Burnham “We were offering little gimmicky policies designed to change a couple of days headlines”

I was on Radio Leicester on a semi regular slot I have with Jonathan Lampon to comment on his interview with Andy Burnham. Two things worth highlighting.

Burnham is probably the only one who (albeit indirectly) identifies Labour’s most proximate difficulty which was the last failed campaign. He notes Labour didn’t have enough to say to make the broad appeal needed to get into government.

In recent times we have had a more shallow form of politics, retail politics its called. We were offering little gimmicky policies designed to change a couple of days headlines in newspapers but not actually designed to change the world around us.

And that is the problem with modern politics. Challenges have got bigger in the 21st Century and politics has gone in the other direction. It’s got pettier and smaller.

We’ve seen for instance the dream of homeownership die for many people up and down the country and Westminster has done nothing about it. And that’s why people feel fed up with the whole thing actually.

Concrete example of how to epigrammatically frame the whole housing problem in a way which connects those suffering at the bottom (who often don’t vote) with the interests of those in middle whose kids cannot afford a house till they’re forty.

The other is, as I note towards the end of this piece, he has an Irishman’s understanding of the working of single transferable vote system whose golden rule, never directly attack the people on the same ballot.

So, no attacking Corbyn (whom he has said he will serve if he wins) and no insistence on Liz Kendall withdrawing.

, ,

  • Kevin Breslin

    Irish people do understand they shouldnt attack people on the same ballot on PR. But their impulses make them do it anyway. 😀

  • kalista63

    I didn’t read this blog. Its about a man who tweeted about how ‘we’ must oppose the welfare bill and then went on, that very evening, and abstained.

    One minute, he wamts Corbyn in his cabinet, he attacks Corbyn a minute later.

    One’s opinion on Corbyn doesn’t even have to come in to this, the point is that Metropolitan Labour have been exposed by their behaviour such as rejecting associate membership to high profile celebrities WHO ACTUALLY CAMPAIGNED FOR THEM in some cases, such as Mark Steel and Jeremy Hardy.

  • mickfealty

    “Mind as open as a trap…” Can you name that tune?

    (I’ve a mind to tell your love parents, you naughty boy!)

  • the rich get richer

    And the “Three” are still offering the same.

    They actually want to be “I can’t believe its not tory”

    Maybe a lot have people have worked out that the tories are the tories and that they don’t want labour to also be tories.

  • kalista63

    Nop but I do have Google (other search engines are available)

  • kalista63

    I’d a thought a few months ago (it almost died of lonliness) and the Labour party squabble has given it more bearing. When on Twitter I see a country and even a world that I don’t see in the mainstream media nor in mainstream politics and wondered why and it occurred to me how much its all just a card force.

    Labour freely admitted that it floated Corbyn to give the illusion of a wide spectrum debate and when they got one, they didn’t like it and are openly trying to shut it down.

    If Corbyn wins, the Blairites lose. If Corbyn loses, the Blairites lose.

  • kensei

    Housing is an easy one to start to make traction on. Start framing it as a supply problem rather than a demand one, and start pursuing policies to that end – be it more public housing, opening up greenfield sites, lowering taxes on new houses, whatever your political poison and you’ll start to deal with the problem.

    Increased supply will of course put pressure on house prices, moderating increases or even lowering prices. Which will go down like a sack of spuds at the Daily Mail, hence the moral cowardice which results.