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

You’re right LemonJam, AB isn’t yet the PM - perhaps he should stop behaving like he is.

I just hope Labour MPs haven’t made a monumental mistake … one which will potentially affect the country for decades.

DaisyAnneReturns

Oh LemonJam, you do sound down.

My reply 13.47 was meant to be in response to you DAR 💐

LemonJam

Hopefully the next three years will go some way to ameliorating regret- time will tell.

Realistically nothing can be achieved/changed quickly by any government/PM so everyone, whether supportive of AB/Next PM or out to moan/undermine/disparage at every step- the next GE is 3 years away.

I'm hopeful re AB and what I read yesterday I thought was fairly positive- but the negativity about him could bring anyone down and he hasn't even been elected yet 🤷‍♀️

So was it wrong of Starmer and Reeves to point out to the electorate that Labour had inherited a country in a bad way after 14 years of austerity added to which were wars and then a deranged vengeful POTUS; to say that it couldn’t be turned around quickly and that they couldn’t promise sunlit uplands in the first term? Has Burnham ever mentioned anything about world affairs or how he is going to deal with other world leaders. Or is he too busy referencing cult moves and Smiths songs ( but without ever mentioning Morrissey’s current political views because he sits on the fence when it comes to that)?

Whitewavemark2

A couple of things I am reading that I feel more hopeful about, if they come to fruition.
The first is Burnham’s ideas relating to social care. He originally proposed (during Blair’s government I think) that care should be, like health, free at the point of use, and paid for by a tax on the estate of the person on death. The Tories fought it like mad calling it the “death tax” and won the argument.

I do wonder if the country is now ready to introduce such a tax. I think it has merit and certainly worth giving it thought. I think that the NHS would benefit from this enormously and of course would users of the NHS - which is most of us.

The other thing is that it seems that Burnham favours the idea of a wealth tax. Now that is something I definitely think a good idea.

I think I mentioned that upthread. He talked of a 10% tax on death as a way to pay for social care. There would be no nil rate, whereas it is currently around a million pounds before people pay IHT. This would apply to everyone, so in theory the money would even out, and be fairly spread, as those with less would pay less, but IHT from those with more wouldn't have to cover everyone. I don't know whether the tax would be payable on everyone's death, or if a surviving spouse would be able to keep joint assets until their own death, but I expect that would be the case.

At face value I think that is a fair way to do it, so long as the money is ring-fenced for social care and not put in a general taxation 'pot' and spent on other things.

Galaxy I'm sure that most people are able to see that the 'hope' messaging is just that, but it is a far better message than the ones being pushed from the other side (ie hatred and division), and better than the very downbeat messaging we got from Starmer and Reeves after the election (Black Hole etc).

A couple of things I am reading that I feel more hopeful about, if they come to fruition.
The first is Burnham’s ideas relating to social care. He originally proposed (during Blair’s government I think) that care should be, like health, free at the point of use, and paid for by a tax on the estate of the person on death. The Tories fought it like mad calling it the “death tax” and won the argument.

I do wonder if the country is now ready to introduce such a tax. I think it has merit and certainly worth giving it thought. I think that the NHS would benefit from this enormously and of course would users of the NHS - which is most of us.

The other thing is that it seems that Burnham favours the idea of a wealth tax. Now that is something I definitely think a good idea.

Oh LemonJam, you do sound down.

Hopefully the next three years will go some way to ameliorating regret- time will tell.

Realistically nothing can be achieved/changed quickly by any government/PM so everyone, whether supportive of AB/Next PM or out to moan/undermine/disparage at every step- the next GE is 3 years away.

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.

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…

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'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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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🤷‍♀️

Sorry, that was to Doodledog.

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?

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.

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.

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?