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

On that specific issue this was my earlier interpretation "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".

It's nothing he hasn't said before as DAR sets out. Hes a contender at the moment. I view his motivation today in his speech- speaking to his PM vying electorate at the same time as trying to speak to the population as a whole who may now know what he stands for which has been a recurring theme in the press last week.

In the background no doubt he will working hard to work up the plans in more detail with allies in readiness.

voting not vying

What AB is talking about appears to be a major reorganisation of government led by a proposed but not appointed leader. If it was a large comprehensive school and a new head was in the process of applying for the position and he began to describe ways of reorganising all classes and the way the school would run in future and what the students might or might not be expected to do and not a mention of the financial implications, quite a few of the students, staff, parents and governors would be wanting more than general statements of intent.

We live in a democracy for heavens sake, I don't think it's unfair to want to know more. If it's insider Labour Party business then they should sort it out in private before the proposed leader goes around shooting his mouth off. How does this relate to the last GE manifesto? Where's the acceptance via a vote from the people who voted Labour?

PMs can do things that are not in the manifesto. The Institute for Government says that: Prime Ministers can legally and constitutionally pass policies that were not in their election manifesto. There is no legal requirement to stick strictly to manifesto pledges, and government decisions are guided by the needs of the moment, so no worries on that score.

As you say, we live in a democracy, and people elected their own MPs - it is up to the party members to elect the leader. We will know more when the leader has been appointed and is in post. So far, all AB has done is talk about what he might do. He has been criticised for keeping his ideas to himself, and now for sharing them with those who are interested.

He can't win, but I guess he's going to have to get used to that.

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.

At present, the talk is of the "No. 10 of the North" not moving any of the parliamentary offices. Its looks more like the mechanism for devolution than the recipient of new constitutional powers. He's described it as the place that will "make power flow" around the country rather than concentrating it in Manchester itself. The real transfer of authority, if it happens, would be from Whitehall departments to combined authorities and regional governments, with No. 10 North acting as the engine driving that process rather than becoming a rival executive centre.

Burnham has spoken about:
Housing -stronger local control over housing delivery and a major expansion of social housing.
Skills and post-16 education –continuing the Greater Manchester model of devolved adult skills funding.
Transport –extending the kind of integrated transport powers already exercised by metro mayors.
Economic development –regional industrial strategy and investment.
Elements of welfare and employment support –building on Greater Manchester's experience of integrating health, employment and skills services.

These are powers for devolved authorities, not powers that would belong uniquely to No. 10 North.

If MPs disagree with what Burnham has visualised, there is still the opportunity to get enough nominations to stand against him. If they agree, so be it.

It's obvious that he's not going to make Manchester the seat of power. Anyone saying that is either woefully misinformed or trying to create a climate of fear.

It's pointless though, as there will not be a GE, and it's LP members who will decide.

I can't see anything to worry about in the speech. He talked of guiding principles, rather than specific policies. There will be time enough for that when/if he takes power. I feel cautiously hopeful for the first time in ages.

"Devolving power to the regions"

We don't have regional authorities, we have city and county authorities, amongst them we have rural and urban areas with quite different needs.

Maybe combining some will improve efficiency but lumping them all together as the North West, South East etc as new authorities is going to add another layer of beaurocracy

There won’t be counties will there, I understood there will be new unitary authorities combining Local Authorities and County Councils? That is happening anyway, unless I’ve misunderstood the English model?

That's not what he said. I don't think so, anyway. 'The regions' just means most of the country - the bits that aren't London .

He's clearly offering an alternative to division and hatred as offered by Reform and their ilk. It's clear that he realises that ordinary people are fed up, and if he can give people in 'the regions' some sense of agency it must be a good thing, surely? The alternative offers riots, hatred of immigrants and a sense of despair. It has to be worth trying to pull people together, rather than driving them apart.

Granatlast007

What AB is talking about appears to be a major reorganisation of government led by a proposed but not appointed leader. If it was a large comprehensive school and a new head was in the process of applying for the position and he began to describe ways of reorganising all classes and the way the school would run in future and what the students might or might not be expected to do and not a mention of the financial implications, quite a few of the students, staff, parents and governors would be wanting more than general statements of intent.

We live in a democracy for heavens sake, I don't think it's unfair to want to know more. If it's insider Labour Party business then they should sort it out in private before the proposed leader goes around shooting his mouth off. How does this relate to the last GE manifesto? Where's the acceptance via a vote from the people who voted Labour?

A person who apples to be a head master in your example would be highly unlikely to full access to all the school's various budgets and income streams during the application process. The candidates would be expected to make a written, competitive application and mostly likely a presentation at interview stage. At both those stages they would only be able to give a general statement of intent and be open to answering questions for the decision making interview panel.

In the UK democracy the electorate, in a General election, votes for a party and the LP won. Starmer has resigned. AB has not been appointed yet. There is no need legal or party rules basis for a GE much as some way wish for it.

Nobody has said you will not find out more from AB - just not all today Granatlast0007. Earlier you were accusing AB of too many words and he's not even PM yet and now shooting his mouth off somewhat contradictory.

Each party has its own rules re electing a successor PM none of the parties have put rules in place that there must be a GE if a PM is replaced within government elected term. There is no fair reason for you to expect different rules to be applied to the LP than were applied to the Conservative Party 2016 to 2024 when they had 5 PMs, much as you personally would like there to be a GE.

When he’s talking about devolution, he means more money for existing local setups, whatever they are. I suppose the question is whether the unitary authorities are going to become the equivalent of the mayoralties for the 30ish percent of the country that isn’t already covered by mayors?

Sorry, that was to Doodledog.

LemonJam my interpretation of AB’s speech is that mayors will have more autonomous power.

