Forum menu
latest revelation about mandleson, is worst yet imo, he was trying to help Epstein get a visa for travel to Russia (to potentially traffic more victims,) this was after Epstein's earlier conviction!
as for who replaces Starmer
rather naive to think that who replaces him doesn't matter, the ridiculous hyperbole about centrism being the ultimate evil will look a bit silly when Mahmood or Streeting come rolling in as leader....
I would not vote for a labour party led by him.
Well a lot of people would. He has cross-party appeal, as his 67% vote share in the last Manchester mayoral election showed. People who aren't natural Labour voters really like him and more importantly will vote for him.
You always vote SNP anyway, so I can't see the Labour Party mourning your voting decision too much Uncle Jezza.
Starmer is surely done now after all this Mandleson business. It appears he's so entrenched in the bunker that he's the last to know though. Let's be honest, when he appointed Mandy, who at the time didn't think it was an absolutely crazy decision? It was even more insane than when Rishi bought Call-Me-Dave back.
If the labour party had the same system as the Tory party, we'd have passed the threshold for letters a while back. As it is, he's not going to go volountarily and there's not really a way to remove him, so it'll be interesting to see what happens after the electoral train-wreck that awaits him in May.
This last 18 months will go down in history as a textbook example taking a huge majority, setting fire to it then putting it out with a shovel the passing on it. What a ****ing waste!
So who will replace Starmer?
So who will replace Starmer?
In any sane world (so ignoring TJ) it'd be Andy Burnham.
This country hasn't been sane for a long time though, so its anyones guess. As these things tend to go, it won't be one of the names presently being touted. The Labour Party will no doubt find a way to do something completely hatstand.
Starmer has to go.
Sooner the better as there is still time to turn things around before the GE. I think Labour losing the by election coming up will seal his fate. He's not a bad man (Starmer) but he's not upto being PM in the chaotic world we currently live in.
We, and the political media, have become far too accustomed to the 'disposable PM' culture we've 'enjoyed' for the past couple of decades. All the parties act as if febrile plotting is the only way to conduct business.
For once, I'd like a PM with a majority in the hundreds to act like it, rather than spending most of his time trying to appease party factions and satisfy right wing news outlets.
Starmer has let the rot set in, he is a massive disappointment as PM, mainly because he has been persuaded by the likes of McSweeney that he was vulnerable from the outset. He had a vast majority, the opposition in total disarray, and could have focused entirely on repairing the damage of the austerity years and Brexit. Instead he chose to appease the far-right.
The problem is not whether Starmer has to go, it's the complete lack of anything more useful in those lining up to succeed him. Which will just mean we get a Labour May, Truss and Sunak in quick succession.
EDIT: Why are we talking about Burnham as a straight replacement for Starmer? He's not an MP, and unlikely to become one imminently unless someone in a very safe Labour seat chose to make way for him. Otherwise he would have to be put in the HoL to serve as PM. Starmer clearly does not favour him, so is not going to hang on to provide the necessary time to get him into place to succeed.
The problem is not whether Starmer has to go, it's the complete lack of anything more useful in those lining up to succeed him. Which will just mean we get a Labour May, Truss and Sunak in quick succession.
Unfortunately, I think you're absolutely on the money with that statement.
Who is there to take over who would do things significantly differently? Wes Streeting?
The Labour Party will rue the day it stopped Burnham standing in the Gorton by-election. It was their only realistic lifeline and they set fire to it.
It's utterly insane that we're looking at the death throes of a lame duck of a government, 18 months after coming to power with an absolutely massive majority. Quite some achievement
If we're going to have "tried and failed miserably to be leader before" candidates, can we have Clive Lewis? He'll only get about 30 MPs to vote for him, but at least I'll have someone to nod along and agree with at hustings.
Given the mis-steps up to this point. I fully expect Starmer to call a snap general election as a referendum on his leadership.
For once, I'd like a PM with a majority in the hundreds to act like it, rather than spending most of his time trying to appease party factions and satisfy right wing news outlets.
Starmer has let the rot set in, he is a massive disappointment as PM, mainly because he has been persuaded by the likes of McSweeney that he was vulnerable from the outset. He had a vast majority, the opposition in total disarray, and could have focused entirely on repairing the damage of the austerity years and Brexit. Instead he chose to appease the far-right.
