'Sir John Major throws shade on the new prime minister in waiting. "Mr Burnham has had great success, I'm told, with buses," he says. "A little different from dealing with Xi, Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz."
A dumb take from Sir John - who else but an existing or former PM has had any equivalent experience? If he thinks he lacks the quality to step up just say so, but you coukd substitute the buses comment with any new PMs background.
Most new PMs have either held a Great Office of State though ie Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary or won a general election as LOTO. Burnham will become PM having done neither, though he has had some executive experience as Manchester Mayor and was a former Health Secretary.
Major was making the argument that Burnham should at least face a contest before becoming PM to clarify his policies and how we would approach the world stage too
I like John Major but the more I think about the comment the more it annoys me. Unless a PM is going to be a social embarrassment then what difference can they possibly make by having experience of 'dealing with Xi and Putin'. It's not like a silken word from a smooth operator is going to get Putin to withdraw from Ukraine or extract a transition to democracy from Xi. All they have to do is not turn up drunk to international forums and refrain from shouting obscenities
It's like all these pious comments that we don't know what Burnham's policy is on Ukraine. Do we really think that just because he hasn't announced it on the campaign trail he's suddenly going to declare support for Russia and open up a Western front to assist them?
Any PM has to focus their attention somewhere. If Burnham's focus is domestic then he has a whole ministry to look after foreign affairs. Appoint decent ministers and you can let them get on with the job while you focus on the bits of the government agenda you can effectively drive.
Sunak's lack of experience in dealing with transport and improving the prosperity of the north led him to making awful decisions like cancelling HS2 in the north.
Never heard HYFUD complaining about Sunak's lack of experience in these key domestic areas.
Sunak as a Yorkshire MP wanted to invest more in northern towns transport unlike Osborne's HS2. Sunak had held a great Office of State before becoming PM too, Chancellor of the Exchequer
But he both cancelled HS2 and did not then spend any more money in the north, just filling in pot holes in London with the saved money.
His lack of experience or interest in the north was there for all to see, his lack of experience was there for all to see.
Sunak's problem was that his path to the top went Minister for reducing local government spending, Chief Sec (Minister for reducing central government spending), Chancellor. Nothing to challenge his instinct that state spending is bad. So when he panicked, which he did in his final year, he retreated to slash'n'burn.
Burnham's appeal is that he has been an effective Mayor of GM. But again, that's a bit of a lopsided role, because it's not about raising your own taxes, really. And whilst not being interested in foreign affairs, aiming to be Mayor of the UK, is probably popular- that's not how this works. Global affairs will be interested in Burnham, even if he's not interested in them.
This is all one hack of a gamble. But it's too late to back out now.
'Sir John Major throws shade on the new prime minister in waiting. "Mr Burnham has had great success, I'm told, with buses," he says. "A little different from dealing with Xi, Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz."
A dumb take from Sir John - who else but an existing or former PM has had any equivalent experience? If he thinks he lacks the quality to step up just say so, but you coukd substitute the buses comment with any new PMs background.
Most new PMs have either held a Great Office of State though ie Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary or won a general election as LOTO. Burnham will become PM having done neither, though he has had some executive experience as Manchester Mayor and was a former Health Secretary.
Major was making the argument that Burnham should at least face a contest before becoming PM to clarify his policies and how we would approach the world stage too
I like John Major but the more I think about the comment the more it annoys me. Unless a PM is going to be a social embarrassment then what difference can they possibly make by having experience of 'dealing with Xi and Putin'. It's not like a silken word from a smooth operator is going to get Putin to withdraw from Ukraine or extract a transition to democracy from Xi. All they have to do is not turn up drunk to international forums and refrain from shouting obscenities
It's like all these pious comments that we don't know what Burnham's policy is on Ukraine. Do we really think that just because he hasn't announced it on the campaign trail he's suddenly going to declare support for Russia and open up a Western front to assist them?
Any PM has to focus their attention somewhere. If Burnham's focus is domestic then he has a whole ministry to look after foreign affairs. Appoint decent ministers and you can let them get on with the job while you focus on the bits of the government agenda you can effectively drive.
Sunak's lack of experience in dealing with transport and improving the prosperity of the north led him to making awful decisions like cancelling HS2 in the north.
