The No case was not simply that Burnham had failed to deliver: many argued that he had not yet shown what he could deliver. One voter said he was “talking the talk” but “not walking the walk”; another dismissed the policy pitch as “petrol prices on google maps”. Beneath the barbs was a serious charge that small, visible gestures were no substitute for answers on growth, immigration and energy.
Yes voters offered a narrower defence. Their strongest case was explicitly comparative, while others pointed to “positive ideas” and said it was “Still far too early.” That hesitation also ran through the No side: one sceptical voter conceded there were policies they liked, but said the test would be whether Burnham could handle “the massive issues like the role of the state and the importance of the private sector for growth.”
This debate sits inside a live argument about the size and reach of the state. No voters warned of “increased government overreach” and more regulation; supporters saw promise in a National Care Service and greater public control of water, though the Yes arguments offered here made little case for those proposals in detail. The question of competence was repeatedly answered through contrast with the previous prime minister, not through a settled account of Burnham’s own record.
For now, the verdict is less a settled judgement than a demand for proof.
65 Opinions
How terrifying that half the people here seem to think he’s going a good job.
This country is dying; anyone who thinks Labour is doing a good job is walking around in a fog.
While he's talking the talk, he's not walking the walk. Ignoring the issues of our ever shrinking rights to free speech, introducing (single group) blasphemy laws by the back door and going on a path of increased government overreach in our day to day lives does not count towards doing a good job.
He is passionate about issues that are all about dividing the proverbial pie. Saving pensions to pay for social care is the case in point. Whereas the main topic should be how to grow the pie - I.e., how does the UK win in the age of AI and rapid technological shifts - and this is clearly on the back burner in his mind. This is a fatal flaw that will be his undoing eventually, but unfortunately not until some serious and inevitable economic pain
Is he really prime minister? I thought he was just a sugar-coated mouthpiece for those lefty unionistas and Fabians sat behind him.
No, he is constantly searching for new areas to regulate, new taxes to collect, not solving illegal immigration, not solving mass immigration, not looking for decrease spending, increase uncertainty by u-turns, his solution for most problems is nationalization. Labour was elected on 34% of votes, 20% of all eligible to vote - it is not a mandate to provide major, constitutional changes he is talking about. BTW a lot of talk a little of walk.
I believe he is helping with very minor things, such as inconveniences, because I don't think he has any ideas on how to actually make Britain better. I think he's beating around the bush and isn't being very transparent about what he stands for, why he stands for it, and what major changes are needed to improve Britain. I don't think he's necessarily lazy; I think he's so afraid of making mistakes that he won't take action in the first place.
To be frank, it's far too early to tell. If I put my cynicism aside for a second, like a few other responses here, there are some policies I was quite pleased to see, but a lot more I'm dubious with. Ultimately, anything that allows the state more controls over individual liberties and contributes to a larger surveillance state is something I can't quite abide with. We'll see. Interesting how him and Starmer are both WEF puppets, too.
Andy Pandy has doubled the costs of governance by splitting it between London and Manchester. He's going to break The United Kingdom quicker than any enemy - including Adolf - by letting the countries go there separate way. And now he on about bringing us closer to the EU when Brexit was never given a fair chance in the 5 years it's been in place. General Election required.
Labour are the Fabian society. How anyone could trust a Fabian is beyond his word salad. The uniparty have destroyed this country. Why vote for the same old same old expecting a different result that has never come. Are you feeling any better off ? Burnham is so out of his depth. Anyone who uses the word " Umm and Uhh " in a sentence more than Rooney, shouldn't be in a position of power as he has no idea what the script says. Sorry Wayne.