Can Burnham and Swinney really share power without going to war?
I’m sure I’m not alone in finding the Andy Burnham ‘King of the North’ patter rather irksome. The same commentators who would balk at the idea of Scotland being a separate country are quite comfortable forgetting us when it suits. Give or take some mileage, Manchester is about halfway up the UK.
We’re now underway with the Burnham government and, from the off, the tone has been markedly different than when Keir Starmer got the keys to Number 10. Put simply, too much of the mood music from the new Starmer Government was about what it couldn’t or wouldn’t do; raise wealth taxes, protect pensioners, compensate the WASPI women and more.
Yes, things were tough, but it wouldn’t have killed him to, at least, give the electorate something to cling on to. Whilst there are a whole range of things new Prime Minister Burnham has also said that he cannot or will not do, there is at least a sense of vision and priority setting which has caught the interest of voters.
Let’s be clear: Burnham isn’t the messiah. He is hard to pin down in terms of traditional left/right Labour politics. Pragmatist is a description that comes to mind.
'They will not be leaving this place': How Highland rebel women saved their land
C'mon, John - cut tax and let Scotland flourish - or will the SNP not let you?
Rachel Maclean, Andy Goldsworthy and Jasleen Kaur top Scottish artists top 50 list
Nevertheless, he has made a strong start. The Prime Minister promised to cut energy bills, however marginally, introduced a flat cap on bus fares in England, cut business rates for pubs and clubs in England and made a declaration to end rough sleeping. He was also, reportedly (before rowing back), making a bee line to scrap council and........
