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

I thought his children were all adults, so wouldn’t be moving to London, regardless of his status, have I got that wrong?

I wouldn’t worry Padstow. Alongside that nonsense are endless articles damning Andy Burnham and especially his wife. How very dare she be a successful independent wife and mother. There will be no honeymoon period. It will be a repeat of negative exaggerated or simply untrue attacks on Burnham as it was with Starmer

Oh Padstow, Burnham's visa to Downing Street is very much sorted and just waiting to be rubber-stamped.

Because no-one has stood against him (as yet) the process completely avoids a democratic vote by the LP grass roots membership … of which I am one. Not happy😡

I think the media will be far kinder to Burnham than they were to KS. Burnham is happy to have photos of his kids publicised, (like his former boss Blair) - the media loves this. Family photos make great front pages - physical print, online, TV news & SM.

KS has been far more private about his children (quite rightly IMO) but I think it the media resented this - no click bait🤷‍♀️

I just checked, apparently his children are 26, 24 and 22. - old enough to decide for themselves if they want to be in family photo shoots or not?

Casdon there are many photographs of his children when very young in the public domain, released by AB.

What I meant was that as they are adults, they won’t be living with him and are not of much interest for photos now LizzieDrip? Happy families pictures need cute little kids to engage the public.
Burnham is a social media animal, he always has been, so it doesn’t surprise me that his kids have featured - the difference now is that it’s with their consent, as adults.

I didn’t like his behaviour on his first attendance in parliament

Democratic process? ... huh!

The media will have their ferrets on the go looking for some dirt to dish. They can't cope with a PM being in office for more than 5 minutes. They will be working on how they can trash the next one, whoever it is.
They had more than enough to work on with Johnson, but let him stay longer as his antics were headline grabbers.
Democracy no longer rules ... the media do.

Having hounded Starmer out of office they do seem to have got a bit fed up with it all, though. Reminds me of those Orcas that followed a Sperm whale and her calf for miles, killed the calf but didn’t even bother to eat it.

People bayed for Starmer's blood from the start of his premiership - both the media and the public who believed the partisan reporting and the incessant slogans. They got their way, and Starmer stepped down. Someone has to take over - what did they expect would happen?

Burnham returned to parliament, presumably a he and others knew that he stands a chance of reuniting the party and keeping the country on the road to the fairness and equality that was laid out in the manifesto. Was his ambition any more or less reprehensible than that of any other MP or Cabinet member? I'd be interested to see the reasoning behind that if anyone who thinks so would like to share it.

Others could stand against him if they wished, but so far nobody has come forward to do so, although there is time for that to happen.

If someone does come forward there will be a contest, the result of which will be decided by the LP membership, as is usual in these matters, and as happened in the Conservative party when they deposed and re-elected numerous leaders in their last stretch of government.

If not, and Burnham is the only candidate then he will win, and become PM. He will continue as MP for Makerfield, as the people of Makerfield voted him in, above the 13 other candidates who stood against him. He, like all of the other MPs in the UK, was democratically elected to the role with a resounding victory.

The rest of us will keep the MPs we had before, with business as usual - some of us voted for the ones we've got, others would have preferred one of the other lot, but that's democracy.

Johnson, May, Truss and Sunak all took office without general elections, if I remember rightly? What's the difference? To answer the OP, the democratic process is that the person elected by Party members leads the Labour Party, which was elected into government in the general election of 2024, just as happened with a succession of leaders of the Conservatives.

I agree, wholeheartedly, with every point you've made.

Burnham will be crowned PM in a wave of enthusiasm then immediately demonized because he can't create instant solutions for everyone.
That's the way it is in 2027 everyone wants instant gratification, there is always going to be one group that is dissatisfied, the media concentrate on that group and magnify the issue, Starmer dared to change WFA that finished him before he started.

He’s already said it’s going to take ten years because the first term will just follow what Keir was doing anyway. And he said it would take two terms and I still feel that he should have been given that opportunity. This coup has been long thought out and planned. I don’t think that was the case with the constant turnover of Conservative leaders. Had things not been going well in the run up to the election I could have accepted a change of leader but this was being plotted soon after Keir’s resounding victory. I’d love to know exactly how many party members have left because I know of plenty that are planning to leave.

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.

He’s not helping himself in my opinion as he is refusing questions from the media (all of ‘em!). This is highly unusual. He will give his presentation apparently, thank everyone for attending then walk off.