Never heard HYFUD complaining about Sunak's lack of experience in these key domestic areas.
Doubly stupid given he was (is) an MP for a seat in North Yorkshire. Not that I think he cares much for it.
Am I right in thinking he was the first Conservative PM to represent a seat in the north of England since Balfour in 1905? Churchill and Macmillan both represented seats in the Manchester area but not while they were PM. Chamberlain was Midlands. Home was Perth and Kinross. Hague was never PM.
Some would argue that Blair fits into that category.
Blair was a liberal not a Tory or conservative, just not a socialist or even social democrat really either
Since the 1980s, Scotland, Wales, the North of England and the Midlands have sacrificed jobs and prosperity whilst London and the South East have become ever richer. It’s time London took a share of the suffering. We never hear of mass redundancies of civil servants and consultants, only engineers, factory workers, steelworkers and other productive trades. Currently its Aberdeen oil and gas engineers whose jobs are being replaced by platitudes. Time for some proper levelling up. Go Andy!
50% of the UK population live within 100 miles of London.
According to Wiki, UK population 69m, about 44m of whom don't live within 100 miles of London.
"50% of the UK population live within 100 miles of London" or "UK population 69m, about 44m of whom don't live within 100 miles of London."
Lol, which to believe?
And posted on a thread about misinformation too.
100 miles from outer London boundary the former might be true. 100 miles from the centre of London the latter may be true.
Birmingham and Bristol are around 100m from London so it makes a big difference where you start from. Nottingham as well.
To define '100 miles from London' as '100 miles from the closest point to you on the M25, which is what using 'outer London boundary' more or less means would be odd. And would include vast numbers of additional people.
On the other hand, faced with a batch of people who all claim to have "just visited London", and disqualifying all those whose trip didn't happen to take them right past the cross outside Charing Cross station would also be odd.
Since the 1980s, Scotland, Wales, the North of England and the Midlands have sacrificed jobs and prosperity whilst London and the South East have become ever richer. It’s time London took a share of the suffering. We never hear of mass redundancies of civil servants and consultants, only engineers, factory workers, steelworkers and other productive trades. Currently its Aberdeen oil and gas engineers whose jobs are being replaced by platitudes. Time for some proper levelling up. Go Andy!
50% of the UK population live within 100 miles of London.
According to Wiki, UK population 69m, about 44m of whom don't live within 100 miles of London.
"50% of the UK population live within 100 miles of London" or "UK population 69m, about 44m of whom don't live within 100 miles of London."
Lol, which to believe?
And posted on a thread about misinformation too.
100 miles from outer London boundary the former might be true. 100 miles from the centre of London the latter may be true.
Birmingham and Bristol are around 100m from London so it makes a big difference where you start from. Nottingham as well.
To define '100 miles from London' as '100 miles from the closest point to you on the M25, which is what using 'outer London boundary' more or less means would be odd. And would include vast numbers of additional people.
It was explained above as 100 miles from Euston. Euston is where my office is. My office is clearly the most important point in central London and the obvious place to pick.
Burnham wants to devolve government to the regions and says he wants to run No 10 for some of the time from the north
I support devolving power to the regions, but I rather think Burnham is confusing the role of PM of that as a mayor
As was said on the BBC this am the PM is needed in and around Parliament most of the time and of course, as we have seen from Starmer, attend scores of international meetings
I am not sure Burnham has realised that being PM is far more difficult and time consuming than being a mayor
'Sir John Major throws shade on the new prime minister in waiting. "Mr Burnham has had great success, I'm told, with buses," he says. "A little different from dealing with Xi, Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz."
A dumb take from Sir John - who else but an existing or former PM has had any equivalent experience? If he thinks he lacks the quality to step up just say so, but you coukd substitute the buses comment with any new PMs background.
Most new PMs have either held a Great Office of State though ie Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary or won a general election as LOTO. Burnham will become PM having done neither, though he has had some executive experience as Manchester Mayor and was a former Health Secretary.
