Forum menu
So my crazy bet of him going before Xmas could still be on the cards?
I bet you a tenner to Medical Aid to Palestinians that Starmer is still PM on Xmas Day. I still think that a lot of this is just early first term stumbles and mumbles. But, you know, I've been very wrong in the past
For sure - it's just a daft bet with my Dad.
Er, can you imagine the utter humiliation if the UK Prime Minister
Yeah it's unlikely and would be completely uprecedented. I doubt the labour party would elect him leader in any case for exactly this reason. Although they're talking about someone who isn't even an MP being leader so who knows what they're thinking? 🤷♂️
Er, can you imagine the utter humiliation if the UK Prime Minister
Yeah it's unlikely and would be completely uprecedented. I doubt the labour party would elect him leader in any case for exactly this reason. Although they're talking about someone who isn't even an MP being leader so who knows what they're thinking? 🤷♂️
What timing. It means they're seriously dreading the budget.
I do wonder who is actually pushing these rumours. Whether it is Streeting testing the water or if it is Starmer and co trying to confuse things and undermine a leadership challenge before it gets started.
Saw much the same with Burnham around the conference period with the odd idea he was starting to run for leadership without having sorted out the reentry into parliament first.
I can't fill the blanks in on that @kelvin?
In "my opinion"... a later election would have seen Reform performing far better in seat count (for USA Social Media reasons), maybe even enough for them to be able for help force another general election this year. Sunak called it early to reduce the damage on his parliamentary party... as sentiment was only going in one way as regards Conservatives voters and media moving to Reform... but I think it also bought us a short respite from the UK going over the edge. A respite that Labour are wasting? Yeah, I'd agree with you and other posters on that bit.
I wonder if frequence of challenging and swapping leaders is now going to be the new norm based on the restlessness of everything?
It would take some amazing leader to stay the distance in this climate.
I don't think Labour will swap leaders until/unless they lose a General Election. And by lose I mean are no longer the largest party on seat count. Mostly because you need to have a plan for a new team to replace the current top team... and I don't see one coming from current MPs... and partly because there is no experience of Labour replacing their leader while in government, and then going on to electoral success. Nothing about the current situation would really be any better with a different leader... yeah, some better choices might be made, but the UKs current predicaments will still exist, and its problems firmly stuck on any Labour leader's shoulders. See the current prisoner release stuff for the perfect example of that.
It does appear that a large majority seems to be an open invitation to turn your attention to factional warfare.
Maybe a hung parliament would be a blessing in putting a stop to it? Or is that just wishful thinking on my part and this is just the way things are now?
Nothing about the current situation would really be any better with a different leader
The 'current' situation is partly of Labour's making so it follows a different version of Labour could create a different climate?
I know what you mean but pretending Labour are somehow seperate from the current situation makes no sense to me.
I mean had Starmer carried through with his 10 pledges - do you honestly think they would be as doing as badly? Same goes for all the mis-steps too - and the particulalrly stupid 'late' budget shenanigans. It's all helped make a mess of it.
It does appear that a large majority seems to be an open invitation to turn your attention to factional warfare.
Maybe a hung parliament would be a blessing in putting a stop to it? Or is that just wishful thinking on my part and this is just the way things are now?
I think lots of things have run their course that need proper change.
The 'current' situation is partly of Labour's making so it follows a different version of Labour could create a different climate?
Partly, yes. But the 'current' situation is mostly nothing to do with Labour's making... and even if a new leader improved the situation, anything they did would get little to no credit, and all the stuff that remains to fix they would be blamed for. That is the reality for this government, and there is no shiny new leader who can change that for them. If you think there is... name them...
I think lots of things have run their course that need proper change
It does seem that our entire system of government is now completely dysfunctional and not fit for purpose
That is the reality for this government, and there is no shiny new leader who can change that for them. If you think there is... name them...
Well yeah, when a political party is in the firm grip of an authoritarian clique, as Labour are, there are often no obvious candidates for leadership, those in charge make sure of that.
However the obvious name with regards to Labour at this present moment is the mayor of Manchester. Obviously the fact he is a mayor and not an MP presents a real problem. But whilst I believe that not even Andy Burnham could save Labour from losing the next general election and I do believe that he might possibly stop the catastrophic meltdown that Starmer would almost certainly guarantee.
Tbh I think it is a very similar solution for the Tories too. Moving further to the right under Kemi Badenoch in response to the threat from Reform has not helped them one iota. All the hard-right voters have already deserted them for the Reform so what is the point of trying to appeal to them? They won't be coming back, that's obvious.
If the Tories moved to the left, even actually more to the left of Starmer on issues such as public ownership of the utilities (as Nigel Farage is attempting to do) they could possibly draw some support back especially from the LibDems and even the Greens (in last year's local elections the Greens won more seats from the Tories than any other party) A more sensible Tory Party might appeal to those not interested in the swivel-eyed nonsense of Reform Trump supporters.