I think we will very soon approach ‘peak Burnham’. He’s in his honeymoon phase and if no one challenges him for the leadership of the Labour Party it’ll just be a shoo-in.

Btw I got my notification of a postal polling card for the Mayor of Manchester in the post at the weekend. I’m told it'll arrive ‘around 17th July’.

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.

MayBee70

He’s already said it’s going to take ten years because the first term will just follow what Keir was doing anyway. And he said it would take two terms and I still feel that he should have been given that opportunity. This coup has been long thought out and planned. I don’t think that was the case with the constant turnover of Conservative leaders. Had things not been going well in the run up to the election I could have accepted a change of leader but this was being plotted soon after Keir’s resounding victory. I’d love to know exactly how many party members have left because I know of plenty that are planning to leave.

I left when Starmer blocked left wingers from standing - as MPs and for high profile roles such as regional mayors. A combination of that and the nonsense the LP was talking about so-called 'gender' caused me to resign my membership, but I might rejoin now. These things are always in flux, I think.

I agree with you about the cards being on the table when it coms to the time things will take, and with David about the need for instant gratification. I feel sorry that Starmer had to go, but (a) he was ruthless himself when it came to moving the party the way he wanted it, and (b) however unfair the reasons, he was very unpopular, not just with the public but in the Cabinet. He wasn't good at getting his message over, and didn't manage the media at all.

Burnham's honeymoon period will end pretty sharply, I think, but he is so much better at media management than Starmer's ever been.

I know it's a small thing, but the 'He's not the Messiah' catcall as he signed in would not have been handled by Starmer in the same way at all. He'd either have ignored it, or appeared bewildered. Does that make him a poor PM? No, of course not. He is principled and honest (not that I'm saying Burnham is not) but he lacks the easy charm that would have allowed him to carry off some of the trickier situations he's been in.

I've said before that I think if Starmer had been in power fifty years ago he'd have been popular and had a much better chance of getting his policies through. These days, with everything caught on camera, a constant need for statements and responses to everything, with soundbites and slogans, with Russia feeding stories that too many people are willing to buy into and so on, his personality worked against him. I think too many people forget that character and charisma are not the same thing.

David49

Burnham will be crowned PM in a wave of enthusiasm then immediately demonized because he can't create instant solutions for everyone.
That's the way it is in 2027 everyone wants instant gratification, there is always going to be one group that is dissatisfied, the media concentrate on that group and magnify the issue, Starmer dared to change WFA that finished him before he started.

I note your emphasis on the media here - they are the ruling force in our country now. Hence the lack of long term thinking - or indeed the opportunity to think or act long term.

They whip up desires and expectations in those who are dissatisfied with their lives and feed them the false idea that a new party/PM/mayor will provide instant gratification.

It is a very frightening situation.

Burnham wants ‘more devolution’. Oh heck.
Did anyone vote for this? Only devolution has worked so well for Scotland and Wales hasn’t it? Not.

And social housing is top of his agenda. No surprise there then - these rubber boat migrants need to be housed somewhere eventually as most of them WILL be staying.

Have you seen the detail of his housing agenda, FGT? I doubt it mentions 'rubber boat migrants'.

He's not even in power yet and he's being accused of being 'all words and no action' on the BBC News. How can he act before he takes office?

The media is a menace. Some of what it does actually harms our country.

The whole Burnham for PM has left a nasty taste in my mouth.

He was denied to stand first of all by KS and a Labour committee, waits a bit, gets his mate to resign, he stands and wins.

Nobody has the cajunas to stand against him, and he will be the PM in a couple of weeks.

Will he be under scrutiny, yes and rightly so in my opinion. I hope the Labour MP’s along with the rest of the party hold him to account.

I note your emphasis on the media here - they are the ruling force in our country now. Hence the lack of long term thinking - or indeed the opportunity to think or act long term. They whip up desires and expectations in those who are dissatisfied with their lives and feed them the false idea that a new party/PM/mayor will provide instant gratification. It is a very frightening situation

I agree Luckygirl.

Burnham’s a showman.

If he cozies up to the media (in the same way that Blair did) and gives them plenty of click bait, they’ll give him a ‘easy’ time. He’s already started this process … the carefully choreographed jogging etc (reminds me of Johnson🤮).

KS was not a showman and provided the media with zero click bait. Hence he was relentlessly demonised by the media.

Who’s running the show in this country?😡