Burnham

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Beebo

Beebo

Legendary Member
Yvette Cooper into Health.

Will Streeting get a role? What is left?
 
M

midlandsgrimpeur

Prostrate Member
briantrumpet said:
There's polling and polling... Starmer/McSweeney were so fixated on the three 'hero voters' in their polling that might vote Reform or Labour, they forgot all the people who *wouldn't* vote Labour if they carried on with their Reformy stuff relentlessly.

We'll find out just how deep-seated Mahmood's anti-immigrant 'beliefs' were, or whether she was doing a very enthusiastic job of delivering what she thought she was expected to deliver. I have a feeling that her manoeuvrings might have given Burnham some leverage over her, if he knows she was behind the 'Mahmood for Chancellor' twaddle.
Click to expand...

I am struggling to find any justification for this decision, or any political logic. He surely can't keep the policies, he can't be that stupid? If Burnham disagrees with them then he should have cut her loose. If the plan is to water it down then, again, he will be hampered by her association which further points to getting rid. Surely he isn't keeping her there to appeal to the right? If she was just doing what No. 10 instructed she can hardly start saying "well I never actually believed any of it" that just completely undermines any credibility she may have had, and also makes Burnham look daft by placing faith in her.

I have to admit, I usually have some idea of what the play is, but I am at a loss with this! All suggestions as to what Burnham is playing at are welcome.
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
Reading about how botched Starmer's digital ID thing was, and why it was easy for Burnham to scrap upfront. Symptomatic of lots of the Starmer missteps.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/andy-burnhams-id-card-scrap

Team Burnham would do well to learn a lesson from the poor process around this piece of policy making. The very secretive and rushed process meant that a lot of questions could not be answered. There was no budget and initially not much of a team for the work. Ministerial leadership was not clear. Little account was taken of how to land the scheme with the public – consultation was patched on at the end rather than integral to preparing the public and understanding and addressing their concerns upfront. Prime ministerial enthusiasm appeared to wane as quickly as it had waxed.

Burnham did well to make a quick decision and stop digital ID hanging around absorbing time and resources. But he should also reflect on why the policy was so feebly rooted in the first place.
Click to expand...
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
midlandsgrimpeur said:
I am struggling to find any justification for this decision, or any political logic. He surely can't keep the policies, he can't be that stupid? If Burnham disagrees with them then he should have cut her loose. If the plan is to water it down then, again, he will be hampered by her association which further points to getting rid. Surely he isn't keeping her there to appeal to the right? If she was just doing what No. 10 instructed she can hardly start saying "well I never actually believed any of it" that just completely undermines any credibility she may have had, and also makes Burnham look daft by placing faith in her.

I have to admit, I usually have some idea of what the play is, but I am at a loss with this! All suggestions as to what Burnham is playing at are welcome.
Click to expand...

Yup, I'm struggling too, not least as Burnham seems pretty astute, and (presumably) is aware of how badly it would play with the left of the party, given that she (understandably) was one of the people everyone on the left wanted cast adrift.
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
Quite apart from their politics/credentials, I shan't miss the leaden delivery of either Starmer or Reeves and their inability to do anything without a script. It might sound trite, but an ability to speak engagingly and (at least giving the appearance of) spontaneously from inner conviction ought to be a prerequisite, if a politician is hoping to persuade people. Even more important when you want to prise them away from a prejudice against what you are trying to tell them.
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
secretsqirrel said:
Justice, Technology, Culture, Education, Business..

I have a sneaky suspicion that Rayner will be back on Housing.
Click to expand...

Good call.

1784579439953.png
 
Pross

Pross

Guru
midlandsgrimpeur said:
I am struggling to find any justification for this decision, or any political logic. He surely can't keep the policies, he can't be that stupid? If Burnham disagrees with them then he should have cut her loose. If the plan is to water it down then, again, he will be hampered by her association which further points to getting rid. Surely he isn't keeping her there to appeal to the right? If she was just doing what No. 10 instructed she can hardly start saying "well I never actually believed any of it" that just completely undermines any credibility she may have had, and also makes Burnham look daft by placing faith in her.

I have to admit, I usually have some idea of what the play is, but I am at a loss with this! All suggestions as to what Burnham is playing at are welcome.
Click to expand...

Political heavyweight Robert Jenrick said on GB News Burnham needs her as Home Secretary. What more reason could he need?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom