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

Ilovecheese

Whitewavemark2

I’m unclear how devolution will work in relation say to the government policy of building more council houses.

This I understand is being devolved, but say the mayor and LA does not agree with the policy of building more council houses?

How does that work?

I think the objections of L As to coucil house building usually arise if they are going to be built on so called green field sites. Andy Burnam said something about building them on greyfield (?) sites. Perhaps that will lead to less objections.

I don’t think that’s all it is. Many councils have divested themselves of all council housing to housing associations, and no longer have the staff or expertise to manage council housing building, maintenance or tenancies in house.

Casdon

Ilovecheese

Starmer expelled or alienated thousands of the Labour party membership. He preferred donations from organisations instead of membership fees.

Yes, and many Labour supporters think that was the right thing to do, to avoid the activists tail wagging the dog of power Ilovecheese.

But surely lobbyists should not hold the power either.

Ilovecheese

Casdon

Ilovecheese

Starmer expelled or alienated thousands of the Labour party membership. He preferred donations from organisations instead of membership fees.

Yes, and many Labour supporters think that was the right thing to do, to avoid the activists tail wagging the dog of power Ilovecheese.

But surely lobbyists should not hold the power either.

That’s about selection though, rather than principle I think.

LemonJam

David49

Devolution isn't new of course it's easy to give LAs more power, giving them enough money to change anything is another matter.

AB is not proposing devolution in his ideas speech- power will continue to rest with the government.

A No 10 office is to facilitate power flow similar to other EU countries, shown to be effective and result in higher wages over the country as a result.

Power flow? Where is the money coming from and how much?

As others have said, local authorities have been stripped bare since the days of George Osborne. So are they to be reorganised as is happening at exactly this moment into new administrative bodies which will take time to settle and in many cases, local power will be removed as in the disappearance of Parish Councils.

Or will new regional authorities be created, God help us. And how is any of this to suddenly produce a 'flow of power:, new jobs all over the country? In industry? What kind? What else? Will people be sufficiently educated to fit in this new Jerusalem or will they need skills training? The universities are busy letting go scores of academics? What training is there for unemployed graduates?

So many words from a man not yet PM!! Maybee and David49 I very much agree with your posts, it's devolution all over again. I also agree with those who highlight the circling media vultures. It feels to me like an alarming moment of chaos full of fine words. Where is this power that is suddenly going to save us all? Starmer had plenty of power until the knives came out, it's all quite Shakespearean!

I agree there are devolved elements Casdon.

For example, AB described shifting the nerve centre of No 10 ie having a No 10 in the North in Manchester to get away from purely Whitehall centric decision making.

He has proposed expanding Powers for Metropolitan Mayors and fiscal devolution to enable Local Authorities to gain more control over certain taxes like business rates.

He wants to force central government to aid local authorities.

All adding up to power flow from number 10 up to number 10 in the North and across the country. I view it as his intention to be more collaborative in style- but with a firm party plan of direction of travel.

Thinking about regions, I just checked, and 77% of the population of England is apparently now covered by mayoralties, so significant structures exist. I’m not in England, so could somebody explain why some areas are not, and whether that was previously proposed to change?

One can never win.

For years there were moanings about "Latte woke Islington Labour Party"

And now we have a possible PM who wants to take just some power up to the North of England and there are moans again.

Granatlast007

LemonJam

David49

Devolution isn't new of course it's easy to give LAs more power, giving them enough money to change anything is another matter.

AB is not proposing devolution in his ideas speech- power will continue to rest with the government.

A No 10 office is to facilitate power flow similar to other EU countries, shown to be effective and result in higher wages over the country as a result.

Power flow? Where is the money coming from and how much?

As others have said, local authorities have been stripped bare since the days of George Osborne. So are they to be reorganised as is happening at exactly this moment into new administrative bodies which will take time to settle and in many cases, local power will be removed as in the disappearance of Parish Councils.

Or will new regional authorities be created, God help us. And how is any of this to suddenly produce a 'flow of power:, new jobs all over the country? In industry? What kind? What else? Will people be sufficiently educated to fit in this new Jerusalem or will they need skills training? The universities are busy letting go scores of academics? What training is there for unemployed graduates?

So many words from a man not yet PM!! Maybee and David49 I very much agree with your posts, it's devolution all over again. I also agree with those who highlight the circling media vultures. It feels to me like an alarming moment of chaos full of fine words. Where is this power that is suddenly going to save us all? Starmer had plenty of power until the knives came out, it's all quite Shakespearean!

Grantalast007. Would you prefer AB has said less words because he's not yet PM

Or would you have preferred he used more words so you could understand where the money is proposed to come from over government term and more detail of his plans if elected PM?

Or do you feel he should say nothing at all until if and when elected PM?

AB is not even PM yet and so much moaning! Last week there were posters saying they didn't know what AB stands for. Today, so many words and he's not even PM yet inferring he should say less or nothing.

Whoever ends up as PM- most likely AB, some appear to expect either instant outcomes or predict failure. Crikey.

It's three years till the next election- if you don't like what AB says or what the next PM achieves everyone will have the opportunity to vote for an alternative party.

The trouble with trying to shift the power base is firstly that in the end the vote has to be taken in the House of P in London, and secondly it will cost a load. The EU traipsing from one city to another fiasco springs to mind.