However the obvious name with regards to Labour at this present moment is the mayor of Manchester. Obviously the fact he is a mayor and not an MP presents a real problem. But whilst I believe that not even Andy Burnham could save Labour from losing the next general election and I do believe that he might possibly stop the catastrophic meltdown that Starmer would almost certainly guarantee
I don’t believe for a second that Andy Burnham has the remotest interest in returning to Westminster, let alone be leader or PM.
I think that his alleged (by an overexcited press pack) leadership bid was nothing of the sort. It was the opposite! What it was, in reality, was him putting as much distance as possible between himself and the car crash in number 10 ahead of local elections in May.
Andy was voted in last time with 67% of the vote. People vote for him despite the Labour Party connections, not because of them. And Manchesters economy is booming, with the kind of economic growth Rachael Reeves can only dream about.
He has cross-party appeal across the region and he was just restating his idealogical differences from the present shambles in number ten, in no uncertain terms.
If the Tories moved to the left, even actually more to the left of Starmer on issues such as public ownership of the utilities (as Nigel Farage is attempting to do) they could possibly draw some support back especially from the LibDems and even the Greens (in last year's local elections the Greens won more seats from the Tories than any other party) A more sensible Tory Party might appeal to those not interested in the swivel-eyed nonsense of Reform Trump supporters.
Exactly, that's why a Labour/Tory coalition would be perfect. Keep the fantasists on both sides out. Tories just need to find a nice, normal centre right person to take the lead.
Tories just need to find a nice, normal centre right person to take the lead
Good luck with that in the present Reform Tribute Party
Exactly, that's why a Labour/Tory coalition would be perfect. Keep the fantasists on both sides out.
Blimey, did you use the word "fantasists"?
A more sensible Tory Party might appeal to those not interested in the swivel-eyed nonsense of Reform Trump supporters.
That is exactly what the people I work with want. They hate Labour because they "take all their money" and now they hate the tories because while they may be privileged and selfish (in a looking after themselves point of view) they are not horrible people generally and not obviously racist.
I don’t believe for a second that Andy Burnham has the remotest interest in returning to Westminster, let alone be leader or PM.
That wasn't the question, it was whether there is anyone in the Labour Party that could do a significantly better job than Sir Keir Starmer.
Besides Burnham has very recently and very clearly not ruled out a return to Westminster. If he didn't have the remotest interest in returning to Westminster it would be extremely easy for him to unambiguously rule it out and squash further speculation.
Blimey, did you use the word "fantasists"?
Are you partially sighted? Or you're just not sure what a fantasist is? If you read some of Rone's posts it should give you a pretty good idea. I don't think we've got any swivel eyed Reform members currently, so we can't see the other end of the spectrum, unfortunately.
Or you're just not sure what a fantasist is?
Someone who thinks that the Tories and Labour could somehow form a dream coalition government?
Are you partially sighted?
Not enough to be blind to the fact that the latest YouGov MRP poll suggests that the combined Tory-Labour vote would be 189, well short of what is required even for a coalition government.
Besides Burnham has very recently and very clearly not ruled out a return to Westminster. If he didn't have the remotest interest in returning to Westminster it would be extremely easy for him to unambiguously rule it out and squash further speculation.
Unless you’re just raising your profile with your ACTUAL electorate, making a bit of mischief and just fueling speculation from an over-excitable Westminster press pack?
Like I said, I don’t think he has the remotest interest in heading south. There’s the small matter of becoming an MP(for where?), I can’t imagine many in Westminster would be pleased to see him and why bother when you’re the de facto ‘King of the North’?
making a bit of mischief
So Andy Burnham thinks that with the leadership crisis that Labour are currently facing it is a great time to cause "a bit of mischief"? I doubt it.
And if he has 67% of the vote and cross-party appeal why does Burnham need to raise his profile with his ACTUAL electorate?
You know how politics works, right? Particularly in this ‘personality’ era. I don’t know if you’d noticed but Andy is quite good at it. Certainly much better than anyone in the Labour Party in Parliament.
The reaction from most people in Greater Manchester (there’s 3.5 million of us) was that they didn’t want to lose him to London, so job jobbed there then.
Anyway… Can you think of any reason whatsoever why you would leave a region that you basically rule, which has a booming economy and lots of good things happening, to go and pick up that particular poisoned chalice, with an economy that’s basically completely ****ed and everything looks truly grim?
You’d have to be bloody stupid, and he certainly isn’t that..
Someone who thinks that the Tories and Labour could somehow form a dream coalition government?
One fantasy does not make you a fantasist. If, as you say, Labour are now centre right, then it would be perfectly logical for them to form a coalition with the other major centre right party. A poll is meaningless at this point in time, the election is years away. People will take the best option they have from the choice available. If the Tories can make a return to the sensible centre right then voters will come back. Nobody with a brain actually thinks Nigel can run the country. Their energy policy alone is completely batshit.
Unless you’re just raising your profile with your ACTUAL electorate
Binners he's clearly signalled that he wants to be PM. IIRC last time he was asked he said something along the lines of 'If I didn't want to be PM, I wouldn't have stood for the leadership on two occasions, and I still wouldn't rule it out'. That's a long way from 'I'm throwing my hat in the ring to challenge Starmer' but it's obvious what he's thinking.