Major was making the argument that Burnham should at least face a contest before becoming PM to clarify his policies and how we would approach the world stage too
I like John Major but the more I think about the comment the more it annoys me. Unless a PM is going to be a social embarrassment then what difference can they possibly make by having experience of 'dealing with Xi and Putin'. It's not like a silken word from a smooth operator is going to get Putin to withdraw from Ukraine or extract a transition to democracy from Xi. All they have to do is not turn up drunk to international forums and refrain from shouting obscenities
It's like all these pious comments that we don't know what Burnham's policy is on Ukraine. Do we really think that just because he hasn't announced it on the campaign trail he's suddenly going to declare support for Russia and open up a Western front to assist them?
Any PM has to focus their attention somewhere. If Burnham's focus is domestic then he has a whole ministry to look after foreign affairs. Appoint decent ministers and you can let them get on with the job while you focus on the bits of the government agenda you can effectively drive.
Sunak's lack of experience in dealing with transport and improving the prosperity of the north led him to making awful decisions like cancelling HS2 in the north.
Never heard HYFUD complaining about Sunak's lack of experience in these key domestic areas.
Doubly stupid given he was (is) an MP for a seat in North Yorkshire. Not that I think he cares much for it.
Am I right in thinking he was the first Conservative PM to represent a seat in the north of England since Balfour in 1905? Churchill and Macmillan both represented seats in the Manchester area but not while they were PM. Chamberlain was Midlands. Home was Perth and Kinross. Hague was never PM.
Some would argue that Blair fits into that category.
Blair was a liberal not a Tory or conservative, just not a socialist or even social democrat really either
I think Nick Palmer correctly described him as a Christian Democrat.
Since the 1980s, Scotland, Wales, the North of England and the Midlands have sacrificed jobs and prosperity whilst London and the South East have become ever richer. It’s time London took a share of the suffering. We never hear of mass redundancies of civil servants and consultants, only engineers, factory workers, steelworkers and other productive trades. Currently its Aberdeen oil and gas engineers whose jobs are being replaced by platitudes. Time for some proper levelling up. Go Andy!
50% of the UK population live within 100 miles of London.
Plus a small percentage of the French population.
That's the prospective British population, before they get on boats to live in our 4* hotels.
'Sir John Major throws shade on the new prime minister in waiting. "Mr Burnham has had great success, I'm told, with buses," he says. "A little different from dealing with Xi, Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz."
A dumb take from Sir John - who else but an existing or former PM has had any equivalent experience? If he thinks he lacks the quality to step up just say so, but you coukd substitute the buses comment with any new PMs background.
Most new PMs have either held a Great Office of State though ie Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary or won a general election as LOTO. Burnham will become PM having done neither, though he has had some executive experience as Manchester Mayor and was a former Health Secretary.
Major was making the argument that Burnham should at least face a contest before becoming PM to clarify his policies and how we would approach the world stage too
I like John Major but the more I think about the comment the more it annoys me. Unless a PM is going to be a social embarrassment then what difference can they possibly make by having experience of 'dealing with Xi and Putin'. It's not like a silken word from a smooth operator is going to get Putin to withdraw from Ukraine or extract a transition to democracy from Xi. All they have to do is not turn up drunk to international forums and refrain from shouting obscenities
It's like all these pious comments that we don't know what Burnham's policy is on Ukraine. Do we really think that just because he hasn't announced it on the campaign trail he's suddenly going to declare support for Russia and open up a Western front to assist them?
Any PM has to focus their attention somewhere. If Burnham's focus is domestic then he has a whole ministry to look after foreign affairs. Appoint decent ministers and you can let them get on with the job while you focus on the bits of the government agenda you can effectively drive.
Since the 1980s, Scotland, Wales, the North of England and the Midlands have sacrificed jobs and prosperity whilst London and the South East have become ever richer. It’s time London took a share of the suffering. We never hear of mass redundancies of civil servants and consultants, only engineers, factory workers, steelworkers and other productive trades. Currently its Aberdeen oil and gas engineers whose jobs are being replaced by platitudes. Time for some proper levelling up. Go Andy!
50% of the UK population live within 100 miles of London.
According to Wiki, UK population 69m, about 44m of whom don't live within 100 miles of London.
"50% of the UK population live within 100 miles of London" or "UK population 69m, about 44m of whom don't live within 100 miles of London."
Lol, which to believe?
And posted on a thread about misinformation too.
100 miles from outer London boundary the former might be true. 100 miles from the centre of London the latter may be true.
