I'd be flabbergasted if Burnham walked this election. But even if he did, to what end?
From what I can tell, there are three things that people care most about: health, housing and education. What is his stance on all of these? If he is genuinely left-leaning but doesn't instigate an enormous council-house buying programme, completely scrap/re-think student loans and invest in a preventative health service, he's toast at the next election.
And this is before talking about immigration which for many people looms large over these 3 things, specifically in relation to access.
Idk, genuine constitutional reform and reform of things like stamp duty and council tax could bode well for him, and running the next election with a greater focus on council housing is almost guaranteed.
Immigration is coming down and may drop into net migration. That could quite quickly quiet salience of that issue in the next year.
The vast numbers of people that Boris let in will still be here regardless of whether the number of entrants goes down. The country is grossly over-populated.
That's not entirely true though, is it. About 40% of those entering during the Boris wave were students. As their visas expire and extension opportunities dwindled (2 years post-study visa is good but increasingly hard to find employers willing to then take on admin and payment of full work visas), a large and steady flow will be leaving, potentially over 200K a year, on top of reducing inflows for health and social care. Nottingham city council are already talking about converting student flats into family accommodation as student numbers have peaked.
I strongly suspect the official figures are a significant under estimation. We have good reason to believe that the population is much bigger than we are told.
That's a pretty ropey article you've shared that talks of two reputable sources but doesn't name them for some reason, or point to any actual evidence aside from anecdote. If the population were 77-80million in 2007, what do you estimate it to be at now? And any evidence to support that other than the almost 20 year old article with no sources?
We've had at least 4 heads of the ONS since that 2007 article, are you suggesting they're all in on a conspiracy to misrepresent the UK population?
Nottingham aren't the only council looking to do this - which sort of talks to your estimated population figures being wrong. Might be possible to cover up a couple million people in stats, but 7+million? (as of 2007, so, what figure do you estimate now? 85 million? Hiding 16 million people in statistics is a tall order... Sounds made up, looks made up based on lived experience).
The main effect of Burnham winning convincingly would be that he’d become PM. He’d face the same economic situation that Starmer faces but would be better at communicating that situation and his government’s decisions to the public. He’d increase the odds of Labour winning the next election and hasten the decline of Reform.
I enjoy your work but please look up the halation effect caused by white print on black background making this super hard to read if you are dyslexic or have astigmatism- double whammy for me and it is almost triggering migraine it’s so hard to read.
From what ive seen the last week being from Wigan it seems Burnham will take the election today. However, a real shift to the right has taken place in the area and if Burnham doesnt bring about a real change the entire red wall, including Makerfield, will go reform come 2029.
If Burnham is elected, what happens in Makerfield at the next election? Will Labour win again in a solidly Reform seat? Looking better than Starmer won’t matter in 2029. Imagine the 2029 election campaign with polls showing that the PM is going to lose his own seat.
Anyone wanting to remove the Labour government and get an early election might do what the Labour party are themselves doing now. Change the leader for someone weaker, someone who will aggravate the fiscal position and reduce market confidence. MSM will then abandon their complicity with a Burnham premiership and inflation and interest rates will do the rest. The path to a Reform government will then be more secure.
All Burnham has to do to be Prime Minister for a decade is to stop the boats, start the deportation of illegal immigrants and squarely address the rape gang issue insofar as it concerns corruption in the police and local bureaucracies. But he won't do any of those things. He'll just borrow a load more money and use it to drive up house prices and buy more middle class votes just like all his predecessors since 1997.
This is a tragedy because his failure to address these issues will lead to them being dealt with in a draconian - and possibly violent - way by the next government.
A trivial point. Makerfield has now, twice, been instrumental in the fate of prime ministers. Clearly, an Andy Burnham win would lead to a leadership contest. But the last MP but one, Yvonne Farague, was on the parliamentary committee that finally finished off Boris Johnson.
Starmer has already out played Burnham.Starmers cool response to Burnham running and even his offer to help. Starmer is now diverting peoples attention away from a leadership contest to getting a Labour candidate into the Manchester Mayor role.
Starmer has definitely messed up a lot but he has done things like keeping us out of the Iran war which Reform and the Conservative wanted us to be involved in.
Local Labour boy puts Makerfield on the map and as PM they will be prioritised. Come on Lewis its a no brainer that Burnham has it in the bag. You should concern yourself with what happens next not only in Labour but also Reform imploding.
Following the fallout of last month’s electoral drubbing, the tectonic plates of the British Labour Party are moving. Wes Streeting stepped down from the Cabinet to challenge for the leadership, signaling that the "winter of Starmer" may finally be approaching its end. But while the Westminster elite scramble, all eyes are turned North.
In tomorrow’s Makerfield by-election, the ‘King of the North’ isn't just fighting for a parliamentary seat - he is auditioning to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Check out my latest article on Policy Over Personality: “Manchesterism: are we Mad Fer It (and will it end the Starmer drama)?”
"But don’t be surprised if we wake up to a Reform win on Thursday."
I'd be very surprised by that. Slightly less surprised if I wake up to a Reform win on Friday though ;)
I'd be flabbergasted if Burnham walked this election. But even if he did, to what end?
From what I can tell, there are three things that people care most about: health, housing and education. What is his stance on all of these? If he is genuinely left-leaning but doesn't instigate an enormous council-house buying programme, completely scrap/re-think student loans and invest in a preventative health service, he's toast at the next election.
