Labour backs Burnham but voters still haven't a clue what he stands For

Andy Burnham is on course to become Britain's next Prime Minister after an overwhelming majority of Labour MPs rallied behind him in what opponents have branded a political "stitch-up" that leaves voters with more questions than answers.

The former Greater Manchester mayor secured the backing of 322 of Labour's 403 MPs on the first day of leadership nominations, effectively ending the contest before it had begun. With nominations remaining open until next Thursday, Burnham now appears certain to replace Sir Keir Starmer when Labour formally elects its new leader on July 20.

Leadership race over before it began

The scale of support means Burnham is unlikely to face any meaningful challenge, with next week's scheduled leadership hustings expected to feature only one candidate.

Senior Cabinet figures, including Chancellor Rachel Reeves, were among those quick to endorse him, while ministers are reportedly already positioning themselves for roles in his future administration.

Despite the rapid show of unity inside Westminster, critics argue Burnham has offered little indication of what his government would actually do.

Questions over mandate and policies

Opponents say Burnham has no direct public mandate to become Prime Minister. He was elected to Parliament only in a recent by-election and did not feature in Labour's 2024 general election campaign or manifesto.

Since returning to Westminster, he has delivered only one major speech, published no leadership manifesto, held no major press conferences and given few detailed interviews outlining his plans.

While Burnham has spoken broadly about shifting power away from Westminster, boosting regional investment and reforming taxation, many of his proposals remain short on detail.

Conservatives and Reform attack Labour

Conservative Party chairman Kevin Hollinrake accused Labour MPs of repeating the mistakes made under Sir Keir Starmer.

He argued Burnham had presented "no plan and no policies" beyond broad ambitions and warned Labour was once again asking MPs to back a leader without knowing how he would govern.

Reform UK Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick also criticised Burnham, saying he lacked a clear strategy to revive the country and suggesting Labour MPs could soon regret their decision. He added that any significant tax increases should first be put before voters in a general election.

Claims leadership bid planned for a year

Adding to the controversy, Burnham ally and former Transport Secretary Louise Haigh revealed the leadership campaign had been in preparation for at least a year.

Speaking to the BBC, she confirmed Burnham had been planning his return to national politics long before Sir Keir Starmer stepped down.

Her comments prompted criticism from within Labour, with some party figures accusing Burnham's team of undermining the previous leadership while publicly supporting it.

What Burnham has hinted at

Although no detailed programme has been published, Burnham has outlined several broad priorities he could pursue as Prime Minister:

• Greater devolution, including moving more government decision-making out of Whitehall.

• Tax reforms that could shift more of the burden from income towards wealth and property.

• Greater public control of water and energy utilities.

• A major expansion in council house building.

• Lower business rates for high street pubs, funded by higher rates on large warehouses.

• A long-term aim to reduce welfare dependency through training and employment rather than benefit cuts.

• A closer relationship with Europe and a tougher stance towards Israel over the Gaza conflict.

A new era—or a leap into the unknown?

Burnham insists his leadership represents a "new approach to politics," promising to spread economic growth beyond London and devolve power across Britain.

Yet with no manifesto, no full policy platform and virtually no leadership contest, critics argue Labour members, Parliament and the public are being asked to place their trust in a Prime Minister whose vision for the country remains largely undefined.

SOURCE

Burnham stands for Burnham no one else.

Refusing to answer questions.

Didn't stand for MP on Labour's manifesto at the last General Election.

No leadership contest for his ideas/policies to be tested (whatever his ideas/policies are, since nobody knows).

Leading a nation of 70,000,000 based on 24,927 votes in a by-election a few weeks ago that was a Labour safe seat for 120 years. The previous MP resigned for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than making space for Burnham to quit his job as mayor and become MP, then PM a few weeks later.

The Mother of all Parliaments, you say? 😄

Failed state.

The only positive is that it wasn't Sadiq Khan. Maybe next time when Burnham gets the boot?

Seems Labour have learned nothing from the Tory debacle.

Personally I think it stinks and it will hurt Labour more than if they had stuck with Starmer people don"t like it when their vote appears to count for nothing.

Finally, "They didn't know what they were voting for" makes sense in the context of British politics.