Birmingham and Bristol are around 100m from London so it makes a big difference where you start from. Nottingham as well.
The rough point being made is that in a democracy, the majority get their way unless there is positive discrimination. Burnham seems to have taken a negative (subsidy* to the North) to turn it into a positive (local tax for local people).
The devil will be in the detail of course.
* No one ever mentions that wealth created outside London gets put on London's books as that's where most of the financial reporting is done for major plcs.
That is how they claim Scotland is poor , they just record it all as London money, and load us with London debt and claim it is Scottish.
'Sir John Major throws shade on the new prime minister in waiting. "Mr Burnham has had great success, I'm told, with buses," he says. "A little different from dealing with Xi, Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz."
A dumb take from Sir John - who else but an existing or former PM has had any equivalent experience? If he thinks he lacks the quality to step up just say so, but you coukd substitute the buses comment with any new PMs background.
Most new PMs have either held a Great Office of State though ie Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary or won a general election as LOTO. Burnham will become PM having done neither, though he has had some executive experience as Manchester Mayor and was a former Health Secretary.
Major was making the argument that Burnham should at least face a contest before becoming PM to clarify his policies and how we would approach the world stage too
I like John Major but the more I think about the comment the more it annoys me. Unless a PM is going to be a social embarrassment then what difference can they possibly make by having experience of 'dealing with Xi and Putin'. It's not like a silken word from a smooth operator is going to get Putin to withdraw from Ukraine or extract a transition to democracy from Xi. All they have to do is not turn up drunk to international forums and refrain from shouting obscenities
It's like all these pious comments that we don't know what Burnham's policy is on Ukraine. Do we really think that just because he hasn't announced it on the campaign trail he's suddenly going to declare support for Russia and open up a Western front to assist them?
Any PM has to focus their attention somewhere. If Burnham's focus is domestic then he has a whole ministry to look after foreign affairs. Appoint decent ministers and you can let them get on with the job while you focus on the bits of the government agenda you can effectively drive.
Sunak's lack of experience in dealing with transport and improving the prosperity of the north led him to making awful decisions like cancelling HS2 in the north.
Never heard HYFUD complaining about Sunak's lack of experience in these key domestic areas.
Doubly stupid given he was (is) an MP for a seat in North Yorkshire. Not that I think he cares much for it.
Am I right in thinking he was the first Conservative PM to represent a seat in the north of England since Balfour in 1905? Churchill and Macmillan both represented seats in the Manchester area but not while they were PM. Chamberlain was Midlands. Home was Perth and Kinross. Hague was never PM.
Some would argue that Blair fits into that category.
Blair was a liberal not a Tory or conservative, just not a socialist or even social democrat really either
I think Nick Palmer correctly described him as a Christian Democrat.
He'd be CDU in Germany.
More likely he would be FDP in my view now, he is a pro business liberal but not socially conservative like many in the CDU/CSU
'Sir John Major throws shade on the new prime minister in waiting. "Mr Burnham has had great success, I'm told, with buses," he says. "A little different from dealing with Xi, Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz."
A dumb take from Sir John - who else but an existing or former PM has had any equivalent experience? If he thinks he lacks the quality to step up just say so, but you coukd substitute the buses comment with any new PMs background.
Most new PMs have either held a Great Office of State though ie Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary or won a general election as LOTO. Burnham will become PM having done neither, though he has had some executive experience as Manchester Mayor and was a former Health Secretary.
Major was making the argument that Burnham should at least face a contest before becoming PM to clarify his policies and how we would approach the world stage too
I like John Major but the more I think about the comment the more it annoys me. Unless a PM is going to be a social embarrassment then what difference can they possibly make by having experience of 'dealing with Xi and Putin'. It's not like a silken word from a smooth operator is going to get Putin to withdraw from Ukraine or extract a transition to democracy from Xi. All they have to do is not turn up drunk to international forums and refrain from shouting obscenities
It's like all these pious comments that we don't know what Burnham's policy is on Ukraine. Do we really think that just because he hasn't announced it on the campaign trail he's suddenly going to declare support for Russia and open up a Western front to assist them?
Any PM has to focus their attention somewhere. If Burnham's focus is domestic then he has a whole ministry to look after foreign affairs. Appoint decent ministers and you can let them get on with the job while you focus on the bits of the government agenda you can effectively drive.
