The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Burnham would to high dunce – inane

Burnham would to high dunce – inane

by 62 Comments

OK, I’ll admit to mid-week sub-NME headline Shakespearean wordplay for the sake of it.

But sometimes such foolish serendipity gives rise to interesting thoughts. Given the madness and social media overplay of much national-level politics, wouldn’t the mayor of Manchester have more gravitas staying put? Like Khan in London, Mamdani in New York, even Newsom in California – isn’t there often more sense, more pragmatism and more value in regional and urban politics, than in the grandstanding on the national and international stages?

2

Comments

  1. Maybe it’s a case if I’ve done so wonderfully here just imagine what I can do it to the whole country.

    Which is why farage must never become PM. Not that he’s done wonderfully apart from being an

    20260129_095439

    Great wordplay BTW.

    • We saw the stage show last November in that Bristol, in one of the late dates they did, and it was a lovely evening. I never thought I’d see the ‘AN OWL?’ sketch live. It was a shame that John Thomson was absent, due to panto duties.

      • Ah he was there last night. Great night the couple sat next to me didn’t appear to enjoy it towards the end of the first half she was looking at her watch they didn’t return for the second half which gave me a chance to stretch my sciatic leg.

        Sorry Sal we’ve digressed. ARSE.

  2. Burnham is for me the side issue. I think if Starmer had an end of term school report it would say something like ‘shows promise but could do better’, I think he is okay nothing more nothing less. The problem is everything now is judged by the first budget which was horrendous. In the unlikely event of impressive growth and a big drop in inflation this year the government is still going to be judged by the carnage wreaked by Rachel from Accounts.
    The problem is the government is very beige, lacking in charisma when the electorate outside of the Labour rank and file crave some sparkle. So when a personality like Burnham sticks his head above the parapet I don’t think they will take too kindly to Starmer and his mates knocking it back down.
    The impression given is that Starmer is running scared of anyone giving him a run for his money.
    Watching him say that he would be taking control of the aircraft as it landed in Beijing you just know that this line was written for him. It sounded stilted and he doesn’t seem to have the natural wit to engage with the public.
    Therein lies the trouble. It is likely that for the Labour Party to remain in power they are likely to need a new leader. It shouldn’t be left until the very end of the current term to shape a change of course. Doesn’t matter that it is unlikely to be Burnham but I don’t think competition should be quashed by the ego of a misfiring leader.

    • It can’t be a good look when so many members and supporters of a party with a large majority are looking to someone who isn’t even in parliament as a saviour. It seems to me that Starmer’s principal weaknesses are awful comms and an inherent air of gloom. He always looks like he’s trying not to share some terrible news he has just received.

      • I seem to remember that after Johnson and Truss, the general feeling was “We’ve had enough of ‘personalities’, let’s find someone who’s dull but might just be competent”.
        People may well argue about the latter sentiment, but it’s somewhat unfair to level a lack of charisma as a criticism of Starmer.

        • The turnout at the last election was 60% – 3 in 5, which was one of the lowest ever. Of the 3 in 5 who voted, 33% voted Labour. So 1 in 5 of the electorate voted for a government which has a huge majority. Recent polls show that Labour support has halved, so now 1 in 10 support them.

          At the election, the other parties were even more unpopular. People don’t like politicians, and Starmer has done nothing to stop that.

          • The problem with this maths is it doesn’t take into account tactical voting. I would vote Labour, and I pretty much agree with SteveT on Starmer so far.

            But I voted Libdem because Labour have no chance where I live. For the first time in living memory, a Tory wasn’t elected here.

            For what it’s worth, Starmer is sensible, careful and thoughtful. He is governing with a party that is none of those things with geopolitics that are the exact opposite of those things. Changing him will not change these things.

            But you are right – people don’t warm to Starmer. But I’m not sure people will warm to anyone.

                • Likewise. I had no qualms about voting Lib Dem as the most useful anti-Tory option available to me. She was returned with a near-500 majority in a seat which had been blue since 1950.

                  The real question is what to do if the Conservatives look like the best anti-Reform choice? I really don’t think I could bring myself to place my cross in that box even if I knew a Reform (or whatever Farage’s latest grift is by then) MP could be the consequence.

                  • Honestly can’t tell the difference between them. I suspect they’ll be more riots if Reform get in and they will make it horrible quicker but I can’t cross the line that would have me vote for either at the moment. And they would have to change big time before I would consider it.

