He's not a racist. He is an opportunist. If he can work out how to gain support of your back, he'll do so. Do not trust this man. Many would love this kind of "I can be whatever you want me to be" politician to lead the Labour party... and I'm sure he could briefly get Labour polling higher... but if you want a "value lead party", don't let him anywhere near it.
Find me a successful politician that isn't an opportunist.
We’ll control those immigrants for you, because you’ll vote or us if we promise to save you from them.
You do talk some utter mince kelvin but this straw man over Burnham is really raising your game.
Well, lucky for me, if Starmer does go anytime soon, Burnham can't become leader. Because voting for him would stick in my throat. And I would still vote for Labour if he was leader, because I really want to kick out our Tory MP here. Replacing Johnson with Burnham would be a huge improvement for the UK... but there are loads of Labour MPs I'd rather see as PM than him.
but there are loads of Labour MPs I’d rather see as PM than him.
Whether you like it or not he probably has the highest profile of any labour politician outside of Starmer and Corbyn, with Rayner not far behind. The voting public see him as someone who will fight for their interests and not be afraid to speak his mind, and that's all that is required right now of a labour leader. If he had stuck to his principles in 2015 instead of flirting with the blue labour rubbish he'd be PM now, so hopefully he's learned his lesson. They should dump Starmer now and put Rayner in for the next election and bring Burnham back into parliament with a senior shad-cab post ready to step up if/when Rayner fails. With a bit of luck he could be PM within 5-6 years.
Well, lucky for me, if Starmer does go anytime soon, Burnham can’t become leader.
I'd say that not only 'could' he become leader, I can't see it being anyone else. And for the Labour parties sake I hope that's the case.
Daz nailed it:
but one thing he does have going for him is he knows how to connect with the public, and appears to be sincere in his dealings with them. Like Rayner, he doesn’t set himself apart or above normal people, and that’s exactly what labour needs right now. He’s wasted as Manchester mayor, and needs to get back on the national scene.
And I say that as one of the 70% of voters in Greater Manchester who seem to agree. I know people of all political persuasions who admire the job he's doing on their behalf. He's so popular here, particularly after the last years shenanigans, that it was hardly worth the other parties putting up candidates
He was very astute at removing himself from Westminster the way he did, just as the Labour party entered the car crash years its still mired in - call that opportunism if you like - but I don't doubt for a second that he'll be back when the time is right. Thankfully. That's not yet though.
Oh, he's "astute" alright. Few Labour politicians come close to his level of cunning and political manipulations... he's one politically smart cookie. He can't be the next leader if Starmer goes soon though, no matter how popular he is. The rules don't allow it. Even once he's an MP again (step 1) I can't see him getting through both rounds of a leadership election anyway. He's creepy, slippery, opportunistic and self serving in a way that many MPs and those party members with long memories will still be aware of.
he’s one politically smart cookie.
Something that's been woefully absent at the top of the Labour party for quite some time now.
I can’t see him getting through both rounds of a leadership election anyway. He’s creepy, slippery, opportunistic and self serving in a way that many MPs and those party members with long memories will still be aware of.
In your opinion. His enormous majority in Greater Manchester would prove it's not one that's prevalent amongst voters, and that's what matters.
Maybe the majority of Labour MP's, members and voters, if the've got any sense, will be clocking that as being the most important element about who should be leader. Let's hope so anyway. Otherwise its permanent opposition and permanent Tory rule.
I can't see anyone who even comes close to him for being the next Labour PM. But then I've been saying that for 10 years
What's his path to the leadership position then? I can see one if there's a snap election, but otherwise...?
What’s his path to the leadership position then?
I just outlined one above.
Daz nailed it:
Careful we're in danger of agreeing with each other again. At this rate we might be able to talk about it in the pub. 😂
And when do I ever not nail it??
Raynor as leader? Really?