Sunak's lack of experience in dealing with transport and improving the prosperity of the north led him to making awful decisions like cancelling HS2 in the north.
Never heard HYFUD complaining about Sunak's lack of experience in these key domestic areas.
Doubly stupid given he was (is) an MP for a seat in North Yorkshire. Not that I think he cares much for it.
Am I right in thinking he was the first Conservative PM to represent a seat in the north of England since Balfour in 1905? Churchill and Macmillan both represented seats in the Manchester area but not while they were PM. Chamberlain was Midlands. Home was Perth and Kinross. Hague was never PM.
Some would argue that Blair fits into that category.
Blair was a liberal not a Tory or conservative, just not a socialist or even social democrat really either
I think Nick Palmer correctly described him as a Christian Democrat.
He'd be CDU in Germany.
More likely he would be FDP in my view, he is a pro business liberal but not socially conservative like many in the CDU/CSU
'Sir John Major throws shade on the new prime minister in waiting. "Mr Burnham has had great success, I'm told, with buses," he says. "A little different from dealing with Xi, Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz."
A dumb take from Sir John - who else but an existing or former PM has had any equivalent experience? If he thinks he lacks the quality to step up just say so, but you coukd substitute the buses comment with any new PMs background.
Most new PMs have either held a Great Office of State though ie Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary or won a general election as LOTO. Burnham will become PM having done neither, though he has had some executive experience as Manchester Mayor and was a former Health Secretary.
Major was making the argument that Burnham should at least face a contest before becoming PM to clarify his policies and how we would approach the world stage too
I like John Major but the more I think about the comment the more it annoys me. Unless a PM is going to be a social embarrassment then what difference can they possibly make by having experience of 'dealing with Xi and Putin'. It's not like a silken word from a smooth operator is going to get Putin to withdraw from Ukraine or extract a transition to democracy from Xi. All they have to do is not turn up drunk to international forums and refrain from shouting obscenities
It's like all these pious comments that we don't know what Burnham's policy is on Ukraine. Do we really think that just because he hasn't announced it on the campaign trail he's suddenly going to declare support for Russia and open up a Western front to assist them?
Any PM has to focus their attention somewhere. If Burnham's focus is domestic then he has a whole ministry to look after foreign affairs. Appoint decent ministers and you can let them get on with the job while you focus on the bits of the government agenda you can effectively drive.
Sunak's lack of experience in dealing with transport and improving the prosperity of the north led him to making awful decisions like cancelling HS2 in the north.
Never heard HYFUD complaining about Sunak's lack of experience in these key domestic areas.
Doubly stupid given he was (is) an MP for a seat in North Yorkshire. Not that I think he cares much for it.
Am I right in thinking he was the first Conservative PM to represent a seat in the north of England since Balfour in 1905? Churchill and Macmillan both represented seats in the Manchester area but not while they were PM. Chamberlain was Midlands. Home was Perth and Kinross. Hague was never PM.
Some would argue that Blair fits into that category.
Blair was a liberal not a Tory or conservative, just not a socialist or even social democrat really either
I think Nick Palmer correctly described him as a Christian Democrat.
He'd be CDU in Germany.
More likely he would be FDP in my view now, he is a pro business liberal but not socially conservative like many in the CDU/CSU
I think Blair exhibits socially conservative characteristics.
'Sir John Major throws shade on the new prime minister in waiting. "Mr Burnham has had great success, I'm told, with buses," he says. "A little different from dealing with Xi, Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz."
A dumb take from Sir John - who else but an existing or former PM has had any equivalent experience? If he thinks he lacks the quality to step up just say so, but you coukd substitute the buses comment with any new PMs background.
Most new PMs have either held a Great Office of State though ie Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary or won a general election as LOTO. Burnham will become PM having done neither, though he has had some executive experience as Manchester Mayor and was a former Health Secretary.
Major was making the argument that Burnham should at least face a contest before becoming PM to clarify his policies and how we would approach the world stage too
I like John Major but the more I think about the comment the more it annoys me. Unless a PM is going to be a social embarrassment then what difference can they possibly make by having experience of 'dealing with Xi and Putin'. It's not like a silken word from a smooth operator is going to get Putin to withdraw from Ukraine or extract a transition to democracy from Xi. All they have to do is not turn up drunk to international forums and refrain from shouting obscenities
It's like all these pious comments that we don't know what Burnham's policy is on Ukraine. Do we really think that just because he hasn't announced it on the campaign trail he's suddenly going to declare support for Russia and open up a Western front to assist them?
