Talk:Andy Burnham

message: In the Telgraph interview cited he refers to "my eldest son" attending his wedding, but the article and all sources on the web refer to Burnham and Van Heel having one son and two daughters. Is this information now inaccurate or is Burnham being forgetful? Philip Cross 14:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Offspring

message: In the "categories", Andy Burnham is claimed by Fitzwilliam College. Cambridge, But that's not mentioned in the main article.Ausseagull (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cambridge

message: Burnham claimed to be aware of alleged telephone conversations between Shami Chakrabarti and David Davis. How can this be so?--Streona (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Smears

message: In June 2008 he was forced to apologise to Shami Chakrabarti after she threatened to sue him for libel for smearing her.Daily Telegraph 21-June-2008 Andy Burnham writes letter of apology to Shami Chakrabarti for David Davis commentsThe Guardian 21-June-2008 In bed with the DUP? This is the really curious journeyThe Times 20-June-2008 Shami Chakrabarti threatens to sue Andy Burnham over ‘slur’
Chakrabarti, the well known and highly regarded director of Liberty, alleges that Burnham defamed her in his article and made insinuations about her relationship with the then Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, implying that it was unusual and improper.  In her letter she states:
"I am writing in relation to your recent article in the ironically titled Progress magazine.
"In that article you set out to smear my dealings with the former Shadow Home Secretary.
"I must say that I find this behaviour curious, coming as it does from a Cabinet Minister, let alone someone with a partner and family of his own.
"By your comments you debase not only a great office of state but the vital debate about fundamental rights and freedoms in this country.
"Indeed you seem reluctant to engage in that debate except in this tawdry fashion. I look forward to your written apology as I'm sure does Mrs Davis. If on the other hand you choose to continue down the path of innuendo and attempted character assassination, you will find that the privileged legal protection of the parliament chamber does not extend to slurs made in the wider public domain." 
Burnham's smear tactics left the director of Liberty 'distraught' and caused grave offence to Mrs Davis.  Burnham's excuse that his comments were taken out of context were undermined by the revelation that there had been an organised whispering campaign by the Labour party against Chakrabati both in the precincts of Westminster and hints dropped to the tabloid press by Labour spin doctors and some MP's intimating that her relationship with Davis is improper.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesedwardsmith (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Smear scandal

message: I checked the Labour Party website and under the terms and conditions prospective members are obliged to sign the statement that they are 15 years or over. How can Burnham have been only 14 ?--Streona (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules on the Labour website are the current ones, you need to know what they were in 1984. I think in the past the minimum age for joining was lower, not sure how long it's been 15. Haldraper (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Joined Labour Party aged 14"?

message: This edit was reverted because it has clear issues with WP:BALASPS. It is common in BLP articles of politicians to trawl through news coverage to create criticism sections that fail WP:NPOV. Neither of these criticisms has long term notability.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 2013 

message: I have temporarily semiprotected this page to prevent disruption, please do not use the article, or this talk page as a venue to try to communicate with Mr. Burnham, or as a means to further a political agenda.--kelapstick(bainuu)  18:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: Amendment from the Stafford Hospital Scandal page:
Burnham launched an inquiry report, which was published on 24 February 2010. The report made 18 local and national recommendations, including that the regulator, Monitor, de-authorise the Foundation Trust. Burnham also launched a further inquiry into foundation hospital trusts generally.
88.97.17.99 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Amortias (T)(C) 19:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015 

message: [Where is a section on what he did at Anfield with the Hillsborough disaster 2009 and 2014?] 
82.43.139.232 (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as your request is unclear - there does not seem to have ever been such a section.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2015 

message: At the end of the 'In Opposition' section of Andy Burnham MP's page states that it was claimed that he claims £17000 in expenses on a property in London, despite owning another very near. Andy Burnham has written an official statement explaining this which in the interests of impartiality should be included as well. The official statement from Andy Burnham I have written below as well as a link taking you directly to said statement:
"The rules set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Andy Burnham has to have additional accommodation in London to fulfill his parliamentary duties. Andy Burnham was forced into the current arrangement when the rules changed and this has been fully open and transparent since 2012. He did not seek the current arrangement and he wishes to stress that he does not make any money from it. A full explanation of how it arose follows.
 