In fact, in this case we still don't know what we didn't vote for. 😄

This is breathless panic from the rightwing is utterly pathetic, worse even than their attacks on Starmer, at least they waited until Starmer took office.

Jonny’s leading the wheezing charge here on this forum, sullenly pretending the electorate vote for the Prime Minister.

The Labour Party won the last general election, the Labour Party get to choose their own Prime Minister.

Don’t forget vote in the next General Election, the party that wins or in the event of no clear winning party, a coalition will choose the Prime Minister.

Feel free to prove me wrong with a General Election ballot paper listing candidates for Prime Minster.

Or continue to pick at your need for grievance if that makes you feel better.

Edited July 10Jul 10 by Chomper Higgot

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Finally, "They didn't know what they were voting for" makes sense in the context of British politics.

The phrase has made sense for at least 10 years

3 hours ago, RayC said:

The phrase has made sense for at least 10 years

Only in your head.

I wonder how many labour voters were thinking about what the mayor of Manchester stood for when they voted for Labour.

They didnt know what they were voting for.

They didnt know what he stood for. Most had never heard of him.

They still dont know what he stands for. He wont answer questions and there is no leadership contest.

Soon he will be PM.

It is a coup.

At least when it happened in Thailand the new PM was pro Thailand. This guy hates us.

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Refusing to answer questions.

Hardly unique among political leaders

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Didn't stand for MP on Labour's manifesto at the last General Election.

Correct. But Burnham has stated that he will "stick by" the 2024 manifesto.

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

No leadership contest for his ideas/policies to be tested (whatever his ideas/policies are, since nobody knows).

Imo in many ways it would have been preferable to have had a contest for the Labour leadership, but the fact is no Labour MP wants to stand. Do you think that someone should be forced to stand?

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Leading a nation of 70,000,000 based on 24,927 votes in a by-election a few weeks ago that was a Labour safe seat for 120 years. The previous MP resigned for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than making space for Burnham to quit his job as mayor and become MP, then PM a few weeks later.

Burnham will be leader of the largest party in the Commons and therefore will be entitled to ask the King for permission to form the next government. No different to May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak or anyone that proceeded them.

On the subject of resigning for no reason....🤔

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The Mother of all Parliaments, you say? 😄

Failed state.

Maybe. No one could pretend that the FPTP system is democratic and it appears that the main advantage claimed for it i.e. that it delivers a strong and stable government, no longer holds true so, yes probably time for change to a PR-based system.

Oh yes, nearly forgot. If we are talking about mandates and democratic deficits, I assume that you would agree with me that Messrs. Kruger, Jenrick and Rosindale plus Ms. Braverman should seek a fresh mandate from those in their constituencies? After all, they didn't just not stand on Reform's 2024 manifesto, they were actually elected on the back of a manifesto of a completely different party.

11 hours ago, RayC said:

Correct. But Burnham has stated that he will "stick by" the 2024 manifesto.

And the moment he drifts from the Labour manifesto and starts raising taxes to fund a new Parliament in the north so he can work from home, or gives away the Chagos Islands at a £35bn cost, or does literally anything else that wasn't in the manifesto then you will be demanding that a General election is called... yes?

18 minutes ago, James105 said:

And the moment he drifts from the Labour manifesto and starts raising taxes to fund a new Parliament in the north so he can work from home, or gives away the Chagos Islands at a £35bn cost, or does literally anything else that wasn't in the manifesto then you will be demanding that a General election is called... yes?

A ludicrous argument.

Government’s frequently stray from their manifesto, if they did not they would be unable to respond to unforeseen events that unfold during their tenure.

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A ludicrous argument.

Government’s frequently stray from their manifesto, if they did not they would be unable to respond to unforeseen events that unfold during their tenure.

Starmer being a useless, weak, craven PM was not unforeseen. I and many others predicted this 2 years ago with absolute certainty. My next prediction is that Burnham will be even more useless and unpopular than the empty vessel that was Starmer within about 6-12 months as he has no plan for being in government, with no mandate and no vision other than he would prefer to work from home than live in the nations capital.