Any PM has to focus their attention somewhere. If Burnham's focus is domestic then he has a whole ministry to look after foreign affairs. Appoint decent ministers and you can let them get on with the job while you focus on the bits of the government agenda you can effectively drive.
Sunak's lack of experience in dealing with transport and improving the prosperity of the north led him to making awful decisions like cancelling HS2 in the north.
Never heard HYFUD complaining about Sunak's lack of experience in these key domestic areas.
Doubly stupid given he was (is) an MP for a seat in North Yorkshire. Not that I think he cares much for it.
Am I right in thinking he was the first Conservative PM to represent a seat in the north of England since Balfour in 1905? Churchill and Macmillan both represented seats in the Manchester area but not while they were PM. Chamberlain was Midlands. Home was Perth and Kinross. Hague was never PM.
Some would argue that Blair fits into that category.
Blair was a liberal not a Tory or conservative, just not a socialist or even social democrat really either
I think Nick Palmer correctly described him as a Christian Democrat.
He'd be CDU in Germany.
More likely he would be FDP in my view now, he is a pro business liberal but not socially conservative like many in the CDU/CSU
I think Blair exhibits socially conservative characteristics.
Not really, Blair is pro same sex marriage and LGBTQ, pro abortion, pro immigration and anti Brexit
'Sir John Major throws shade on the new prime minister in waiting. "Mr Burnham has had great success, I'm told, with buses," he says. "A little different from dealing with Xi, Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz."
A dumb take from Sir John - who else but an existing or former PM has had any equivalent experience? If he thinks he lacks the quality to step up just say so, but you coukd substitute the buses comment with any new PMs background.
Most new PMs have either held a Great Office of State though ie Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary or won a general election as LOTO. Burnham will become PM having done neither, though he has had some executive experience as Manchester Mayor and was a former Health Secretary.
Major was making the argument that Burnham should at least face a contest before becoming PM to clarify his policies and how we would approach the world stage too
I like John Major but the more I think about the comment the more it annoys me. Unless a PM is going to be a social embarrassment then what difference can they possibly make by having experience of 'dealing with Xi and Putin'. It's not like a silken word from a smooth operator is going to get Putin to withdraw from Ukraine or extract a transition to democracy from Xi. All they have to do is not turn up drunk to international forums and refrain from shouting obscenities
It's like all these pious comments that we don't know what Burnham's policy is on Ukraine. Do we really think that just because he hasn't announced it on the campaign trail he's suddenly going to declare support for Russia and open up a Western front to assist them?
Any PM has to focus their attention somewhere. If Burnham's focus is domestic then he has a whole ministry to look after foreign affairs. Appoint decent ministers and you can let them get on with the job while you focus on the bits of the government agenda you can effectively drive.
Sunak's lack of experience in dealing with transport and improving the prosperity of the north led him to making awful decisions like cancelling HS2 in the north.
Never heard HYFUD complaining about Sunak's lack of experience in these key domestic areas.
Doubly stupid given he was (is) an MP for a seat in North Yorkshire. Not that I think he cares much for it.
Am I right in thinking he was the first Conservative PM to represent a seat in the north of England since Balfour in 1905? Churchill and Macmillan both represented seats in the Manchester area but not while they were PM. Chamberlain was Midlands. Home was Perth and Kinross. Hague was never PM.
Some would argue that Blair fits into that category.
Blair was a liberal not a Tory or conservative, just not a socialist or even social democrat really either
I think Nick Palmer correctly described him as a Christian Democrat.
He'd be CDU in Germany.
More likely he would be FDP in my view now, he is a pro business liberal but not socially conservative like many in the CDU/CSU
I think Blair exhibits socially conservative characteristics.
Not really, Blair is pro same sex marriage and LGBTQ, pro abortion, pro immigration and anti Brexit
I think he is qualified on abortion (he is Catholic) more moderate on immigration than he used to be, and slightly anti-woke now.
