Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[johnola]

As much as a like Burnham I do think his brand is a lot better than he actually might be. It's hard to tell. But is he more likely to steady the nerves than Kier? Yes.

I agree with that. He is likely a better fit for the party but not so much for the parties floating voters.

There is plenty left in the manifesto to be implemented and the bond markets which are already talking loudly, will dictate the viability of giveaways.

 

[LutonSpurs]

I agree with that. He is likely a better fit for the party but not so much for the parties floating voters.

There is plenty left in the manifesto to be implemented and the bond markets which are already talking loudly, will dictate the viability of giveaways.

Personally I think Burnham has to be radical to get anywhere. Moving a bit left and being a bit nice is not enough. But it is the only move Labour have left. Or they become the new Lib Dems.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Personally I think Burnham has to be radical to get anywhere. Moving a bit left and being a bit nice is not enough. But it is the only move Labour have left. Or they become the new Lib Dems.

Cards on the table, I tend to vote Lab / at least sympathise most of the time with a centre left view of the world. But if Burnham comes in and proposes being way more radical than Starmer the opposition parties will call for a GE and I’d say they would be absolutely correct. Burnham wouldn’t have the mandate to do that, and in the same way the Tories allowed 70,000 or so people to vote for Truss and to inflict her on the country, Labour would be doing the same thing. They called for a GE then and were right, and if Burnham offers up a different manifesto essentially, he should seek his own mandate.

I think the issue of Labour’s ratings is essentially that it hasn’t been sufficiently understood that the bond markets, after Truss, are driving everything. She tried to be radical, and tried to do to too quickly, and messed up. So now those bond markets are watching the UK like a hawk. A big part of the Starmer project is that stability is change. He’s invested more in public services, he’s done some things on child poverty, he’s actually made good progress on immigration. But the real radical stuff won’t happen, because it can’t. The only way to improve the foundations for normal people long term, the only way out is through. Show that the UK is stable, that it is growing, that companies can invest here.

Starmer has been a bad communicator. But also explaining something complex like the bond markets to normal voters and transforming that into a compelling vision…that’s hard. If the idea is that Burnham is better placed to do that and keeps to the manifesto, I’d get it. It’s just that he genuinely believes that it’s ’time to get over this thing of being in hock to the bond markets’….so who knows.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Well I think you can only take people on what they have done, so in part yes but also by default, Labour are getting behind him which bodes well for them following him.

I think he has more about him being a PM on what he has achieved in Manchester than what Farage has achieved in Clacton.

Ultimately he will be a better "leader" and people will buy into what he is saying more than Starmer, I feel sorry for Starmer but he is falling on a modern sword in that he can never divert of script and his PR is dreadful, it shouldn't matter but it does.

I do agree with this. Burnham has definitely achieved more than Farage. And I do think Starmer has tried to make a virtue of not being Boris Johnson, of not over promising, and being willing to be unpopular short term if it meant long term pay off. Unfortunately it just hasn’t worked, you do need to take people with you in politics be it voters or MPs and his lack of desire / ability to do this has done for him.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Too many believe all the problems can fixed with no negative impact on them, that they can have everything and have lower taxes, we're a very selfish and impatient society.

Agreed. I think the media also have something to do with this. We have a highly fragmented political system now. We have algorithmic timeliness. So everyone just gets to read what they want. There’s little nuance, there’s no real thinking about trade offs or compromise. And the BBC is always ‘holding politicians to account’ and it means Labour are always scrutinised, but never able to sell their achievements (also because they haven’t adapted well enough to the media environment). And then you get vox pops of voters who will say things like ‘we’ve tried the Tories and they’ve been no good, same with Labour, it’s time for something else’ despite the fact that the Tories had 14 years and Labour less than two.

 

[Mikey10]

Burnham is playing a dangerous game.

I think he’ll lose the by-election and that will be the end of his political career, which will be no bad thing imo. I don’t trust him at all. It’s always appeared to me that his main interest is Andy Burnham.

32% voter turnout last week, 59% in last general election.

Not sure we can read that much into what happened last week.

Hopefully Reform's overall vote share will continue to decline as it did in the last 12 months.

John Curtice said this week that the ‘decline’ in the Reform vote overall needs to be treated with caution as the vast majority of seats up for grabs in the council elections were in areas which are traditionally Labour, whereas in the previous election the results are being compared to this wasn’t the case.