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

Starmer being a useless, weak, craven PM was not unforeseen. I and many others predicted this 2 years ago with absolute certainty. My next prediction is that Burnham will be even more useless and unpopular than the empty vessel that was Starmer within about 6-12 months as he has no plan for being in government, with no mandate and no vision other than he would prefer to work from home than live in the nations capital.

His recent landslide victory suggests many do not share your hopes.

This whole espisode will ultimately be bad for Labour as Burnham isn't the man to fix everything, even if this all appears convenient for the Labour party in the short-term. He's not really spelt out any policies other than vague references about shifting further to the left... which isn't what the majority of the public wants. Burnham may also lack the experience to be the PM and international statesman that will be required, like dealing with the EU and US on multiple thorny issues in today's current climate.

If he was smart, then now is a good time to call a GE as the Tories are still in disarry (but fighting back and making progress under Badenoch) and the Greens and Reform UK losing some of their recent shine, even if it's only in the short term... would give Burnham his best shot at winning 5 years, as his chances will only diminish if he allows Labour to make any more missteps like increases taxes for more frivolous spending without cutting wastefulness or sorting out immigration etc. If he fails to moderate his far-left instincts, then Labour is even more toast than they are already now, as things stand.

The thing that none of the left can convincingly give an answer to is something known as "The Calculation Problem" and that is the reason socialist governments always fail utimately and history bears this out... and I see no effort at all to confront this inevitable problem, it's just tax and spend, which doesn't work. There has to be tangible rewards/incentives for innovation, hard work, business success or people simply won't bother, especially if taxed into oblivion and dispair... capitalism isn't perfect obviously, but it's the only system that has worked somewhat. Tony Blair almost got it right and became the most successful Labour leader in a very long time, even ever... but a further lurch to the left is a recipe for disaster.

Burnham, and many other politicians (looking at you Milliband, for example) need to understand the idea of Realpolitik rather than always driving forward under ideological zealotry and be damned with the cost... that ultimately really irritates your average voter as it shows a deep contempt towards them and their day-to-day issues.

Edited July 11Jul 11 by Sir Dude
Typos

5 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

This whole espisode will ultimately be bad for Labour as Burnham isn't the man to fix everything, even if this all appears convenient for the Labour party in the short-term. He's not really spelt out any policies other than vague references about shifting further to the left... which isn't what the majority of the public wants. Burnham may also lack the experience to be the PM and international statesman that will be required, like dealing with the EU and US on multiple thorny issues in today's current climate.

Politics

If he was smart, then now is a good time to call a GE as the Tories are still in disarry (but fighting back and making progress under Badenoch) and the Greens and Reform UK losing some of their recent shine, even if it's only in the short term... would give Burnham his best shot at winning 5 years, as his chances will only diminish if he allows Labour to make any more missteps like increases taxes for more frivolous spending without cutting wastefulness or sorting out immigration etc. If he fails to moderate his far-left instincts, then Labour is even more toast than they are already now, as things stand.

The thing that none of the left can convincingly give an answer to is something known as "The Calculation Problem" and that is the reason socialist governments always fail utimately and history bears this out... and I see no effort at all to confront this inevitable problem, it's just tax and spend, which doesn't work. There has to be tangible rewards/incentives for innovation, hard work, business success or people simply won't bother, especially if taxed into oblivion and dispair... capitalism isn't perfect obviously, but it's the only system that has worked somewhat. Tony Blair almost got it right and became the most successful Labour leader in a very long time, even ever... but a further lurch to the left is a recipe for disaster.

Burnham, and many other politicians (looking at you Milliband, for example) need to understand the idea of Realpolitik rather than always driving forward under ideological zealotry and be damned with the cost... that ultimately really irritates your average voter as it shows a deep contempt towards them and their day-to-day issues.

The tax gap suggests Britains small businesses are not innovating, they’re dodging taxes.

The calculation problem is a myth, a simplistic misrepresentation of how economies and indeed taxes work.

24 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

If he was smart, then now is a good time to call a GE as the Tories are still in disarry

He cannot for at least 3 reasons:

1. He has no policies, no vision, no experience.

2. He would have to face scrutiny from not only the media but also other politicians. This would be a nightmare for him due to point 1.