He isn't the hyper-liberal he looked to be in the 1990s.
'Sir John Major throws shade on the new prime minister in waiting. "Mr Burnham has had great success, I'm told, with buses," he says. "A little different from dealing with Xi, Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz."
A dumb take from Sir John - who else but an existing or former PM has had any equivalent experience? If he thinks he lacks the quality to step up just say so, but you coukd substitute the buses comment with any new PMs background.
Most new PMs have either held a Great Office of State though ie Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary or won a general election as LOTO. Burnham will become PM having done neither, though he has had some executive experience as Manchester Mayor and was a former Health Secretary.
Major was making the argument that Burnham should at least face a contest before becoming PM to clarify his policies and how we would approach the world stage too
I like John Major but the more I think about the comment the more it annoys me. Unless a PM is going to be a social embarrassment then what difference can they possibly make by having experience of 'dealing with Xi and Putin'. It's not like a silken word from a smooth operator is going to get Putin to withdraw from Ukraine or extract a transition to democracy from Xi. All they have to do is not turn up drunk to international forums and refrain from shouting obscenities
It's like all these pious comments that we don't know what Burnham's policy is on Ukraine. Do we really think that just because he hasn't announced it on the campaign trail he's suddenly going to declare support for Russia and open up a Western front to assist them?
Any PM has to focus their attention somewhere. If Burnham's focus is domestic then he has a whole ministry to look after foreign affairs. Appoint decent ministers and you can let them get on with the job while you focus on the bits of the government agenda you can effectively drive.
Sunak's lack of experience in dealing with transport and improving the prosperity of the north led him to making awful decisions like cancelling HS2 in the north.
Never heard HYFUD complaining about Sunak's lack of experience in these key domestic areas.
Doubly stupid given he was (is) an MP for a seat in North Yorkshire. Not that I think he cares much for it.
Am I right in thinking he was the first Conservative PM to represent a seat in the north of England since Balfour in 1905? Churchill and Macmillan both represented seats in the Manchester area but not while they were PM. Chamberlain was Midlands. Home was Perth and Kinross. Hague was never PM.
Some would argue that Blair fits into that category.
Blair was a liberal not a Tory or conservative, just not a socialist or even social democrat really either
I think Nick Palmer correctly described him as a Christian Democrat.
He'd be CDU in Germany.
More likely he would be FDP in my view now, he is a pro business liberal but not socially conservative like many in the CDU/CSU
I think Blair exhibits socially conservative characteristics.
Not really, Blair is pro same sex marriage and LGBTQ, pro abortion, pro immigration and anti Brexit
I think he is qualified on abortion (he is Catholic) more moderate on immigration than he used to be, and slightly anti-woke now.
He isn't the hyper-liberal he looked to be in the 1990s.
Blair opposed even Michael Howard's proposal to reduce the abortion time limit to 20 weeks in 2005 and the Roman Catholic church backed Howard's stance then. It was thanks to Blair immigration first started to surge and his failure to impose even transition controls as he could have on immigration from the new Eastern European accession nations to the EU that helped lead to Brexit http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4349581.stm
Comments
Burnham's appeal is that he has been an effective Mayor of GM. But again, that's a bit of a lopsided role, because it's not about raising your own taxes, really. And whilst not being interested in foreign affairs, aiming to be Mayor of the UK, is probably popular- that's not how this works. Global affairs will be interested in Burnham, even if he's not interested in them.
This is all one hack of a gamble. But it's too late to back out now.
Or, better, never started in the first place.
It's an overpriced white elephant and a parody of how not to do something.
But somehow it struggles on, zombie-like, mostly because people never bother to redo the disastrous cost-benefit calculations.
NEW THREAD
Burnham wants to devolve government to the regions and says he wants to run No 10 for some of the time from the north
I support devolving power to the regions, but I rather think Burnham is confusing the role of PM of that as a mayor
As was said on the BBC this am the PM is needed in and around Parliament most of the time and of course, as we have seen from Starmer, attend scores of international meetings
I am not sure Burnham has realised that being PM is far more difficult and time consuming than being a mayor
He'd be CDU in Germany.
He isn't the hyper-liberal he looked to be in the 1990s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4349581.stm
Sadly nowhere now offers the sort of service those sites used to
It flopped