Best Of

Not everyone is convinced by Burnham.

"@MatthewStadlen

What are the grounds for believing that Burnham would be a better Prime Minister than Starmer has been? Labour MPs are obviously desperate for someone capable of being popular but Burnham's blandness (?), casual u-turns (?) and near silence (?) on how he would deal with the same set of problems that Starmer is grappling with do not provide much reassurance. He was an undistinguished (?) cabinet minister under Brown and was twice unsuccessful in Labour leadership elections."

https://x.com/MatthewStadlen/status/2068393598777700696

The list of people not convinced by Burnham is quite long TBF

Good morning, everyone.

Some might say that Burnham has a Ming vase approach...

These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.

"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

The reason this has happened is

a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.

What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.

1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
2. Go for PR
3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

All popular, big, and easy to describe.

These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.

"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

The reason this has happened is

a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.

What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.

1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
2. Go for PR
3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

All popular, big, and easy to describe.

He has said no PR this side of a GE.

How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?

Meanwhile this - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/nhs-hospital-nottinham-inquiry-baby-deaths-kj99rx3lw - will be familiar to Burnham from his time in Health. What's his plan to deal with these sorts of widespread scandals? A reminder: a Parliamentary Commission recently pointed out that good maternity care was the exception rather than the rule in Britain.

4, Bring Thames Water into public ownership:

About a third of Thames Water's income goes to paying interest on its debt. Incredible.
Remove the debt (because it's bankrupt) and suddenly it's profitable and cash generating.
Its investors will argue that makes it a valuable company and they should receive massive compensation.

But because the company's debts far exceed its assets, existing shareholders cannot "walk away" from the debt while keeping the underlying value of the pipes and treatment plants.

If Thames Water goes bankrupt and enters the government's Special Administration Regime (SAR), its existing equity is legally wiped out and treated as completely worthless.

So there is the plan. Do SAR and its cash generation can finance better environmental protection, mend leaks, perhaps a reservoir, and hopefully a reduction in consumer prices.

Just ignore the special pleading from the Private Equity vultures which Starmer seems unwilling to do.

Nationalising Thames Water would be utterly moronic*.

They have borrowed too much money. Their owners therefore should be left with nothing, and, congratulations to their creditors, you now own a water company. This is standard practice for debt laden businesses going bump, there is nothing particularly special about this one.

The only reason for the government to get involved in the long term would be if the core business can't wash its face, even absent the debt.

There might be a role for government to play in ensuring suppliers get paid on time through the restructuring (and thus don't have the potential to cause water supplies to be interrupted), but that's about all that is necessary.

Capitalism works, boys and girls. All that is required is usually to keep the government out of the way of it, and this case is no different.

* Labour being the party for morons, they'll therefore probably rush off and do it.

Some people on Twitter seem to be genuinely upset that Starmer might be about to step down in favour of Burnham. They must be True Believers in the type of bureaucratic proceduralism that Starmer represents.

It's possible, and indeed pretty reasonable, to think that Starmer is a scummy idiot (no shortage of evidence for that!), and also think that Burnham is very likely to be a downgrade (most of the available evidence suggests this too).

I think Burnham is probably a less objectionable person than Starmer (I periodically read people on here who don't understand why the country hates Starmer - he's a smarmy hypocrite who'd sell his own grandma for an extra week in No10, and almost everyone has seen straight through him by now), but I've seen zero indication that Burnham has ever taken on a difficult flight and not folded immediately. He also seems gloriously naive.

Given that everything the country needs doing is pretty much diametrically opposed to what the PLP want to do, and given the above, I think Burnham will just keep folding to the PLP until either he loses the leadership/next election, or he does something so stupid the bond markets completely lose their minds.
That won't be good for the country.