France, Spain and Italy have said they would welcome the UK back, I see hope, quite a lot of it, fingers crossed.
My experience of him 15 years back was that he treated his civil servants well, gave them respect and built good relations so they (we) tried hard to deliver.
He managed to mention his father 15 times in his speech, why? Garnering sympathy I don’t doubt. It appears his father was also a tool maker. So many tools in number 10.
We’ve heard what he’s said. Let’s see what he does.
Or his very recent death meant that his father was still very much in his thoughts.
Have a little compassion, or at the very least give Burnham a chance.
Why must modern politics be so tribal?
His father, who died a couple of weeks ago, was a telephone engineer.
Burnham didn’t mention his father 15 times: it seems to have been 7 times (‘We will believe again’: Andy Burnham's Labour conference speech in full - Politics.co.uk). Where did you get the number 15 from?
Badenoch and Davey said kind things about Burnham Sr’s death, Badenoch especially: “No matter how old you are, or how much you try to prepare, losing your father is a profoundly painful experience. A part of your life that has always been there is suddenly gone forever and it can feel as though a part of you won’t ever be the same again.”
It seems Burnham’s dad was a significant influence on him. And the lamentable UK system is one of the things driving Burnham’s desire to reform care, something which PMs from Blair onwards have been promising and failing to effect. I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
My father is in my thoughts everyday but I don’t feel the need to tell everyone about him and certainly didn’t just after his death.
I don’t belong to any tribe.
No, but you are prepared to slag Burnham off and call him a “tool” aren’t you?
To be fair, I think his predecessor’s repeated mention of his father being a toolmaker to the extent that it was the ship, or tool, that launched a thousand memes, has somewhat sullied what was obviously a genuine moment for Burnham in the eyes of some. 7 was perhaps a few too many, but I think we can give him the grace he deserves given the recent loss.
And it may also be that personal experience is going to be a driver of policy, if some of the things mentioned go through.
Mrs May proposed very much the same thing as Mr Burnham regarding care and her popularity in the polls dropped through the floor. I’m not sure there is the appetite in the UK for Mr Burnham’s care proposals, I’m already fed listens to pensioners bemoaning the potential loss of the triple lock.
Sadly people want everything now and aren’t willing to look at the bigger long term picture.
Does that make me a member of a tribe?
Oh, I think you do but this forum is too polite to name it
Burnham and May are different characters though - May was always seen as “une fonctionnaire”, largely devoid of personaility or originality - Mr B is a completely different beast, at least in his current political incarnation.
Also I think the social care problems are becomming even more acute than they were in May’s time - so it might be the right time to tackle it.
The pensioners and RW were always going to have a strop if any of the arrangements were altered and the triple lock was never intended to be permanent.
Unfortunately the British population has long wanted EU style social care on a US style budget - an honest debate needs to be had about whether we want a US style “every man for themselves” system or one in which people are not bankrupted by inevitable social care and healthcare costs.
I seem to recall that a certain grocer’s daughter made great play on her humble roots.
I’d suggest that in the modern age, a prime minister’s “personal connection” is just as important as their policies and some struggle to get the balance right. I’d also say that Burnham has walked the line rather well so far, especially at conference where there was a bit of the human and quite a clear policy platform, whether you agree with it or not.
Obviously he’s still to be tested on the actual delivery.
May was a member of a tribe that would set the less fit adrift on an ice floe. Her proposals were not to their liking so she became less popular.
Burnham is of a tribe that cares more for it’s fellows so similar proposals will make him more popular.
Quite a bit of the stuff in the current speech is for the 2029 - he will need to get re-elected to have a chance to implement it.
One thing I am still puzzled about is the lack of backlash from the right regarding his comments about Brexit and EU membership, perhaps they have read the room and realise public opinion has moved away from that as an issue (perhaps they - or their Russian overlords - are happy that the damage has been done and will never be fully undone).
I’ve only voted once in my 60 years and that was the Brexit fiasco. The result didn’t go my way.
Still not sure which tribe I belong to?
This has long been my gripe about the triple lock in that it was never bounded and has the potential to grow infinitely.
If it were me, I’d have proposed a triple lock with a target metric (a percentage of average salary, say) at which point it reverts back to CPI.
Thankfully, I’m not a politician as any target is fraught with political danger along the lines of it is going to be simultaneously “unaffordable” and “an insult to pensioners”.