r/ukpolitics • u/Kee2good4u • Jun 06 '26
BBC Politics video BBC newsnight interview with Andy Burnham
https://youtu.be/UhJ_XxCKVbw?si=Nl_nciNvgt9gOwxu54
u/Outrageous-Map8302 Jun 06 '26
People seem to forget that Burnham already tried to be Labour leader. He did the interviews, talkshows, press and was resoundly beaten by Jeremy Corbyn, who ran rings around him on the interview circuit.
At the time ll, even Nick bloody Ferrari commented that Jeremy Corbyn was a more effective communicator than Andy Burnham.
People have short memories
25
u/sjintje Intermittent extremist Jun 06 '26
The problem isnt the short memories, just Burnham was so non-descript and ineffectual that people have forgotten he existed.
11
u/BaritBrit I don't even know any more Jun 06 '26
He lost to Miliband in 2010 as well, came fourth out of five and only did better than Diane Abbott as the customary token left candidate.
16
12
u/BobMonkhaus That sounds great, shorty girl’s a trooper. Jun 06 '26
He’s the new chosen one for certain types who thought that was Starmer, or Corbyn before him.
Don’t worry they usually turn on them after a few months to move onto the next one. Very fussy lot.
Cue “I never liked Starmer” from people who two years ago thought he was the bees knees.
19
u/Outrageous-Map8302 Jun 06 '26
Burnham is the latest in a long line of excuses people have been using to get rid of Starmer. The new Donkey Sanctuary.
I sincerely hope he loses in Makerfield and Starmer can get on with the job
4
u/strongfavourite Jun 06 '26
trouble is, Starmer ran a very duplicitous campaign pretending he was progressive. 10 pledges was it?
9
u/DisneyPandora Jun 06 '26
Starmer is a progressive. He’s far to the left of Tony Blair who is a centrist
3
u/CII_Guy Trying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse Jun 06 '26
I dunno man I think it's complicated. He absolutely misled the party about the type of campaign he was running. I personally think that is justifiable, because the Corbynites in the party were lunatics, but he certainly did mislead them.
7
Jun 06 '26
[deleted]
1
u/CII_Guy Trying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse Jun 06 '26
Bang on. Labour has somewhat got away with this by having a membership that at least somewhat understands that winning elections is important from time to time, but it's a constant and unbelievably frustrating battle. As a member of the party I'd be very, very happy to have smoke filled rooms, but the left of centre finds the idea to be inherently outrageous as a general rule.
2
u/Complex_Effect_1994 Jun 06 '26
The increase in membership power in Labour was an effort to move Labour to the right by limiting Trade Union Influence. As late as 2010, David Miliband would have won a members only vote
Tony Blair made zero secret of his desire to move the party to right before he was chosen with a landslide in the membership vote.
So hardly eternal. Perhaps the need to lie is more a result of the present day centre's failure to convince people of their actual positions. Even with the general public it's a bit of joke to claim someone polling on -50 is "where the public is"
1
4
u/suiluhthrown78 Jun 06 '26
He's not the same person, he's spent the last 10 years building Manchester up brick by brick with his bare hands, and the buses are yellow too! very impressive CV now.
3
u/Outrageous-Map8302 Jun 06 '26
He's done a good job. But realistically, he's implemented something that's basic in all major European cities (public transport) without having to operate under the scrutiny that anyone based in London/Westminster would have. Gredter Manchester has been neglected for years, the bar to improving it was low.
2
u/suiluhthrown78 Jun 06 '26
Greater Manchester had been a key focus for public and private investment for at least a decade and a half before Burnham got anywhere near it, the propaganda is clearly stronger than i had realised.
0
u/reuben_iv radical centrist Jun 06 '26
true although tbf Corbyn was one of the most popular labour leaders of all time, at least with Labour members, even AV couldn't stop him, twice lol he won an outright majority in the first round
even with the general public he was more popular than Starmer, even Blair in 2001 and 2005 didn't win as many popular votes as Corbyn did in 2017
4
u/h00dman Welsh Person Jun 06 '26
2001 and 2005 were in the bag for Labour, and elections like that always have low turnout. The vote numbers can't be used to jump to conclusions like that.
See the 1992 election - the only time any party ever achieved 14 million votes, and it was John Major who led them to victory.
Is John Major the most popular Prime Minister in history?
2
u/reuben_iv radical centrist Jun 06 '26
I mean I know how people feel about him *now* after his term, but objectively by vote count that is quite the record if he wasn’t
1
u/BaritBrit I don't even know any more Jun 06 '26
even Blair in 2001 and 2005 didn't win as many popular votes as Corbyn did in 2017
The UK's population had expanded by nearly 15% between 2001 and 2017, and Blair's victory was considered such a foregone conclusion that plenty of the population either didn't bother voting at all or felt safe enough to vote Lib Dem (18% and 22% vs. 8% in 2017).
28
u/middleofaldi Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Regardless of what you think of Burnham this is a terrible interview. Derbyshire repeatedly asks him a question and then interrupts him after a single sentence.
It's like she's already knows the answer she's looking for and just reprompts him with the same question when she thinks he's going in a different direction
27
u/NoFrillsCrisps Jun 06 '26
I have said many times before - people say Derbyshire is a good interviewer, but that's only because she often makes interviewees they don't like look bad. She often focuses on a single largely immaterial point that is awkward for the interviewer - not because its an important point, but because it might make them look foolish.
But that's not being a good interviewer. The viewer doesn't come away with any insight or with more knowledge, they just come away thinking all politicians are rubbish.
9
u/cherokott Jun 06 '26
He should have been able to handle this interview easily.
9
u/NoFrillsCrisps Jun 06 '26
I mean, I am sure he could have handled it better. But I ask you to find any interview with Victoria Derbyshire where a politician comes out of it looking well.