            • Same here, there are 2 main parties, conservatives and liberals. The 3rd party is more left leaning NDP which was previously in a coalition government with Trudeau’s Liberals. They would be my preference, but no chance in my riding (constituency) so I voted Liberal. There is an app to help with this. In the adjacent riding to mine similar tactics were used and the appalling Tory leader Pierre Poilievre was ousted. Unfortunately he then won a seat in right leaning Alberta in a bi-election so he is back in parliament.

              However, like Reform they looked a shoe-in to win the election just a few months before and then their support collapsed alarmingly, part of that was due to Trump though

            • A pig with a blue rosette could have won my seat, and did for the last 50 years, but the mess Bojo made, plus some tactical voting, meant that LD got in.

              For the first time in my life (I’m 55) I voted for my MP.

    • I think you’re being overly generous to Starmer.
      Obviously he could do much, much better, but if I were writing a school report it would read “Prior to assuming the role he flattered to deceive that he possessed competent, albeit non-charismatic, leadership qualities. Unfortunately he has demonstrated time and again that he possesses no aptitude at all for leadership and his true ability is to engender alienation through repeated acts of incompetence“.

  3. There has been a gentle drip of positive economic news in recent weeks, culminating in The Telegraph publishing this slightly predictable article yesterday, explaining why none of it is the government’s doing:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/01/28/britain-on-cusp-economic-boom-no-thanks-to-labour1/?msockid=3e9a51dcbf3c61af363b4709bebe6087

    Hard to think of a better indicator that a corner is possibly being turned than these sorts of excuses being lined up ready.

    In the two areas that really matter above all others – the economy and immigration – it appears that progress is being made. It doesn’t really matter whether the government is responsible for the former; they’ll inherit the credit the same as they inherit the blame when it goes the other way. There is still work to be done on the latter.

    The next election is still over three and a half years away. That’s an eternity in politics – long enough for the economy to be in a very different place, long enough for public opinion to turn around on someone they dislike, and certainly long enough for the bloom to come off the rose regarding a replacement. I wouldn’t personally change leadership right now unless the incoming candidate is stellar, and Andy Burnham is not stellar.

  4. I know it makes a good dramatic story for news journalists, but I can’t be the only one sick to the back teeth of the venal last gov’t, sick of NF’s transfer window, sick of DJT’s witterings, and now sick of hearing about what Burnham might or might not do.

    Yes, the PM is a bit dull, but please just let him get on with the job without having a back-stabbing psychodrama played out on the airwaves.

    I’ve taken to turning off the radio news. Head in the sand? Absolutely, but I’m happier as a result.

    Radio 4 at 8:45am on Sundays is alright – 15 minutes of Good News stories, not many of them from the UK.

    • This is the other thing that’s putting me off; the general public are sick to death of watching factional party politics play out to the detriment of the public good. It’s one of the (many) things that sank the Tories.

      At some stage we do need to hang on to a Prime Minister for more than 18 months if we want to see any sort of progress.

      • The need to hang on to a PM for more than 18 months is a real and valid one, in order for them to make any sort of impact, ditto cabinet ministers who need time to enmesh with Whitehall superstructure and enact any sort of substantive change.

        The trouble is we’re now conditioned to expect immediate action, reaction and noise, for politicians to be 24 reality show stars and those on the outer fringes left and right seem to have fully bought into that, whether Polanski or Farage. They are both easily outperforming Starmer in communications, unencumbered by the actual running of a country, and understanding is the most effective way to drive engagement with their respective bases, is to prioritise personality, brand loyalty and hopefully funnel this into long term repeat custom (ie at the polling booth).

        Starmer is what we needed after the misery of Johnson, Truss and Sunak despite having the (public) charisma of a stuffed frog. Shades of John Major in the way he presents and is perceived. To continue to the comparison, there are echoes of Major’s situation in 95, when the latter driven to distraction by EU squabbles, put himself up for re-election. I wonder if Starmer will be pushed to a similar stance should the rumbles of discontent continue.

        But while I agree that his comms is dreadful – seems a post Cummings cancer of comms in Downing St – I do respect his integrity and especially, his pragmatism in dealing with with Trump and China. I don’t think Andy Burnham would have handled the twat in the White House half as carefully as Starmer has.

    • Just for the record I am not advocating Leadership change as my preferred choice. Rather am very concerned that in 3 and a half years we might potentially face a Reform government which is way too scary to contemplate.
      I would sooner have a re-elected Labour government with a new leader (almost any new leader) than to have to endure a Farage government (or God forbid a Badenoch government although I am more likely to win the lottery).

      • 3 and a half years.
        Badenoch may have jumped ship to Reform by then, Steve.

