Speedy New Hampshire almost always votes for a different candidate to Iowa. A year is a long time in politics for Christie, if he becomes the establishment candidate he can still win
Articulate but *ordinary*. Political without being a plonker (cf Milibands D and E). The northern accent helps - it just does.
After 5 more years of posho Tories, Burnham's flat Liverpudlian vowels might easily be welcomed by a bored electorate.
I'm not kidding. He's probably the best bet. Cooper is too flat and dull. Kendall too peripheral. Hunt is ridiculous. Dunno who Creagh is.
As long as Burnham drops the lefty socialist crap (and to me he looks smart and ambitious enough to do just that), he could be PM in 2020.
Burnham will be PM only if the Tories mess it up so much that his awful record in government won't matter that much.
People don't seem to get that way before he was launching his one man NHS campaign, he was actually thought of as being on the right of the party - it's a huge reason he got no traction in 2010 - David M was the Blairite dauphin and so there wasn't much space for Burnham.
The main worries about Burnham are that a) he is tainted by association with the older generation, even though in government he tended to be the bloke who cleaned up after messes. For example the health secretary when things went wrong at mid-Staffs was Alan Johnson, Burnham in fact ordered the inquiry not long after becoming health sec. b) That the unions will back him too vehemently and enable him to be painted as continuity Miliband. Both would be unfair, but when was politics ever fair?
He'll be a far more formidable opponent than Ed, but arguably needs to use the leadership campaign to redefine himself as someone prepared to move away from the comforting but ultimately unappealing sops that defined the Miliband era. Taking on McClusky would be a start.
Firstly, Burnham was at health earlier - as Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality) from 2006-7. Right in the middle of the scandal.
Secondly, the inquiry he ordered was to be held in private and its terms of reference was widely criticised. The coalition ordered the public inquiry that got to the truth.
Thirdly, he evidently believes that inquiries should not be held if they hurt the organisation's reputation. Hopefully you don't think someone with such flawed thinking should be within a thousands miles of meaningful power.
Comments
Secondly, the inquiry he ordered was to be held in private and its terms of reference was widely criticised. The coalition ordered the public inquiry that got to the truth.
Thirdly, he evidently believes that inquiries should not be held if they hurt the organisation's reputation. Hopefully you don't think someone with such flawed thinking should be within a thousands miles of meaningful power.
Aside from those, well done! :-)