Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Valmy]

Do you think a "coronation" would make him calling a general election more likely, or less?

I would presume there is a zero percent chance of this happening but I do not really understand British politics. I mean the Tories called what was almost assuredly a suicidal election, what do I know?

[Sheilbh]

I would presume there is a zero percent chance of this happening but I do not really understand British politics. I mean the Tories called what was almost assuredly a suicidal election, what do I know?

Yeah-ish. I think that's a very different scenario. Sunak called an election at 4.5 years of a 5 year term rather than waiting for 5 years. In general you're right that when the polls are bad governments hold on to the last possible moment in the Micawber-ish hope that something will turn up.

On the other hand it is draining and attritional and you're not likely to get much done in six months with dreadfl polls. So I can understand why Sunak decided to put himself, his party, the country out of our misery.

But I think you're right. I think it is very unlikely Burnham will call an election - it wouldn't happen but I actually think we are in the situation where the Palace could refuse to call an election. They would almmost certainly lose seats.

And yet I can see the argument for it and am almost persuaded

And to Jos' point on the manifesto it absolutely matters. Constitutionally parliament and governments and elected officials don't have a free-floating mandate to do whatever they want. They have a mandate to deliver the manifesto they presented to the voters and won their seats/majority on. That matters in relation to the House of Lords, but I think it also matters less formally but as importantly in general. It is a lot more difficult to do big things if you didn't say - or at least gesture at them - in your manifesto. Again I think this is actually an important principle in a democratic society - to Quentin Hogg's point about Britain being an elective dictatorship, there is something to that but we're not an elective autocracy where people are elected and by virtue of that can do whatever they want. The manifesto they present and arguments they make to the people are really important in what they have a mandat to do (either formally, in the case of the Lords, or more ambiently, in the case of everyday politics).

Andy Burnham isn't bound to the last manifesto. But the Labour Party majority he wants to lead absolutely is. If they want a radical change in direction then I think there is an argument they should go to the people again (I think this is why - often, but not always - parties in government tend to plump for the continuity not change option when there's a leadership contest).

[Tonitrus]

But is Starmer fumbling/not fulfulling the manifesto?  Or is he, but it is the manifesto that is failing?  Could Burnham just say that, instead of Starmer, he is going to "take the manifesto and do it right"?

[Sheilbh]

Starmer has actually done a lot of things in the manifesto.

I've said before but what he's done on policy is broadly a bit of a soft left/mainstream Labour wishlist: raised taxes by £40 billion taxing employers, capital gains, dividends and private schools, which has gone on public spending (overwhelmingly the NHS and public sector pay deals). Changed the Treasury rules to enable £100 billion of capital spending. The Reters' Rights Act, the Employment Rights Act - both significant legislation. Slowly re-nationalising the railways and established Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund to back publicly owned energy projects (overwhelmingly renewables). Abolished hereditary peers, recognised the state of Palestine and imposed an arms embargo on Israel.

It is one of the defences his supporters make. But I think it gets to the heart of the problem which is that politics isn't about ticking your way through a list and doing well at your annual appraisal. It's about communication and leadership and the "vision stuff" that Starmer finds contemptible. Basically all of the "vibes" that Burnham (and, frankly, Streeting) are far better at that Starmer. I've said before - but that's a respectable policy agenda for a mid-century modern Labour government. You could imagine a Harold Wilson like figure being proud of doing that in a couple of years with John McDonnell and Wes Streeting somehow sat around the cabinet table. But Starmer lacks the communication skills and operated from a very very narrow base in the party (he is incredibly bad at the human bit of politics) and lots of people around him were Labour right factionalists whose main goal is always to smash the Labour left.

In terms of Burnham being bound by the manifesto - it depends what he wants to do. I think he will largely want to signify change and that may be challenging if you're still basically working from Starmer's manifesto. But if he wants to do things like, say, social care reform (where everyone knows the answer but saying it destroyed both Gordon Brown and Theresa May's campaign) or electoral reform - I think that's challenging if you don't have a mandate and he wouldn't.

[Valmy]

In terms of Burnham being bound by the manifesto - it depends what he wants to do. I think he will largely want to signify change and that may be challenging if you're still basically working from Starmer's manifesto. But if he wants to do things like, say, social care reform (where everyone knows the answer but saying it destroyed both Gordon Brown and Theresa May's campaign) or electoral reform - I think that's challenging if you don't have a mandate and he wouldn't.

Sounds like he can just keep doing the manifesto and just do the vibe work Starmer sucked at from what you are saying.

[Sheilbh]

Sounds like he can just keep doing the manifesto and just do the vibe work Starmer sucked at from what you are saying.

He absolutely could - does it work when you've just run against the PM and are pitching it as your party's "final chance to change"? And is that his ambition or does he aspire to go bigger on things like electoral reform?

I'd add that we're not America - we don't have exorbitant privilege of everyone using sterling. We're now in an inflationary, high interest rate environment - plus we import a lot of good and don't export much in the way of goods and a lot of our debt is foreign held. There are things the government should do with the Bank of England that would help the situation (I mean ideally I'd end central bank independence and return to the pre-1997 era of democratic money - but that's just me ), but fundamentally the borrow-to-invest ideas that underpinned a lot of 2010s leftism no longer apply. James Meadway, one of the key thinkers around Labour's economic strategy in the Corbyn era is really good on this (and very interesting generally - though I disagree with him on a lot of things).