Binnwers - actually I gave you the exact quotes a couple of years ago and you agreed they were disgraceful
I don't think he is a racist but he knew damn well what he was doing with the dogwhistle racist comments.
He was very astute at removing himself from Westminster the way he did, just as the Labour party entered the car crash years its still mired in – call that opportunism if you like – but I don’t doubt for a second that he’ll be back when the time is right. Thankfully. That’s not yet though.
He'd just lost an arse-kicking contest to a one-legged man. Very astute.
No shit he removed himself from Westminster - you'd need a long lie down after that level of humiliation.
Credit to him for coming back as a serious political voice - He probably has learnt some lessons on triangulating and how momentum can shift very quickly in politics.
he’s one politically smart cookie.
If you call using dogwhistle racism politically smart. it probably did get him more votes.
At this rate we might be able to talk about it in the pub.
Perish the bloody thought, mate! I don't see why we should start that nonsense now. 😉
You out on Monday night? I'm going to book us a table in the beer garden at the dogs for when we're done. We can talk about anything else but politics then.
If you call using dogwhistle racism politically smart.
Nobody is calling it that, though, other than you.
He's most definitely not a racist and there is nothing racist about the statements people have posted above
I'd actually suggest that in you labelling him a racist merely for bringing up the subjects he has and making perfectly reasonable comments on the matter, you're more of the problem than he is.
These things need to be discussed. You could say that people screaming 'RACIST' at anyone who dares to broker these issues has been a large contributory factor into getting this country to where it is now
You keep insisting he's a racist while saying you can't find any specific examples of him actually being racist
Raynor as leader? Really?
Absolutely. Labour's problems right now are not the things identified in the wake of Corbyn such as a lack of professionalism, humility, seriousness or experience. Starmer answers all those, and look where he is. No, their two major problems are their complete lack of confidence in putting forward any vision or ideas, and their perceived insincerity, aloofness and elitism. They look like a party which has run out of energy and is feeling sorry for itself. Rayner and/or Burnham would answer all these and more. Labour don't need academics or city professionals, they need fighters, people willing to get dirty, take a few risks and play the tories at their own game. What've they got to lose?
You out on Monday night?
Absolutely. Rose and Crown?? 😂
You know what... I'm sorely tempted 😂
Careful we’re in danger of agreeing with each other again.
Me too 🥺
So... assuming there's no snap election... when and where will Burnham stand to become an MP, ready to be part of a leadership contest...?
take a few risks and play the tories at their own game.
Trouble is the game is now identity politics not policy politics. and the Tories are much better at it. Labour also have to appeal to both swing Tory voters and the SNP at the same time.
I'm not sure that's entirely possible
I’d actually suggest that in you labelling him a racist merely for bringing up the subjects he has and making perfectly reasonable comments on the matter, you’re more of the problem than he is.
These things need to be discussed. You could say that people screaming ‘RACIST’ at anyone who dares to broker these issues has been a large contributory factor into getting this country to where it is now
I'm having to agree with binners here. This forum really has gone to the dogs.😱
By being unable to even mention the genuine issues that immigration can cause, that debate became totally polarised at the extremes, and contributed to the Leave vote.
I remember Burnham used to use the age old trick of putting the words "low wages" and "immigration" together as often as possible, without ever directly blaming low wages on immigration. As TJ says, it was dog whistle stuff, he's just very smart with his language.
So, if the golden boy is going to be party leader... where is he going to stand to be MP, and when?
Burnham very much played down attempting leadership on Owen Jones' channel that I saw today.
He said twice was enough of a defeat.
But you never know.
No point talking up a leadership challenge when you can't actually mount one, because you're not an MP, or even going to try and get elected as one any time soon. But also... he would say that, wouldn't he... Dead Ringers got this very right this week.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000x1gn ( at 4:30 )
No but you can ask the question. And that was his response.
You can guage sentiment. But yeah you're right he would say that.
He also thinks that his Manchester world view doesn't translate to Westminster.