1. 10 years ago, Andy Burnham decided to take out a second mortgage to buy a flat in London. Amongst other things, this saved a considerable amount of money for the taxpayer as it allowed him to reduce his accommodation claims.
2. The Commons only ever funded the 'interest' part of the mortgage. Andy Burnham funded the repayment part as well as another mortgage on his main home in Leigh.
3. Early in the last Parliament, the expenses rules changed to stop claims against mortgages. Andy Burnham did not want to leave his flat but had no choice. He moved to another flat in the same area.
4. At that time, MPs that had claimed against mortgages were asked to pay a lump sum to the Commons in respect of any "indirect subsidy" that may have accrued from being helped to take out a mortgage on a property that had increased in value. Andy Burnham did this in instalments over the last Parliament.
5. At the point when the lump sum was paid, it was determined that any direct or indirect public subsidy in the property had been fully redeemed. The requirement to clear any possibility of subsidy was introduced precisely to protect MPs from the kind of allegations that have been made.
6. When Andy Burnham left his flat, he continued to have a mortgage on it. He has therefore had to rent it out. The rental income received only covers the costs, which include: service charge; letting/management fee; and maintenance. No money is made from renting out the flat."
Link to above quote: http://andyburnhammp.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/statement-on-accomodation-expenses_25.html
I believe that at the end of the 'In Opposition' part of Andy Burnham's page should be written something along the lines of the following: "However Burnham later issued a statement on his blog explaining that he had been forced to move out of his original flat due to changes in the rules of IPSA (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) and is still paying off the mortgage himself, has made no money from the flat and has paid IPSA back any money it was due"
86.158.100.251 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015 

message: Aintree, Lancashire, England
144.32.240.58 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Liverpool area stopped being in Lancashire in April 1974 due to the Local Government Act 1972. It could be argued that it was in Lancashire at the time of his birth in 1970, but articles tend to give where it is now.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Andy Burnham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100716015417/http://www.ukmusic.org:80/events/122-andy-burnham-and-charlie-mccreevy-speak-at-uk-musics-first-creators-conference to http://www.ukmusic.org/events/122-andy-burnham-and-charlie-mccreevy-speak-at-uk-musics-first-creators-conference
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Re this edit; Instead of saying "no tabloids on BLPs please", it would be more useful to find a broadsheet source and add it to the article. It is not even remotely controversial that Andy Burnham announced that he was standing for the Labour leadership on 13 May 2015.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the mirror one back in as it included a statement of policy which I think is legitimate.  We could subsittitue a broadsheet.  But I'm not aware of a rigid 'no tabloid;s view and both the Mirror and the Mail are accepted as sources other than for polemic ----Snowded TALK 10:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Re this edit: There is nothing much wrong with the Mirror article saying that Andy Burnham stood for the Labour leadership on 13 May 2015. However, to keep John and the other citation purists happy, I replaced it with The Independent as it is obviously much truer when it appears in a broadsheet newspaper. WP:BLPSOURCES is intended to prevent people from adding statements like "X repeatedly sodomises ferrets" sourced to a tabloid newspaper or blog. It is not intended to imply that everything in a tabloid newspaper is wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. The onus is on editors wanting to include material to ensure that it is properly sourced. We can't use tabloids on a BLP per WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy excludes Taboid Journalism.   Per multiple discussions at WP:RS both the Mail and the Mirror are considered reliable sources for a body of material.  They do engage in tabloid journalism but its not the be all and end all of what they do. The broadsheets aren;t immune either with the Telegraph and the Times guilty of aspects of that around the refugee crisis and others.   So you can probably exclude the Sun automatically, but not the Mirror.  Please follow the policy not your extended interpretation of it. I'm happy to use the Independent as a better source for his being elected but it is perfectly reasonable to use the Mirror to support his stated policy.    ----Snowded TALK 10:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong, and it is important for your continued editing here that you know you're wrong. --John (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

text: John, we've been through this on a number of occasions (by which I mean more than zero, which is a number). WP:BLPSOURCES is intended to raise a red flag for controversial statements sourced only to tabloids, rather than to imply that everything in a tabloid is wrong. As BLPSOURCES says, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" which is the case here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you appear to more or less understand this policy. This will really help in ensuring we don't see any repetition of this situation. --John (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on, two experienced editors disagree with you and explain why.  Your response is to attempt to patronise them and assert that you were right all along?  There isn't a situation here that should not be repeated.  You have been humoured on one source, that is it ----Snowded TALK 10:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Er no, it's just you. Ian is able to correctly read "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources". I'm not sure why this is proving difficult for you. --John (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you both to read Ian's comment made at 1030 on 30th December? ----Snowded TALK 10:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I said much the same in response to John zealously templating my talk page :-) ----Snowded TALK 10:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Better zeal than stupidity and incompetence though I think. --John (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well at least zeal and be interpreted positively while accusations of stupidity and incompetence could not. :-)   Better to avoid both ----Snowded TALK 10:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