So if you want to borrow to invest - which is absolutely defensible - I think that needs to be pinned to supply-side reforms around energy, construction etc and dealing with the out of control bits of current spending (in particular the triple lock which costs three times more than projected and the PIP element of disability benefit which has doubled since covid and shows no sign of slowing down). Otherwise I think the risk of Scouse Trussism is quite high - and it could be argued that if you're going to mess with the triple lock or do benefits reform you probably need to have it at least gestured to in your manifesto (this was a commmon attack on Starmer over cutting winter fuel payments and the welfare cuts - it wasn't in the manifesto).

[garbon]

It feels a little Westminister bubble to say that the PM must be slave to the manifesto or seek a new mandate. If people were happy with the changes being made, would it matter?

[Richard Hakluyt]

If England win the world cup then Burnham should hold a snap general election. There would be a big feelgood factor and he could legitimately say that England only win World Cups under a Labour government.

[Josquius]

Sounds like he can just keep doing the manifesto and just do the vibe work Starmer sucked at from what you are saying.

He absolutely could - does it work when you've just run against the PM and are pitching it as your party's "final chance to change"? And is that his ambition or does he aspire to go bigger on things like electoral reform?

I don't think he'll do full electoral reform.
But at the least he needs to push through supplementary vote.
Electoral reform is absolutely key to saving the country.

I'd add that we're not America - we don't have exorbitant privilege of everyone using sterling. We're now in an inflationary, high interest rate environment - plus we import a lot of good and don't export much in the way of goods and a lot of our debt is foreign held. There are things the government should do with the Bank of England that would help the situation (I mean ideally I'd end central bank independence and return to the pre-1997 era of democratic money - but that's just me ), but fundamentally the borrow-to-invest ideas that underpinned a lot of 2010s leftism no longer apply. James Meadway, one of the key thinkers around Labour's economic strategy in the Corbyn era is really good on this (and very interesting generally - though I disagree with him on a lot of things).

So if you want to borrow to invest - which is absolutely defensible - I think that needs to be pinned to supply-side reforms around energy, construction etc and dealing with the out of control bits of current spending (in particular the triple lock which costs three times more than projected and the PIP element of disability benefit which has doubled since covid and shows no sign of slowing down). Otherwise I think the risk of Scouse Trussism is quite high - and it could be argued that if you're going to mess with the triple lock or do benefits reform you probably need to have it at least gestured to in your manifesto (this was a commmon attack on Starmer over cutting winter fuel payments and the welfare cuts - it wasn't in the manifesto).

The UK isn't the US point is often over sold here though.
Its true we aren't the US. We don't have a magic money printing machine. But we aren't completely helpless on this. Sterling is a top 5 global currency (though yes absolutely its less Premier League and more Ligue 1) . We handle our debt in Sterling.  We technically can't go bankrupt the way most of the world working in USD might (though yes, very technically here as Truss demonstrated).

I do get the impression given how recent spending in the UK has gone that the reforms are very necessary. We can't keep spending twice as much and ten times as long as France to get anything done. But we do have to spend as well.
Smarter spending. Less blank cheque book billions for new roads to reduce congestion (it has never worked before but this time it definitely will!) and more on energy, water, communities, transport....


And yes. I'm really not a mandate absolutist. 5 years is a long time, situations can change. Being beholden to something your party said based on the situation years ago is no way to run a modern government.
Common sense has to be applied really. If they completely shit over the entire spirit of the manifesto then fair enough to complain. But doing something important that they hadn't thought about a few years ago? Slightly shifting some things that were red lines to match a changed situation?

[Sheilbh]

It feels a little Westminister bubble to say that the PM must be slave to the manifesto or seek a new mandate. If people were happy with the changes being made, would it matter?

Yeah - I agree with Valmy if your ambition is relatively limited and broadly in line with the existing manifesto then there's no need.

Edit: And most successor PMs in government he'd a great office of state previously and are normally broadly in continuity with the PM they're replacing. It's part of what makes Burnham so different.

The two areas where I think there might be an issue for Burnham are if he wants to do electoral reform, I think you need a mandate for that (practically I also think the Lords would be well within their rights to block it, consuming government time - and the likely would). Also I think Reeves' far too restrictive pre-election promises.

[garbon]

Yeah - I agree with Valmy if your ambition is relatively limited and broadly in line with the existing manifesto then there's no need.

But that wasn't what I was asking or saying. I was more of the vein of does the elected manifest matter as PM and circumstances change? Sort of more in line with Jos that PM should be free to change up actions if what as brainstormed a couple years back doesn't suit. I'm not sure that the general voter would expect a general election must happen before that is allowed.

Though from the rest of your post, it seems like you think the Lords would see it imperative and thus would block non-manifesto legislation.

[garbon]

I see Wes Streeting has folded, so I guess the coronation is on?

[mongers]

It feels a little Westminister bubble to say that the PM must be slave to the manifesto or seek a new mandate. If people were happy with the changes being made, would it matter?

If the people are unredeemable fed up with him and the continued drift, then why not change course and helmsman?

[Sophie Scholl]

You cannot view this attachment.

[Syt]