        I don’t see why Andy Burnham can’t wait until his term as mayor is finished, before trying to get back into parliament. If he’s concerned about Reform winning the upcoming by-election, isn’t there just as much chance of them taking over the mayoralty after he quits it? What if he runs, fails to get elected and the mayoralty is lost as well?

  5. It really is getting to feel like Prime Ministers are becoming viewed like Premier League football managers…a couple of questionable results and they are a complete disaster, with a change needed NOW. Although I’m a dyed in the wool leftie, not a huge Starmer fan it has to be said, for goodness sake just let him be dully competent for a while. Surely after the utter shambles of the Brexit and Covid years we can just settle for a bloke in a grey suit who is just getting on with it?
    And if folk think Burnham really is the saviour then God help us.

    • Using the football manager analogy I would say that pre season Starmer was given a team capable of winning the league and with substantial backing. Unfortunately his management style has left them languishing in the relegation zone. Time for a new leader?
      The writing is on the wall. He needs to go on an unbeaten run.

  6. I can’t get excited about the Starmer v Burnham kerfuffle and the other squabbles. For all I know, Burnham could be the best politician in history, but the row about whether or not he gets to stand as an MP is probably insignificant to anybody outside Labour Party circles and the Westminster media bubble.

    What matters to me, and I imagine to at least a few other people, is who is actually going to improve the country, and when. It may be, as mentioned above, that things are getting better, but down my way that doesn’t appear to have trickled down to the high street, public services, etc. All I see are businesses closing, streets dominated by charity and betting shops, and a local bus service that is far too expensive and infrequent. In my neck of the woods, we have bin collections becoming less frequent, public spaces left unkempt, street lighting that’s not worth the name, and a general feeling that everything is getting a bit worse year by year.

    Given this, the endless infighting, name-calling, and defections among various parties are just a time-wasting irrelevance. So A.N. Other Tory has joined Farage’s cabal. So what? They were almost certainly useless when they had actual power, and why should anybody care now that they’ve jumped ship? Are they suddenly going to be better at their job? I think not.

    If a politician appeared with convincing, properly funded ideas about improving our everyday lives and communities, they could sweep the board. Sadly, I’m unsure whether there is a single one among the current crew who I could point to and say, “Yes, they’re full of clever ideas to make everything better. Put them in charge.”

    Phew… I’m going for a lie down…

    • The high street dying is not a central government thing. It’s a supply and demand thing. The high street has been replaced by something that most people prefer and so they don’t use it as much. This is what capitalism and free markets do. I don’t think that governments should support those retailers who are not coping, including pubs over health, education and national infrastructure.

      It wasn’t that long ago that shops were closed for half a day in the week and Sunday was a no shopping day. This compressed the time to shop which helped keep shops busier.

      The retail boom from the mid 80’s onwards ended about 15 years ago. It was probably unsustainable anyway – there are triple the amount of shops, even now, where I live compared to the beginning of the 80’s. It’s just most of the sell coffee, mass produced food and sweat shop clothing – often to people who bemoan the state of the high street.

      • I agree with the broad thrust of what you’re saying here, but would just note that the issue for pubs/the leisure sector isn’t really organic decline in the same way as retail. The demand is still essentially there, they’re just facing a tough environment due to a range of issues (high energy and rent costs, increased minimum wage, higher business rates, increased costs of regulatory requirements), some of which are very much within the purview of government and several of which they view as having been directly exacerbated by this particular government.

        They’re not asking to be saved, they’re just asking for their position not to be made untenable. There’s also a sense that the way successive budgets have been communicated has lead to a lot of uncertainty, which has had a significant cooling effect on investment in the sector.

        It’s not a fight I have a dog in (albeit I know some people who do), but I don’t think these complaints are entirely without foundation.

        • I think the issue you have missed on the list is the huge brewery/chain pubs. Pubs were in trouble before those issues you list (which are genuine issues) were a thing. They are real issues though but they don’t just apply to the pub and leisure sector. And some are nothing to do with government.

          My son, who is 18, works in a pub part time. He gets minimum wage – £10 an hour. I genuinely don’t think that is the problem and the pub industry would be more credible if it left that one off it’s list.

          • Increased minimum wage means higher costs for the hospitality industry, which employs a disproportionately high number of relatively unskilled roles. It would be remiss not to flag that extra cost in any discussion of the challenges facing the sector.