If he is going to try again, it won't be right now. Or even soon. Anyone wanting Starmer to step aside in the near future need to look elsewhere for his replacement. All the man-love for Burnham stepping into Starmer's shoes is just fantasy politics right now. Rayner has it all but nailed on if she wants it. I still think she'd rather wait for a few years... but not going for it if the opportunity arises might weaken her future chances. I don't know, she's played it very right setting herself up so far.
WHAT WAS CLAIMED
Mass immigration has depressed wages, especially on the low skill level.
OUR VERDICT
Studies find that immigration affects low-waged workers the most negatively. They disagree on whether it has been good or bad for wages overall but tend to show that the effect is small and also short-term.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-wages/
Has the Starmer thread gone back to talking about everyone in the Labour Party bar Starmer? Jolly good.
Yep, like how effective Hitler was (which we would all agree he was)
LOL. Hitler was shit!
The Germans would probably have won WW 2 if it wasn't for Hitler.
Thangam Debbonaire told female party members at a meeting last weekend that introducing free social care for disabled and older people would “give the Tories a stick to beat Labour with”, Disability News Service (DNS) has been told.
She apparently claimed that such a policy would cost “£100 billion” and would cost more than the annual budget of the NHS.
She also said that right-wing newspapers would attack the policy and that it would lose Labour the next election.
Idealogically unpure...
You know the Government can always afford things don't you lass?
She also said that right-wing newspapers would attack the policy
So the Labour Party is scared to do anything the Daily Mail won't like - sounds about right.
she’s played it very right setting herself up so far.
Not bad for a council state thicko! 😏
She needs to be careful though. She could quite easily end up like Burnham (as in losing to a lesser candidate) if she allows herself to be sucked in by all the politicking and forgets that her biggest strength is her connection to the voters.
Or like David Miliband, who made the exact opposite mistake. Who’d be a politician, eh?
Thangam Debbonaire told female party members at a meeting last weekend that introducing free social care for disabled and older people would “give the Tories a stick to beat Labour with”, Disability News Service (DNS) has been told.
She also said that right-wing newspapers would attack the policy and that it would lose Labour the next election.
So there you have it, the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons sums up Keir Starmer's Labour strategy.
Firstly, don't suggest any policy radically different to the Tories as it will "give the Tories a stick to beat Labour with”,
And secondly, don't suggest any policy which might upset right-wing newspapers because they will attack it and Labour will loose the next election.
I think that's all pretty clear. What Thangam Debbonaire doesn't explain is why this strategy doesn't appear to be working.
Starmer out. Burnham in.
Replace one grisly weathervane politician with another one.
Yep, that'll fix it. Well done Labour people. Well done.
She apparently claimed that such a policy would cost “£100 billion” and would cost more than the annual budget of the NHS.
You know the Government can always afford things don’t you lass?
Been avoiding this thread for a while but jeez, there's a lack of vision there. Not least a failure to see the connection between health and social care, and how investment in one offers savings to the other.
I see why my increasingly disillusioned Tory voting parents feel that there is no coherent alternative to voting Conservative
Been avoiding this thread for a while but jeez, there’s a lack of vision there. Not least a failure to see the connection between health and social care, and how investment in one offers savings to the other.
To be fair to him, linking health and social care is one subject in particular that Andy Burnham has been going on about for years now. Here's a Guardian article from 2014 advocating exactly what you've just said. He's explicitly linking the two as much as he can in Greater Manchester now and is still saying it needs to be happening on a national level
Having said that though, if you look at the present labour party it does politically seem to be sat in Twilight Meadows home for the terminally bewildered, babbling on about how they used to come here when it was all fields.
Perhaps its time to start looking in to that trip to Dignitas...
To be fair to him, linking health and social care is one subject in particular that Andy Burnham has been going on about for years now.
To be fair Andy Burnham isn't the Leader of the Labour Party.