text: It's all getting a bit personal here. I added the cite from The Independent thinking that it would keep everyone happy. Although I am not a snob about citations, broadsheet newspapers are generally better than red top tabloids.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done Ian, yours was the correct action in responding to the challenged material. --John (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian also says its OK to use the Mirror here.  If you can find a broadsheet fine.  Bit please try to be a little less aggressive.   The point has been made that tabloid journalism which is not permitted per policy is not the same thing as denying all sources from newspapers like the Mirror and Mail.  If you look at debates on WP:RS you will see that view is supported by the community.  Please try and deal with the argument not just your interpretation ----Snowded TALK 11:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say this. In my view, the Mirror has a reasonably good track record of avoiding nonsense and libel, unlike the Sun and the Mail. It is also not in any dispute that Andy  Burnham announced that he was standing for the Labour leadership on 13 May 2015. There is plenty of sourcing for this, e.g. BBC News here, but I went for The Independent.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My point related to the other statements was that you were taking the position that the Mirror is not excluded per se.  In this case I think it is important to have material that goes beyond the simply fact that he stood.   I'm also not inclined to indulge an editor who slams templates on my page and refused to enter into discussion when you make a reasonable point in return.   Either way before this storm in a teacup gets to be a typhoon I've posted something seeking clarification.  ----Snowded TALK 11:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

text: WP:BLPSOURCES doesn't really apply to situations where (a) the statement isn't controversial and (b) you can take your pick of sources such as BBC, CNN, broadsheets etc to source it. For the historians of Wikipedia, WP:BLPSOURCES was introduced after the Daily Mail made claims about the private life of Philip Mould which were (a) wrong, (b) potentially libellous) and (c) sourced only to the Daily Mail. Note the greyed out edits at . This is a long way from the situation with Andy Burnham.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but John doesn't so I have sought clarification at the BLP talk page.  If the policy is to exclude all tabloid journals then it needs to say that.  At the moment it covers tabloid journalism which is not unknown in the broadsheets although thankfully rare. ----Snowded TALK 11:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no tabloids on BLPs please" 

message: The article states he continued as Shadow Home Secretary through to 2017, however this is incorrect, he was succeeded by Diane Abbott in 2016 following his resignation  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemoralora (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect information on Shadow Cabinet

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Andy Burnham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705100723/http://andy4leader.com/about/ to http://andy4leader.com/about
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Tougher%2Bthan%2Bhe%2Bappears%3B%2BAndy%2BBurnham%2Btells%2BIan%2BHernon%2Bthat%2Bpolitics...-a0236089358
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Following the series of different IP edits claiming Burnham's job is "King of the North", which have led to the article being protected, I have added the accurate and neutral account that Burnham's common nickname appears to be "King of the North", and why, in the lead - with 4 reliable mainstream sources, including ones that explain why and those that just use it as shorthand, i.e. showing its common usage. As well as covering it, hopefully this will restore stability. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "King of the North" 

message: It's already been pointed out in 2009, but I don't think this was possible. Although now Labour does accept 14 year olds, as they said back then, it seems that you had to be 15 to join in 1984- and at the very least, I've not found any examples of anyone else who did. And because the 1984 miners' strike actually extended into March 1985, it seems far more likely that he joined Labour towards the end of the strike, after he turned 15.
The reason I'm bringing it up again when no resolution was reached originally is because I found this contradictory source which is from the June 2011 edition of Third Way. The interviewer, McCloughry, says he joined at 15, and as it was an interview and not just a factbox (like the Liverpool Echo article had), if he had been wrong, Burnham would presumably correct him, but he didn't, implying he was right. So 15 definitely seems like the more accurate age!
Now, there is also a second citation further down the page, which comes from the Telegraph. However, because this article is from 2015, and doesn't say where they got the information from, it's definitely possible that the author of that article just got the claim off of Wikipedia, since it had been there for several years, so I think it's mistaken.
But I know this makes it a bit complicated, and I'm not very good at Wikipedia. So I think it needs editing, by someone else! I think at the very least, we should remove explicit mention of "14," since 15 seems more accurate and all we really know for sure is that it was because of the miners' strike. I could be wrong, so just let me know what you think. Nothing bad meant by this! :) 81.111.129.203 (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Joined the Labour Party when he was 14"