In February this year, Chris Saltmarsh - a climate activist calling for eco-socialism - wrote an interesting piece, "Your Party Can Realign the British Left" assessing Your Party, Andy Burnham, SCG, Greens and Zack Polanski. He had this to say about Burnham (Italics are mine):
"For all the media intrigue, the demand for a Burnham ascendancy, limited to several dozen dissatisfied Labour MPs ... is an expression of elite machinations and not a reflection of popular political sentiment. Burnham is surely a very popular politician... However, the substance of his political project is an uninspiring combination of electoral reform and a “social” version of developmental capitalism... The elephant in the room is that, while the region’s buses may have improved, Burnham’s Greater Manchester experiences the same enduring social problems as the rest of Britain."
Saltmarsh doesn't seem to whitewash for the sake of what he believes in - unlike Burnham, who whitewashes his own failures and bigs up his successes, keeping very quiet about the role played by others. Saltmarsh didn't say anything good about Polanski either, and wrote about how even Your Party, which garnered such a big membership at first, "got off to a troubled start". He did, at the time of writing, however, hold out hope for it.
I don't agree, but I
think his assessment of Burnham still holds good. Burnham can talk up a storm,
but he always makes it about himself. He has a self-deprecating way of
honouring himself as the conquering hero of society's ills that's positively
nauseating. Worse, he flat out refuses to engage in any detail about how he
would make good on all his grand promises. In conversation with Victoria Derbyshire he said of course
he would follow the fiscal rules. But when she asked him what they were he said
"I'm not going to go through...an exam on the fiscal rules". The
absurdity of that reply beggars belief.
As does his response to her asking why he believed he would be a better prime minister than Keir Starmer. "I'm not getting into that," he said, chuckling disarmingly, "I am fully focused on this by-election." Then he went on a ramble about how dedicated he is to Makerfield and not thinking about what comes next. I guess he would have also been super-dedicated to Gorton and Denton if he'd been allowed to run.
Just as he's been dedicated to Greater Manchester. Which he's quite happy to walk out on. He's giving up all that power and influence simply to be a Makerfield MP in a Westminster that he hates? Come on.
The whole of the UK knows he's only doing this in the belief that he'll win and be able to muscle Starmer out of No. 10. And hasn't he offered Josh Simons a high paying job in government in exchange for his seat? Before Josh fell for the bait didn't Burnham's allies try to persuade others to do the same in exchange for seats in the House of Lords? And hasn't Burnham himself said he'll challenge Starmer? No, that's not it. He said he wouldn't. Then he would join in if Wes Streeting launched his own challenge. Sure, our Andy's not thinking about No. 10.
Seems to me he's trying to please people in all camps in the belief that his charm will overwhelm their good sense and blot out what they see with their own eyes and ears. He seems oblivious to the obvious: that he's exposing himself as inauthentic, manipulative and insubstantial. The epithet snake-oil salesman is used a lot to describe him on social media.
Can't say I disagree.