            That said, I’m not actually making an argument against the increase to minimum wage, simply observing that there’s a distinction between retail and hospitality/leisure, and that it’s not entirely accurate to say that this is all just the function of the market; some of it is the result of decisions made by the government. Whether we agree or disagree with those decisions when viewed in the round is another matter.

            • I do agree with your general point but there are significant companies in the hospitality sector making healthy profits. They have expanded through acquisitions and leveraging commercial might in their sectors. I’m absolutely fine with this but those companies should not be complaining about having to pay adults £10 an hour. That is not the fundamental problem with their business and their execs and shareholders are doing fine. Anyone doing an 8!shift is likely to be losing an hour of work getting there and parking. Small pubs (often being screwed by the breweries) are absolutely a different kettle of fish.

              • Listening to the radio this week, I learned that a pub’s rates are base on expected turnover, which doesn’t seem very fair and presumably puts an huge pressure on landlords, also that profit on a pint is about 12p. How anyone can make a living from wet sales alone is beyond me.

      • The thing j still don’t get is that in regards to the pubs / leisure sector facing higher rents – if the retail sector / High Street is dying, shouldn’t rents be pushed down ?

        • Inflation and higher interest rates. Landlords have higher costs, so they try to pass them on.

          Presumably at some point lack of demand starts to work against increased rent, but that impetus takes longer to materialise than the cost of an interest rate hike.

          • Taxes are unfair. Out of town or online get away with much lower taxes. Reform of business rates could change this but will Labour grasp the nettle? Will they support small local businesses at the expense of Amazon?

  7. Every time I have to brace and grimace as my car thunders over another huge pothole, there’s a part of my brain that seeks solace in images of Cameron and Osborne being beaten to a bloody pulp by a gang of irate motorists with huge adjustable spanners, bone splinters and teeth going everywhere, and Clegg and Alexander are running off scared to one side, whimpering. I then reflect briefly on the possibility that perhaps a decade and a half of criminal asset stripping by the rich boys’ pals might soon be a thing of the past, thanks to someone with proper standards and decency, and I hope desperately that his colleagues can see fit to get behind him and give him a chance to make a difference.

  8. I don’t remember Burnham being much cop as a minister and he did miserably when he ran for leader last time. My opinion of him improved while he’s been in Manchester but they can’t help themselves can they. Internecine strife is much more fun than doing anything useful isn’t it. I reckon it’s 50/50 for the next election at the moment and if they knock off the squabbling and focus on voter priorities they could turn it round. However if they dislodge Starmer, bring in a new leader with new team etc etc they’ve lost the election right there. Not just that election either – that’s probably it for Labour.

    • I agree. The thing the Tories and Reform (spoiler alert: they’re the same thing) most want is for Starmer to be dislodged.

      If, five years ago, I’d have said he’d be Prime Minister in 2024 I’d have been laughed out of court… he is Prime Minister… one election as leader won out of one election as leader… and they are petrified it might happen again.
      Good, I’m glad they are petrified it might happen again.

  10. Starmer has a very tricky path to navigate over the next 2 years. In addition to stabilising the economy he must steer the UK away from its excessive reliance on the U.S. This, of course, would have been somewhat easier if Brexit hadn’t happened. Popping off, cap in hand, to China isn’t the best look, but it’s all he’s got in terms of a significant play.

      • As to us rejoining Europe I think he’s quietly and steadily working towards that. But “Just like that” rejoining the European Union is a pipe dream. The boats were burned to ashes under Johnson. New boats can’t be magic-ed into existence.
        The EU (quite rightly) no longer trust us and they have their own internal problems to deal with.
        Getting us back into the union may not be as high in the EU’s priorities as some Rejoiners would like to imagine, though Trump vs. Greenland may have caused an attitude shift there.

        As to our over-reliance on the USA, I think everyone else has had a rude awakening there. Not just the UK.

          • Agreed, even things which seem obvious to me like young person visa or the various research initiatives or performing arts seem to be hobbled by the “the Daily Mail will kill us over this” fraternity. They should boldly do it, explain why it is the right thing to do and GTFOWI.

  11. Public services, local bus services, infrequent bin collections, unkempt public spaces, poor street lighting, potholes…

    Things people care about and presumably the responsibility of local, urban and regional councils, not central government? How many of them are going bankrupt now? What I hear is that mandated ringfenced expenses such as social care means there is not enough in the budget for other items, equally essential for quality of life, but unaffordable.

    A responsible central government, recognizing changing demographics would introduce a National Care Service, taking the burden off local councils. I’m not holding my breath on the independent commission set to report back its first recommendations in 2026 on how this could be set up and funded.

Leave a Reply