3. He is a serial loser. He has lost his previous 2 attempts at becoming leader to novelty politicians like Corbyn and Milliband.

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The calculation problem is a myth, a simplistic misrepresentation of how economies and indeed taxes work .

It's not a myth. Can you name a successful socialist country?

Just now, Mr Awesome said:

It's not a myth. Can you name a successful socialist country?

All of Scandinavia.

What Burnham has actually said (with citations)

• He will “stick by” the Labour manifesto and its promises.

Sky News reports Burnham saying he’ll stick to the 2024 manifesto and the commitments it made. 

• He believes there is flexibility on tax inside the manifesto.

He told LBC and Sky News that the manifesto allows “movement on tax,” particularly around business rates and property taxation. 

• Senior Labour figures confirm he backs the manifesto.

Housing Secretary Steve Reed told LBC that Burnham “backs the Labour manifesto and fiscal rules” and will govern within them. 

3 minutes ago, Mr Awesome said:

It's not a myth. Can you name a successful socialist country?

Norway

• Public ownership of natural resources (oil).

• Universal healthcare, education, strong social security.

• High living standards and low inequality.

Sweden

• Long history of social democratic governance.

• Free education, universal healthcare, extensive welfare.

• Strong labour unions and worker protections.

Denmark

• Thriving private sector + extensive public services.

• Free healthcare, education, generous parental leave.

• Strong labour unions and collective bargaining.

Finland

• Universal services, high equality, strong welfare state.

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All of Scandinavia.

You have a child like grasp of politics. All Scandinavian countries are free-market capitalist economies. They are not socialist.

41 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All of Scandinavia.

Little bit simplistic there man. Sweden is in a feral downwards spiral of crime, no-go estates, and immigration problems. Norway just about skims it through due to its oil and sovereign wealth fund. Finland doesn't have an open-door policy either or tolerates much as everyone is armed to the teeth, and Denmark is cracking down and has become way more center/center-right on immigration/rights for non-Danes and stuff like that... a rare success story in the collasping EU on how to deal with the problem.

Yes, maybe back in the day most of them were sort of "democratic socialist states" as some like to call them, but they dropped the ball badly on a few things and have reversed policy or are suffering the consequences.

Although, will give you credit for the sweepingly dismissive statements without any explanation as if you are holding a truth divination rod or crystal ball... there is a slightly humourous value to them.

Edited July 11Jul 11 by Sir Dude

45 minutes ago, James105 said:

You have a child like grasp of politics. All Scandinavian countries are free-market capitalist economies. They are not socialist.

You’ve been at the Wikipedia again I see.

Unlikely you’ve ever been to Scandinavia, let alone spent any time there.

5 hours ago, James105 said:

And the moment he drifts from the Labour manifesto and starts raising taxes to fund a new Parliament in the north so he can work from home, or gives away the Chagos Islands at a £35bn cost, or does literally anything else that wasn't in the manifesto then you will be demanding that a General election is called... yes?

No, I won't be demanding an election when Burnham "does literally anything else that wasn't in the manifesto" for the same reason that I didn't demand that Boris Johnson call a general election when he broke his manifesto promise not to raise taxes. Circumstances change (although I accept that someone would have to be extremely naive to have taken Labour's 2024 manifesto at face value).

Manifestos are basically a 'wishlist'. If governments were ousted the moment they departed from their manifesto promises, I doubt that any would last more than six months. Allow governments to serve their full terms. The electorate can throw out the incumbent party at the next election if they don't like what they've seen.

Imo the British system of governance is broken. How to fix it? There's a question. However, imo one problem is short-termism. The electorate want instant gratification (I'm guilty myself) and governments - of all colours - are too scared to do anything that might reap LT gains but cause ST pain for fear of being ejected.

I never understood why the French got rid of the 7-year Presidential cycle. Seven years seems like a reasonable compromise between the need for democratic accountability and allowing enough time for policies to come to fruition.

Big bird from Sesame Street would have been a better choice. This is a man that refused to hold an inquiry into the child gang abuse scandal in Manchester. He is an absolute disgrace.

Twill be all reet chuck.

T' Andy is King of T' North thou knows!

Twill be just like Coronation Street it will!

'Appen!