once you start drilling down into how people actually act, suddenly it isn't quite so conclusive after all. Women get paid 18% less than men. People with autism are significantly more likely to be unemployed than the average.

Whilst nowhere is perfect, Britain is certainly one of the better places for discrimination.

I'd also say some things some people call racist or discriminatory are not. For example, wanting zero immigration is in not in itself racist.

And you need to be careful with statistics.
The 'women get paid less than men' thing is primarily down to life choices such as choosing different career paths and having families.
I don't think normal people seriously think companies pay women 18% less for the same job than men or only promote men to senior positions.
You could argue taking time off work to take care of kids shouldn't lead to a salary difference, but that's as much discrimination against men as it is women

I don't get the impression that Burnham really wants to be leader.

He surely does. He's run for leader before and clearly someone is briefing the media heavily on him being leader.

I was once looking at relocating to Switzerland for work, and worked out the taxation including health insurance, and once you brought in the latter I would be paying pretty much exactly the same as in the UK. Yet people call Switzerland a low-tax country - it isn't - it's just that the UK includes health insurance in tax and almost no other country does, apart from a few cases where the taxpayer funds those of very limited means e.g. US Medicare/Medicaid.

It's the same for the States. Yes, income tax is lower, but look at some of the property taxes which are significantly higher than Council Tax here. Then when you add medical insurance, especially for a family, costs are often comparable to Britain.

Though it's true that if people expect a Scandinavian type social security system, then we need to pay Scandinavian taxes.

Privatisation is the root cause of this.

You're certainly on to something with this.
Privitisation works in many industries. There's no way BA or Land Rover should still be state-owned and subsidised for example. But it simply doesn't work for natural monopolies. It's true too many state-owned industries were very inefficient in the past, but privatization really wasn't and isn't the answer to that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd also say some things some people call racist or discriminatory are not. For example, wanting zero immigration is in not in itself racist.

It depends on the motivation. I've expressed a view before that I think the UK population needs to stop increasing until such time as we catch up with stuff like housebuilding, so realistically for a period of 10-20 years. How it stops increasing is relatively moot for me - it could be because people have fewer children, it could be because people emigrate and are not replaced or it could be because immigration reduces. Or it could realistically be a combination of those things.

That isn't racist, but if someone (not me) held a preference for no immigration because they don't like people with brown skin (they may not say that's why, but if they hold that view in their head) that absolutely would be. It depends on motivations.

I don't think normal people seriously think companies pay women 18% less for the same job than men or only promote men to senior positions.

This is absolutely going on in some places. It's illegal, but it's also hard to catch because companies can always come up with a justification for why the man was a better candidate.

You could argue taking time off work to take care of kids shouldn't lead to a salary difference, but that's as much discrimination against men as it is women

I'd agree that a couple should be given a specified amount of parental leave in law which can either be taken by one of the two or split between them as they wish.

It's the same for the States. Yes, income tax is lower, but look at some of the property taxes which are significantly higher than Council Tax here. Then when you add medical insurance, especially for a family, costs are often comparable to Britain.

Medical insurance is far too often not taken out when saying UK taxes are too high. When you put it in it often makes the UK look in fact not that expensive. Somewhere around £200 per month is fairly typical for this - indeed, it's probably not a bad comparison to consider employee National Insurance as being a proxy for it as that sort of approximates to the figures - but when talking about taxation overall NI is not taken out generally because it's a form of tax.

Though it's true that if people expect a Scandinavian type social security system, then we need to pay Scandinavian taxes.

I would be happy with that.

Privitisation works in many industries. There's no way BA or Land Rover should still be state-owned and subsidised for example. But it simply doesn't work for natural monopolies. It's true too many state-owned industries were very inefficient in the past, but privatization really wasn't and isn't the answer to that.

If there is realistic competition within an industry privatisation works. If it's a natural monopoly, then it doesn't.

 

[Topological]

The problem with the immigration debate is that there are many reasons to want less (or more) immigration. Clearly, racism is a reason to want less, but it is far from being the only one. Likewise, you could be a racist who wants immigration to provide cheap exploitable labour (though there will be far fewer racists on the pro-immigration side).

I believe Labour strategists are right to think that a high-tax, high-welfare approach would not get them into government. However, by abandoning their natural position, the Labour party are leaving a large group of voters unrepresented.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The 'women get paid less than men' thing is primarily down to life choices such as choosing different career paths and having families.

But this is where it gets nuanced. Jobs which have traditionally been perceived as feminine routinely pay less than jobs which have traditionally been perceived as masculine.

They are obviously not the exact same job, but jobs which require very very similar skills (e.g. refuse collection versus care work) are paid very differently depending on whether they are traditionally masculine roles or traditionally feminine roles.

This was the root cause of the equal pay issues at Birmingham City Council, where bonuses and pay rises were given to people in predominantly male jobs (refuse collectors, etc) but were not given to people in predominantly female jobs (teaching assistants, admin staff, care workers, etc). Binmen in Birmingham were earning over ten grand a year more than care staff, even though the core skills for both jobs are fundamentally very similar.

Things like career breaks to have children also have an impact, but this is also where until very recently things were stacked against women. Even when my youngest was born I was entitled to exactly one week's paid paternity leave, so I had to go to work and my wife had to stay at home. This was despite the fact my wife is a more highly qualified professional than I am, and earned more money than I did.

Shared parental leave will help with this, to an extent, but it is a very new development.

I'd also say some things some people call racist or discriminatory are not. For example, wanting zero immigration is in not in itself racist.

In itself, no, it isn't. But that's why the second question should always be why do you want zero immigration? Anyone who mentions as their first reason crime or the grooming scandal probably is prejudiced.

I would also say that, in the vast majority of cases, there is certainly a touch of xenophobia about it.

It's also interesting to see where the anger gets directed. Only a small proportion of immigrants arrive on the dinghies (MigrationWatchUK say 36,000 in 2024). Over 500,000 arrived for work or study. So why is there so much focus on the former?

I am a foreign born British national. I show up on the census as a foreign born British national. I grew up in Bradford. People will make assumptions based on those facts, especially when presented in aggregate. Why do they make those assumptions?

Britain is certainly one of the better places for discrimination.

Absolutely. Compared to many countries, Britain is doing well.

 

[Thirteen]

Sadiq Khan mentioned on LBC he wants to run for a fourth term which he's probably win if the other parties keep putting up sub par candidates.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sadiq Khan mentioned on LBC he wants to run for a fourth term which he's probably win if the other parties keep putting up sub par candidates.

He's quite popular among Londoners who by and large like their diverse city, and gives a great example of moderate, modern Islam. I'd vote for him.

It's curious that the regional Islamophobes don't like him when surely their issues with Islam relate to the type practiced in places like Oldham and parts of Birmingham being a bit more traditional and strict in nature? Of course it's just possible that most of them just don't like people with brown skin and Islam is just a proxy for that.