And this is before talking about immigration which for many people looms large over these 3 things, specifically in relation to access.
Idk, genuine constitutional reform and reform of things like stamp duty and council tax could bode well for him, and running the next election with a greater focus on council housing is almost guaranteed.
Immigration is coming down and may drop into net migration. That could quite quickly quiet salience of that issue in the next year.
The vast numbers of people that Boris let in will still be here regardless of whether the number of entrants goes down. The country is grossly over-populated.
That's not entirely true though, is it. About 40% of those entering during the Boris wave were students. As their visas expire and extension opportunities dwindled (2 years post-study visa is good but increasingly hard to find employers willing to then take on admin and payment of full work visas), a large and steady flow will be leaving, potentially over 200K a year, on top of reducing inflows for health and social care. Nottingham city council are already talking about converting student flats into family accommodation as student numbers have peaked.
I strongly suspect the official figures are a significant under estimation. We have good reason to believe that the population is much bigger than we are told.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/city-eye-facts-on-a-plate-our-population-is-at-least-77-million-5328454.html
Serious questions have been raised about the head of the ONS
https://www.ft.com/content/a342f058-1b20-4706-8b62-d408bbf88c22?syn-25a6b1a6=1
Thank you for the information in your final sentence. That's a positive at least.
That's a pretty ropey article you've shared that talks of two reputable sources but doesn't name them for some reason, or point to any actual evidence aside from anecdote. If the population were 77-80million in 2007, what do you estimate it to be at now? And any evidence to support that other than the almost 20 year old article with no sources?
We've had at least 4 heads of the ONS since that 2007 article, are you suggesting they're all in on a conspiracy to misrepresent the UK population?
Nottingham aren't the only council looking to do this - which sort of talks to your estimated population figures being wrong. Might be possible to cover up a couple million people in stats, but 7+million? (as of 2007, so, what figure do you estimate now? 85 million? Hiding 16 million people in statistics is a tall order... Sounds made up, looks made up based on lived experience).
I would actually be glad if it was wrong given the issues with threats to the food supply
The main effect of Burnham winning convincingly would be that he’d become PM. He’d face the same economic situation that Starmer faces but would be better at communicating that situation and his government’s decisions to the public. He’d increase the odds of Labour winning the next election and hasten the decline of Reform.
I enjoy your work but please look up the halation effect caused by white print on black background making this super hard to read if you are dyslexic or have astigmatism- double whammy for me and it is almost triggering migraine it’s so hard to read.
From what ive seen the last week being from Wigan it seems Burnham will take the election today. However, a real shift to the right has taken place in the area and if Burnham doesnt bring about a real change the entire red wall, including Makerfield, will go reform come 2029.
If Burnham is elected, what happens in Makerfield at the next election? Will Labour win again in a solidly Reform seat? Looking better than Starmer won’t matter in 2029. Imagine the 2029 election campaign with polls showing that the PM is going to lose his own seat.
Anyone wanting to remove the Labour government and get an early election might do what the Labour party are themselves doing now. Change the leader for someone weaker, someone who will aggravate the fiscal position and reduce market confidence. MSM will then abandon their complicity with a Burnham premiership and inflation and interest rates will do the rest. The path to a Reform government will then be more secure.
All Burnham has to do to be Prime Minister for a decade is to stop the boats, start the deportation of illegal immigrants and squarely address the rape gang issue insofar as it concerns corruption in the police and local bureaucracies. But he won't do any of those things. He'll just borrow a load more money and use it to drive up house prices and buy more middle class votes just like all his predecessors since 1997.
This is a tragedy because his failure to address these issues will lead to them being dealt with in a draconian - and possibly violent - way by the next government.
A trivial point. Makerfield has now, twice, been instrumental in the fate of prime ministers. Clearly, an Andy Burnham win would lead to a leadership contest. But the last MP but one, Yvonne Farague, was on the parliamentary committee that finally finished off Boris Johnson.
I should have said Yvonne Forvague. Sorry Yvonne if you are reading this.
Well that's a pretty crap analysis in retrospect
Be careful what you wish for 😂 "Nobody listens to us", "You've called round and listened to me too many times!!!"😭
Starmer has already out played Burnham.Starmers cool response to Burnham running and even his offer to help. Starmer is now diverting peoples attention away from a leadership contest to getting a Labour candidate into the Manchester Mayor role.
Starmer has definitely messed up a lot but he has done things like keeping us out of the Iran war which Reform and the Conservative wanted us to be involved in.
Yes, he's very good at not doing things
Local Labour boy puts Makerfield on the map and as PM they will be prioritised. Come on Lewis its a no brainer that Burnham has it in the bag. You should concern yourself with what happens next not only in Labour but also Reform imploding.
Following the fallout of last month’s electoral drubbing, the tectonic plates of the British Labour Party are moving. Wes Streeting stepped down from the Cabinet to challenge for the leadership, signaling that the "winter of Starmer" may finally be approaching its end. But while the Westminster elite scramble, all eyes are turned North.
In tomorrow’s Makerfield by-election, the ‘King of the North’ isn't just fighting for a parliamentary seat - he is auditioning to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Check out my latest article on Policy Over Personality: “Manchesterism: are we Mad Fer It (and will it end the Starmer drama)?”
Labour manufactured a bi-election showing disrespect to electorate and for that I hope they get punished.