Just wondering how that will work with Reform mayors, particularly if their policies (and implementation of those policies) are against government policy?

However, I’m somewhat resigned to where we are. Not my ‘king of the north’ but it is what it is🤷‍♀️

Casdon

When he’s talking about devolution, he means more money for existing local setups, whatever they are. I suppose the question is whether the unitary authorities are going to become the equivalent of the mayoralties for the 30ish percent of the country that isn’t already covered by mayors?

Yes, I expect so, and also more opportunities to push through initiatives that are relevant to the people of the various regions, in the way he did for Manchester.

I think it’s a good thing, it will improve accountability and fairness, and it’s all in the manifesto already apart from the parliament of the north concept.

David49

"Devolving power to the regions"

We don't have regional authorities, we have city and county authorities, amongst them we have rural and urban areas with quite different needs.

Maybe combining some will improve efficiency but lumping them all together as the North West, South East etc as new authorities is going to add another layer of beaurocracy

I live in a Combined Authority. It's definitely regional. They aren't, as far as I'm aware, talking about North West, South East etc although, of course, I could have missed that.

Burnham has repeatedly spoken positively about the German model of federalism and regional economic power. He has visited Germany several times, met German regional leaders, and argued that the UK is excessively centralised by comparison.

There are several lessons he appears to have taken from Germany.

1. Strong regional governments are normal, not exceptional.
2. Cities can drive the national economy
3. Long-term transport planning. Germany allows regions to plan transport over decades rather than waiting for annual Treasury decisions.
4. German states and municipalities receive much larger shares of tax revenue and have more freedom over spending. English metro mayors have responsibilities but relatively limited ability to raise revenue.
5. Cooperation between business, universities and government. Germany is famous for regional industrial ecosystems. For example:
Universities
Technical colleges
Manufacturers
Local government
Banks
often work together over decades.

None of the ideas have just arrived. Burnham has used his learning in Manchester.

It may be a sound idea but it will take several years to even get started so it seems premature to me.

One problem will be that local government has been so starved of funding and constrained over the last decade that there will be a dearth of people of sufficient calibre to run the new regions/councils.

Another is that Britain is small. There will be problems of postcode lottery. This happens in the NHS already.

And it isn’t clear to me what is proposed if anything re the current ‘shire councils’ currently undergoing reorganisation as it is.

So I think he should have waited until he is actually prime minister before making announcements like this.

It's not really an announcement though - how can it be until he is in power? It's more of a declaration of intent, so that if there is an election by the party members they are aware of what he stands for. If that does come to pass, we can look forward to more of the same, both from AB and any other contenders for the role.

As a member of the Labour Party, I did not vote for Burnham in the leadership contest as I felt he was too lightweight. After watching him today, I worry that this is still the case. I really do wish him well, - he appears to have been a successful and popular mayor, but this is a world away from running a nation. Mayoralty does not translate to premiership, there was precious little thought out evidence of the sort of issues he will be confronted with as a prime minister, and this is just the same as when he went for leadership previously. An example is his reference to the economy. I read that he has “consulted” with a number of economists, but to what end remains entirely unclear, as he mentioned in passing that he will stick to the fiscal rules set out by Reeves. How on earth that translates into his plans for devolution, house building etc is a complete mystery, let alone defence, welfare, health etc of which nothing was mentioned.

I fervently hope I am wrong as this country badly needs a break. Get this wrong and we are going to end up with the nightmare of Farage.

I know, which is why I have hope that AB will do well.

I have long felt that he would be a good PM, but it was easy to think that when there seemed to be no chance that it would happen. I do think that KS is a good man, and that he didn't have a chance because of a gullible public and toxic media, but I also think that because of those things it was right that he stood down. As you say, the stakes are now too high to take any risks. We need someone to save us from dystopia.

I like the messaging around Burnham. Hope. Opportunity. Regional representation. Possibility. I know it's just messaging just now, but it's so much better than hate, fear, parochialism from Reform, and the Londoncentralism of Starmer. Let's give AB a chance? He's the best one we've got, IMO.

I'm not, nor have I ever been a member of the Labour Party. However, I don't just look for democracy, I look for social democracy and that can come, I've found, from both centre right and/or centre left. I thought that might be the direction Starmer would take and achieve but the rise of (and I share your fear on this I think Doodledog) a dystopian far right has meant his government has not been able to move as much as he believed he would.

I've done a little more research and it does look as if AB's aims to federalise the UK would, because of the concentrated population in England (it has roughly 83% of the UK population) mean an eventually need for division of England along regional lines (something I had missed). The "England problem" is the biggest obstacle. If federalised, no single region should be dominant. This, apparently, is why Burnham and others often advocate stronger English regional government rather than an English Parliament.

England could be divided into regions such as:
North East
North West
Yorkshire and the Humber
West Midlands
East Midlands
East of England
South West
South East
Greater London

These regions already exist for statistical and administrative purposes, although they currently have very limited political powers (with some elected mayors in combined authorities). This would produce federal units with populations mostly between 2 and 10 million - much closer to the German pattern.

We need to remember that this isn't policy. It is, at the moment just an overall sense of direction. The fact that England alone contains over 80% is a constant barrier to real democracy whatever system we look at.

If he does become PM the developing arguments will be very interesting!

Sorry but I agree with some of Whitewaves sentiments. I am particularly concerned about the whole hope in our hearts thing, it is just more of the same soundbites that mean very little.

I was willing to give KS a go leading up to the election the constant we are different mantra I thought it was positive.

Two years on and here we go again…

GrannyGravy13

I was willing to give KS a go leading up to the election the constant we are different mantra I thought it was positive.

Two years on and here we go again…

I think a lot did believe that and voted Labour but regret it now.