Aaaah right…. Playing the (very, very) long game?
Personality gets your over the hurdle - changing lives for the better keeps you there.
poll is meaningless at this point in time, the election is years away.
They're clearly not meaningless - it's the best snapshot you have at the time of where things probably are.
It's also gives you trajectory. Been pretty much down from the off with Labour.
Political parties do study them despite what what they say.
Can you think of any reason whatsoever why you would leave a region that you basically rule, which has a booming economy and lots of good things happening, to go and pick up that particular poisoned chalice, with an economy that’s basically completely ****ed and everything looks truly grim?
Because you might want to repeat that model on a greater scale?
And ultimately the way things are configured for more people to thrive it makes sense to get the country firing and then it's better for everyone.
After all such as Manchester etc do benefit from a functioning macro economy system too.
. And Manchesters economy is booming, with the kind of economic growth Rachael Reeves can only dream about.
Manchester's economy will be part of the GDP.
It's worth bearing in mind that Manchester (Greater Manchester? I don't know.) doesn't have the power that Rachel Reeves has to spend either.
They use the currency that is in circulation - and probably access grants etc.
Reeves' power is on a different level - which is why it's worse that she can't seem to pull the correct levers.
you read some of Rone's posts it should give you a pretty good idea.
Prove it - or carry on being a jerk.
That is the reality for this government, and there is no shiny new leader who can change that for them. If you think there is... name them
But that's their problem - it's not for us to point that out. It's for them to find a solution.
"Nobody with a brain actually thinks Nigel can run the country. Their energy policy alone is completely batshit."
Problem is, politics is increasingly not about running a country or making lives better... It's purely about winning. Or more accurately, trying to make sure everyone else loses.
This is where Zack, Ed (and Andy if he chooses) should be pushing their agendas as they genuinely seem to want to improve things and aren't just in it for the smug glory.
TBH, I think Kier feels that way too as a person. Just currently struggling to make that obvious as a politician and PM.
I don’t know if you’d noticed but Andy is quite good at it.
He had an open goal when he ran for leader and couldn't even manage to beat the joke token leftie.
I didn't think that Brois Johnson, Theresa May, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak or even Kier Starmer could run the country. Was I wrong ?
After reflection I'll happily vote for Zack.
I can’t promise that
Rumours are circulating tonight that Binners is planning a tilt at the leadership of the Labour Party. Binners, who represents a former factory town near Stockport, has refused to rule out a leadership bid. Commentators say he could pose a real challenge to the authoritarian Starmer regime if he can knock off the Life of Brian shitposting and focus on politics.
Jasmine, back to you in the studio.
UK growth slows again to 0.1% Q3
More 'fantasy' economics for Jamz. Let's keep doing the same things shall we? The things that keep destroying the economy. More proof that lack of investment and subservience to black-holes, fiscal rules and OBR planning puts the economy on the wrong footing.
Reeves needs to go for broke and pretty much ditch every single bit of her 'plan'.
Remember this is a growth orientated programme and government.
I wonder, although doubtful - whether the plot twist will be Starmer throwing Reeves under a bus just after the budget to save his skin?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c87427qpzrpt
More 'fantasy' economics for Jamz. Let's keep doing the same things shall we? The things that keep destroying the economy.
A lot of people are happy with their lot and don't want to risk upsetting things and see anything that is required to actually improve things as radical and dangerous (I work with a lot of them). Jamz is one of those people.
More 'fantasy' economics for Jamz. Let's keep doing the same things shall we? The things that keep destroying the economy.
A lot of people are happy with their lot and don't want to risk upsetting things and see anything that is required to actually improve things as radical and dangerous (I work with a lot of them). Jamz is one of those people.
Where are we getting this idea that I support Labour's policies from?! I want lower spending (i.e. less money to the unproductive), and then lower (within reason) tax when the country's finances are in a better state. That would upset a lot of people (as we saw in this thread) but it would be good for the country as a whole.
and see anything that is required to actually improve things as radical and dangerous
I can’t imagine why…
Jamz is one of those people.
So just a selfish **** then? I mean that was evident when he said we should stop giving handouts to the disabled and people who couldn't work due to health reasons but at least we know now.
Where are we getting this idea that I support Labour's policies from?!
Well you want the continuation of centre right politics that we have had for the last 60 years. Starmers Labour can be best described as a tory coalition.
I am fascinated by given how badly the "sensible centre right" have performed you want to keep it up. Bearing in mind that they have pissed away most of the countries assets and so we are now paying rent on those.
So just a selfish **** then?
Yep. sounds like. All they want is for less privileged and shat on people to get absolutely nothing and have an even worse life as long as they pay less tax so they can be even better off. Nice people.
I mean that was evident when he said we should stop giving handouts to the disabled and people who couldn't work due to health reasons but at least we know now.
I don't remember saying that? I would certainly make changes - like removing depression/anxiety as a disability, but I would not remove benefits for people who are actually disabled.
I am fascinated by given how badly the "sensible centre right" have performed you want to keep it up.
Increasing spending on benefits, and increasing tax on productive work to pay for increased spending, are not features of a centre right government.