Luckygirl3

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.

Burnham and Purnell were very much Blairites I believe? Didn’t Purnell try to stage a coup against Brown at one time? I knew politics was dirty but never realised quite how cut throat it is .

Wyllow3

One can never win.

For years there were moanings about "Latte woke Islington Labour Party"

And now we have a possible PM who wants to take just some power up to the North of England and there are moans again.

Agreed, Wyllow.

And a lot of discontent has come from people in the regions, who have felt ignored in favour of London for as long as anyone can remember. If this helps to dispel their concerns that can only be a good thing, IMO. Mind you, Manchester isn't really 'North' - there is a lot of England north of there - but we have to start somewhere, and the principle of being inclusive and listening to the people he represents (or ay come to represent) is sound, I think.

Luckygirl3

The trouble with trying to shift the power base is firstly that in the end the vote has to be taken in the House of P in London, and secondly it will cost a load. The EU traipsing from one city to another fiasco springs to mind.

The EU consists of many countries- would be unfair to hold all meetings in one city.

No votes currently take place as you describe Luckygirl in No 10 Downing Street.

The cabinet traditionally makes strategic executive decisions in No 10 Downing Street on overall party policy, departmental strategy and crisis management which are then binding on all government members. AB is proposing a second no 10 in the north for this.

Conversely votes in the Houses of Parliament are legislative decisions to pass new laws, approve taxation and formally scrutinise the government- AB is not proposing that to change as far as I understand.

I would imagine there are already mayoral/municipal offices locations in Manchester- that may be able to house 'Number 10 in the North" if number 10 in the North is entirely office based and does not involve any hybrid working or hot desking.

Further meetings can take place virtually, e.g. by Microsoft Teams- to link cabinet colleagues in London No 10 to cabinet colleagues in No 10 of the North. May have no additional costs at all....

David49

Devolution isn't new of course it's easy to give LAs more power, giving them enough money to change anything is another matter.

It's not LAs he's talking about is it? It's the CAs I think.

Luckygirl3

The trouble with trying to shift the power base is firstly that in the end the vote has to be taken in the House of P in London, and secondly it will cost a load. The EU traipsing from one city to another fiasco springs to mind.

I don't think the idea is to shift the power base - just to give people across the country the same say as those in London and the SE.

Not clear that we in the southeast have any more power than say someone in Manchester. And ask a working class single mum what power she has living in London.

Whitewavemark2

Not clear that we in the southeast have any more power than say someone in Manchester. And ask a working class single mum what power she has living in London.

While what you say is correct, the main threat of a Reform Govt. doesn't come from London. If the so called "Red Wall" seats can feel listened and respected, that is surely a good thing.

It's not about power, it's about being listened to. Someone in Westminster making decisions that will impact on those hundreds of miles away can war very thin.

I'd like to see stronger Mayoral links with Parliament. Not devolution - we are far too small a country for that, I think - but evidence that the people of the regions do have a voice.

Ilovecheese

Whitewavemark2

Not clear that we in the southeast have any more power than say someone in Manchester. And ask a working class single mum what power she has living in London.

While what you say is correct, the main threat of a Reform Govt. doesn't come from London. If the so called "Red Wall" seats can feel listened and respected, that is surely a good thing.

Yes, that's how I see it.

As regards moving some things away from London, as others have said, communication is so different now since the pandemic, distance needn't be such a problem.

I have to go out in a minute but I just have to say that the discussion of the speech on this of this thread has been even tempered and respectful and enjoyable.

LemonJam I think it's an Emperor's New Clothes situation, man not yet PM coming up with complex unsubstantiated plans with no clear example of how these might be financed or played out but if enough vague phrases are produced, eg power flow, brows will be furrowed in response.

Hasn't ANYONE stopped to think about the current local government reorganisation which is already altering 'powerflow'!! Never mind the cost of it. And how is this 'going to give people 'across the country' the same say as those in London and the SE (*Doodledog*? I thought the reorganisation was going to do that or is that now cancelled?

Granatlast007

LemonJam I think it's an Emperor's New Clothes situation, man not yet PM coming up with complex unsubstantiated plans with no clear example of how these might be financed or played out but if enough vague phrases are produced, eg power flow, brows will be furrowed in response.

Hasn't ANYONE stopped to think about the current local government reorganisation which is already altering 'powerflow'!! Never mind the cost of it. And how is this 'going to give people 'across the country' the same say as those in London and the SE (*Doodledog*? I thought the reorganisation was going to do that or is that now cancelled?

It's unfair to want it both ways- ie that AB has articulated some plans but not sufficient detail to satisfy you. Yet on the other hand you post "So many words from a man not yet PM!!*

AB, as a PM contender can't and will never be able to win with you with such a mindset and unfair, unrealistic expectations at this stage.

LemonJam could you tell me, is AB’s plan to give Mayors greater powers?

I'm sure AB can speak for himself better than me! We all interpret what he said today. At the moment he is a contender, not yet PM and I do not have an expectation his plans are fully formed, cabinet agreed plans that have been fully costed.

What did you hear AB say and how did you interpret what he said? I have set out my interpretation.

Andy Burnham's not really saying anything he hasn't talked about before but we may begin to get more detail. What he says may be of interest generally but I would have thought he has to talk mainly to Labour Party members at the moment.