So far, one of the most starling aspect of UK Prime Minister Andrew Murray Burnham is that he doesn’t exist.
Take away the assiduously cultivated Northern Bloke image, not very convincing but it’s all he has,. Then remove the teenage Fabian ideology and what do we have left? There is nothing left, just a hole where his character ought to be.
There is ego filling the core of the man, but not an ego with character, just a large and unhealthy blob of ego without enough character to moderate useless fantasies. An ego blob lacking sufficient awareness to notice how things work in the real world coupled with a remarkably weak rabbit hole detector.
Keir Starmer was peculiar, but Burnham isn’t even peculiar, he doesn’t appear to have enough under the bonnet to generate notable peculiarities. His world seems to be a world of easily grasped symbols culled from a Fabian pamphlet aimed at teenagers.
Oh well, we plod on. Perhaps there is more to Burnham than Northern Bloke, Fabian symbolism and a flabby, overweight ego, but we’ve not seen it yet as tempus fugits away faster than ever.
Oh well, we plod on. Perhaps there is more to Burnham than Northern Bloke, Fabian symbolism and a flabby, overweight ego, but we’ve not seen it yet as tempus fugits away faster than ever.
6 comments:
A void inside a vacuum inside a vacuity.
I've argued before that Keir Starmer was selected as safe pair of hands to rescue the Labour Party from implosion and was to be replaced by someone with more leadership capability later. But Starmer was limpet and proved difficult to dislodge (especially as no one else was an obvious New Leader).
When Starmer was winkled out they were obliged to select another pair of safe hands. Handy Burnham perhaps? But Labour have not yet found their authentic voice, just another Night Watchman..
The Right Honourable vacancy, St Andy of t'North.
dearieme - it's dark too, not a glimmer of light.
DJ - I agree, Burnham was version 2 of the safe pair of hands, not intended to last the course. He seems to know that and knows he'll have to be the authentic voice if he is to cling on.
dearieme - ha ha - he does push t'North so very hard.
The Makerfield bye election was on the 18th June, by the 22nd Starmer had resigned (or agreed to go). Thats 2 months or over 60 days ago. They say the first 100 days is when you set the tone of a new administration, when you announce all the policies that might be unpopular (either with your own side or the voters at large), while you are carried along on a swell of short term popularity, and the opposition are at sixes and sevens. Waste that first 100 day period and you will be playing catch up ever thereafter.
So what have we had from Burnham 2/3rds of the way through his 100 days of grace? £45 off your electric bill (but only for 6 months and not until October), £1 off bus trips, splitting the seat of UK government into two, some unfunded commitment to 'end rough sleeping' and the devolution of some central government tax revenues to local mayors (but don't think about reducing taxes, because thats not allowed). Oh, and a lot of blokey chit chat about football and pork scratchings, and plenty of social media content.
Its all so underwhelming. None of this is offensive in and of itself. But none of it comes within a country mile of any of the major issues that the country faces. On immigration, taxation, welfare growth, or Net Zero there is nothing. If it was me I'd have banged out policy changes on all those faster than you could say 'Hit the North' (for all you Fall fans). Get it out there while you can. If you are going to raise taxes, say so unapologetically. If Net Zero is being ditched then greenlight the North sea oilfields on Day 1. State what your immigration policy is going to be. Make some hard decisions over welfare (whatever that might entail). Worry about the detail later, but nail down the direction of travel as quickly as possible before opposition builds (especially on your own side).
Instead we've had vapid blandness, with a bit of added 'Northern' personality. Actual changes to the Starmer regime, zero.
Sobers - I agree, it is very underwhelming. He doesn't seem to realise how dynamic he had to be if he is to be more that a temporary stopgap until Labour finds someone to take them into the next election. So far that isn't Burnham.
He is interesting in that he does show how devoid of talent Labour must be. Starmer and Burnham don't seem to be blocking someone far more capable, unless that someone is biding their time, but why would a genuinely capable Labour MP do that?
It's all very odd, so odd that looking at it too closely is uncomfortable and at times quite chilling. This is not how things should be.
Post a Comment