To be fair to Keir Starmer he supported the National Independent Living Support Services proposals. From the link :
"Starmer supported the National Independent Living Support Service (NILSS) proposals during his successful campaign to be elected party leader last year, telling DNS in February 2020 that he backed a motion supporting those proposals which had been passed at Labour’s annual conference."
To be fair one disabled party member was correct when :
She said the party was now run by “cowardly, unprincipled careerists”
Just to be fair.
She said the party was now run by “cowardly, unprincipled careerists”
She's must have been reading my posts on here. 🙂
He’s explicitly linking the two as much as he can in Greater Manchester now and is still saying it needs to be happening on a national level
How's he going to pay for it though?
He's in charge of the devolved Health and social care budgets. So he's trying a different approach - the one that he's been going on about for years - in explicitly linking the two things in a unified approach to health and social care
I know that that's all very awkward, finding a politician who's just quietly getting on with doing things he said he'd do. I'm sure that his 70% vote share at the last election is in no way connected to that at all.
It does seem like this is something that regional government is doing throughout the country.
Meanwhile.... back at Westminster....
Meanwhile…. back at Westminster….
Yup. So why the diversionary tactic of 'to be fair to Andy Burnham' when discussing the Labour Leader in Westminster's failure to back a policy which he claimed he supported when he was desperate to become Party Leader?
You appear to be extremely reluctant to talk about Keir Starmer on the Keir Starmer thread binners, preferring instead to talk about almost anyone but Starmer.
Why is that?
As I've been saying, they have no interest in winning elections, only internal political machinations and retaining power within the party. It's no wonder no one wants to vote for them.
"Some centrists believe that Starmer’s best hope of proving his party has changed would be to tear up its member-led leadership rules and return to an electoral college that restored MPs alongside unions and members. MPs represent millions of voters, whereas party members represent only themselves, allies say. The Left would be sure to react with fury.
It’s too late to mobilise such a radical reform for this autumn, and it may need Unite the union to elect centrist Gerard Coyne to have a chance. But there is chatter of a special conference next spring to carry it out.
Although Starmer likes to talk about tackling anti-Semitism as defining his leadership, some MPs believe the public either don’t know or or uninterested in the issue. A big bang change to water down members’ hold over the party leader would be more bold.
There are however downsides, as one senior aide points out. “It’s a terrible dilemma. One of the big, most essential ways that Keir has to define himself is by changing the leadership rules to ensure that this great party never goes back to being run by cranks. But the problem he’s got is as soon as he does that is he could face a challenge from the Right or competent centre. It’s a total Catch-22."
Angela and Kim both caught taking up the "there's no magic money tree" mantra.
Absolutely useless.
They shouldn't be allowed near a major political party if they don't understand how public funding works.
Idiot Blairite John Mcternan saying the same.
https://twitter.com/LoonyLeftyLady1/status/1409237941403230210?s=19
Does seem like Starmer's lot have been programmed for austerity.
The way the Labour party chooses its leaders does need to change. I don't think the role of members should be watered down, but the whole process needs to be quicker. The Conservatives manage to time their dumping of leaders, and replacement of them, so much more nimbly these days, yet still rely on members to make the final call.
You appear to be extremely reluctant to talk about Keir Starmer on the Keir Starmer thread binners, preferring instead to talk about almost anyone but Starmer.
Why is that?
Because theres not really anything to discuss, is there?
I'm now just absolutely baffled by, and pretty despairing of, the continuing silence from the Labour front bench about pretty much everything that's been going on recently. For over 5 years now the labour party has been sat with its thumb up its arse being completely ineffectual.
I was one of the many who lived in hope that a change of leader might have resulted in that changing. Looks like I was wrong. The party is a complete basket case in its present form and somewhat depressingly it looks like Boris and chums are free to do what they like and a large enough proportion of the electorate are happy enough with that state of affairs to keep voting for it
