Sir Ralph

Who said that? Read what’s been said not what you think was said. It might help. Flippin heck one side of this forum have got very excited about protecting AB all because I said that being mayor of Manc is being overstated as his likelihood of being a good pm. Talking of partisan….

Your analysis of a centrist is accurate. You regularly fall on one side in debates so my opinion is that your self analysis is inaccurate, even if it may help you to feel your views are justified . Someone like @whelkseems to be more of a centrist as he (maybe a she 😂) falls on both sides. He won’t agree with my stance on matters but I still think he is in the middle ground

It’s not an objective assessment if you don’t have evidence other than accusations. How is his political stance racist?

When has farage been found guilty of racism, facism or corruption? Bearing in mind he has had a lot more scrutiny than Burnham over the years because he was heavily scrutinised by the media as the front man of Brexit. Brexit was a political decision not an illegal action.

The point I’m making is taking the view that you are a centrist means that you are declaring your views are balanced. Some people are centrists but @egg regularly falls on one side of a debate as I do. I don’t pretend I’m anything but a conservative

You’re not a centrist though. You say that to make your view appear balanced and what the majority believe which is a common tactic nowadays . I’m happy to admit I’m conservative but don’t pretend otherwise.

.

How dare you point out the obvious. Don’t you know @eggis right about everything . Strange how many of those on one part of the political spectrum seem to think this.

I am sceptical about the policies he will bring in and the impact on the economy based on what he has said before About the types of policies he would support. However I’m not partisan to the extent that if he does a good job, then great

So everyone on here then 😂 At pains of repeating myself (as some are struggling with this) I only said his role as mayor of manc isn’t strong evidence, in my view, that he will be a good PM. A legitimate opinion to hold. I’m sure people on here have never commented on what would happen if Reform got into power - that would be very partisan and immature

I think we all have preconceptions of how he will do. I do based on his political stance on other matters historically and I don’t have “rage” (little point when his policies are out of our control) but I agree that we need to see his key policies.

My point was a very simple. I wasn’t the one overanalysing it. Not sure why some are so defensive of AB over this.

I didn’t say that so don’t misquote - I said the media and AB supporters seem to be attaching too much weight to his likely success because he ran Manchester - my point is that they shouldn’t be attaching too much weight to this. they do need to have the ability to understand how to introduce policies that will improve and not damage the economy. To me that will be AB main test1. 1. ChatGPT (2026)

If you want to justify his credentials on this basis what difference did he make in those roles and why didn’t the PM at the time give him one of the top roles in the cabinet? Anyway as I also said let’s see what his policies say.

“Very”. I agree I probably didn’t need the sarcasm of “your lad”. Apologies to those offended by my use of language

Ok as I live in London Boris was regarded as a good mayor as I’m sure Burnham was. They wouldn’t have got the PM gigs otherwise.

As I said above “I agree that being a mayor of a city shows a degree of experience in being able to administratively running a public organisation. My point is that that is by no means an indicator of likely success as running a country is very different. My personal view is somebody that has successfully held a serious role in government, such as chancellor, would be a better likely indicator of success. @badgerx16 own opinion of BJ being mayor of a city supports this ” My point is too much weight appears to be being applied by the media and others to the fact he was mayor as an indicator of his likely success. I agree we need to see what his policies are and how successful they are when put into practice.

Agree - on those matters how he deals with his backbenchers and how pragmatic they are willing to be will determine whether he keeps his job and whether they do too

I agree that most reasonable people wouldn’t say that buts it’s convient to say that when you might be perceived to have views on the same side of those on the political spectrum who are saying those things (to be clear I’m not saying you agree with them at all) . A close family member runs an office and they had to call out a junior member of staff who said he was glad she was dead last week and say they shouldn’t be discussing politics inthe office. Unfortunately those who are more politicised on the left, particularly the younger age group, seem to be stooping to lower levels than those on the right currently, which I would admit is probably an inverse from the past.

Fair enough and that’s quite obvious - I agree that being a mayor of a city shows a degree of experience in being able to administratively running a public organisation. My point is that that is by no means an indicator of likely success as running a country is very different. My personal view is somebody that has successfully held a serious role in government, such as chancellor, would be a better likely indicator of success. @badgerx16 own opinion of BJ being mayor of a city supports this

I agree. Same therefor applies to Burnham. Have a good night

Like I said he hasn’t set out his policies but he needs to do that before a GE. If he believes in them why not announce them and test them first before asking the electorate for a mandate. This is hypothetical to be honest because he hasn’t called a GE and I don’t think he will immediately cause it’s too risky

Running a city with its local politics is very different to running a country and the competing interests between multiple regions

Thanks for explaining democracy. It’s genuinely appreciated, particularly as I’m mentally challenged . AB has been very quiet about his policies. If he is actually going to be a good pm he should put them to the test and then go to a GE. I hope he does rather than avoid testing them and call an early GE. Otherwise wouldn’t that suggest he isn’t confident that his policies will be successful- agree?

So running a harder gig, being a good mayor of London, and you thought BJ was a bad PM. So why would AB be a good PM based on his role in Manchester? My point is being mayor of Manchester is pretty much irrelevant.