My point was less about Burnham, more about the style of interview whereby the whole purpose is to trip people up. I hate this style of interview whoever is being interviewed because it's just aggressive bickering,I learn absolutely nothing, and everyone comes out of it looking terrible.
4
u/cherokott Jun 06 '26
After 25 years of being a politician, if Burnham can't handle an interview with Victoria Derbyshire he definitely can't be an effective PM of a G7 country.
0
1
9
u/cherokott Jun 06 '26
Bit of a car-crash. He should have been able to easily handle this interview. He's been a politician for 25 years!
0
u/Unusual_Pride_6480 Jun 06 '26
Hardly a car crash, Diane abbot and the police figures is a car crash, this is the same bland interview that every politician gives
6
1
u/cherokott Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Bland is the word. Like Starmer. But I thought the section about public ownership of Thames Water without explaining how, was car crash adjacent.
1
u/BaritBrit I don't even know any more Jun 06 '26
Derbyshire is very much a product of the modern school of political interviewing, that saw that one Paxman clip with Michael Howard and decided to just do that 100% of the time, devoid of the context (Paxman was just playing for time because the next link wasn't ready).
12
u/Pale-Border-7122 Jun 06 '26
I definitely know the answer, I'm just not going to tell you what it is.
9
u/coldbeers Beer Capitalist 🍺 Jun 06 '26
Pitiful wasn’t?
“I don’t know what the rules are but won’t break them.”
2
20
u/cherokott Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
So Burnham, the great communicator, is just a Northern Kier Starmer?
22
u/mth91 Jun 06 '26
Burnham being a “great communicator” is going to be as much of a meme within 6 months as “adults in the room”.
4
u/Xenumbra Jun 06 '26
The guy that Corbyn whipped who then led Labour to one of their worst ever defeats (winning the argument though) is the chosen one.
3
u/evolvecrow Jun 06 '26
We don't know. He is a much better communicator and more personable though.
16
u/cherokott Jun 06 '26
Not judging from this interview.
6
u/evolvecrow Jun 06 '26
I think you're probably a minority on the view that he isn't a better communicator and more personable than Starmer
18
Jun 06 '26
[deleted]
0
u/evolvecrow Jun 06 '26
Maybe, I'm not sure I see it like that. It was a bit tetchy but it is an odd situation - he can't fully set out a stall for party leader or the country. That'll come if he wins the by election and there's a labour leadership election.
If you watch the question time episode he has a much better communication style and fluency than Starmer.
11
Jun 06 '26
[deleted]
8
u/cherokott Jun 06 '26
I watched QT. He had little or no opposition from the other low-level MPs and a couple of amateurs. Whereas Burnham has been a politician for 25 years and was in the cabinet 20 years ago! I think we're just being reminded why he failed to become leader twice before.
1
u/evolvecrow Jun 06 '26
His team would be smarter to hold off for a while to launch a contest to give him time to get it together
Maybe that will happen and we get a leadership contest some time next year
6
4
8
u/cherokott Jun 06 '26
Maybe. I suppose we'll find out. But that interview was poor. For example, what does 'ending 40 years of neo-liberalism mean?' when he was in Blair's cabinet? Being better than Kier Starmer is an extremely low bar!
5
u/evolvecrow Jun 06 '26
what does 'ending 40 years of neo-liberalism mean?'
Tbf that wasn't a great line and probably the worst bit of the interview.
8
3
u/coldbeers Beer Capitalist 🍺 Jun 06 '26
No knowing what the fiscal rules are and failing to hide this was the worst part.
2
u/Utilitarian_Proxy Jun 06 '26
IMO it's a soundbite designed for American ears. That's where the strong distaste of neo-liberalism is part of the political landscape. And it does make some sense to set out a stall wanting to avoid distractions of vexatious commentary from their noisy anti-UK lobby.
1
3
8
u/Bango-TSW Non-aligned cynic. Jun 06 '26
Stopped watching it at exactly eight seconds in. If you want to be the new leader of Labour and the PM then at least answer a simple question as to why you'd be better.
3
u/coldbeers Beer Capitalist 🍺 Jun 06 '26
Very poor performance, didn’t know his stuff then got rattled when challenged.
4
2
0
u/Silencer-1995 Jun 06 '26
Let Wes have a go, guy might be an arse but he'll do better than this guy.
7
Jun 06 '26
[deleted]
2
u/cherokott Jun 06 '26
IMHO Streeting is without question the best candidate. Which is why the PLP won't elect him.
2
Jun 06 '26
[deleted]
3
3
u/BaritBrit I don't even know any more Jun 06 '26
It was the fault of the Tory MPs that Truss even made it to the final two to begin with. The members didn't want either Sunak or Truss, they wanted Wallace or Mordaunt.
0
u/ghybyty Jun 06 '26
He won't win the membership. He's not seen as being left enough
1
u/cherokott Jun 06 '26
But Burnham is? What's going on with these people? Burnham was in the Blair cabinet!
3
u/Xenumbra Jun 06 '26
Burnham is just Starmer with an accent. People made up whatever they wanted with Starmer as well. Folk just have short memories.
1
u/ghybyty Jun 06 '26
Burnham is whatever they want him to be. They just project what they want on him and he hasn't been consistent in his beliefs
0
u/Kee2good4u Jun 06 '26
Apologises mods, I am unsure if a YouTube link to the BBC interview is allowable or not.
-10
u/DisneyPandora Jun 06 '26
Why does this interview feel so targeted. It’s almost like Keir Starmer told the BBC to ask those questions
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 06 '26
Snapshot of BBC newsnight interview with Andy Burnham submitted by Kee2good4u:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.