This. And the thing is, if Starmer grew a pair now, he'd get more support from within the party, and he's got time to start to make enough positive changes to get voters to get behind him before the next election.
Chopping and changing 3rd rate leaders won't save the government*, better a 2nd rate PM stepping up.
We, and the political media, have become far too accustomed to the 'disposable PM' culture we've 'enjoyed' for the past couple of decades. All the parties act as if febrile plotting is the only way to conduct business.
The media are certainly addicted to this sort of crap, Chris Mason could barely contain his excitement. Constantly changing PM every couple of years is a miserable way of behaving.
The Labour Party will rue the day it stopped Burnham standing in the Gorton by-election.
I'd bet 50p that Burnham would just become the 6th most hated PM, in a succession of 'most hated PMs'
Could go in a number of threads... but the Media Show on Radio4 now has Jim Pickard (FT) talking about the Epstein files, with particular attention to Mandelson...
Available on catch up now. Well worth a listen.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002qtf2
Constantly changing PM every couple of years is a miserable way of behaving.
If they were less crap, they wouldn't keep losing their job. I reckon Starmer is Labour's Theresa May: honestly committed to public service, but hamstrung by a tin ear.
The media are certainly addicted to this sort of crap, Chris Mason could barely contain his excitement. Constantly changing PM every couple of years is a miserable way of behaving.
The 'Westminster Bubble' is now like some sort of alternative universe. It's so detached from peoples real lives, it's like a medieval court.
The trouble is that they ignore the wider impact of this on society. For example, the local elections are in May and our labour councilors are a really good group of people who do a great job in challenging circumstances. But come May they will doubtless be swept away and replaced by some bunch of racist ****wits from Reform. We will all be worse off for that and it's entirely the fault of this government.
The disconnect between the MP's and their constituency parties and constituents is now absolute.
Chopping and changing 3rd rate leaders won't save the government*, better a 2nd rate PM stepping up.
Agreed. Giving the country a new untested PM chosen by the party without asking the voters what they think will just add to the feeling that "it's just like the Tory years". But what's Starmer's first steps if he's going to start "stepping up"? Most of the big stuff is going to take years (as he was saying before the election), what big significant move do people want him to make? He can buy some time from Labour MPs by dropping McSweeney, but that'll mean nothing to most of the voting public beyond signifying infighting. What can be delivered for the public this year to turn things around? And if you think Starmer should step down, what could a successor do to quickly turn things around? Everything meaningful and robust takes time... and the public (and the media) have the patience of kids waiting to open their Christmas presents.
And if you think Starmer should step down, what could a successor do to quickly turn things around?
I know this is the mantra of the self professed grown up pragmatists who know that they are far superior to the plebs but it really is bollocks.
What people expect to see is a plan and some signs of moving towards that plan. Those big items simply havent been started.
Whereas what we get from new new labour is some small plasters applied to cuts which whilst beneficial ignore the several compound fractures entirely.
Adult Social care is a good example.
Planning another where the "strategy" seems to be to do mostly what the large house building companies want.
Very good points about the media frothing themselves senseless at the idea of a PM/government falling.
Speculation isn't reporting. And however shit and disappointing this government have been so far, destabilising them for clicks and likes impacts the country and economy.
What can the givernment do to get people on board? Tell the right to go **** themselves, it will be more popular than people realise. The Greens and the Lib Dems have figured it out.
Tax the rich. Invest in affordable quality social housing on brownfield sites. Potentially ban developers from building new executive homes until we are hitting social housing targets. Give families stable housing to put down roots.
Invest in early years, education/training, and justice to focus on rehabilitation. Lets break that cycle of poor choices through lack of support and education.
Lots of practical issues to overcome. The people working in these areas know how to do that.
It isn't the media and voters, it is Starmer and the right wing cabal running labour, blaming anyone and everyone else is just shifting the blame from where it lies.
I think there is more talent in the labour party than there is given credit for, despite the Starmer projects attempts to stifle it, it is the PLP that forced them to abandon at least some of the worst of their right wing policies. The PLP need to be strong, Streeting (who is just another mandelson acolite) and Mahmood need to go as well.
can we have Clive Lewis?
I would love Clive Lewis to be right at the heart of what comes next but I think a leadership bid at this time would probably ruin his career. He would be another Corbyn attacked from within, worked against by the party structure. That is perhaps the biggest challenge, someone strong enough to deal with the right wing currently at the heart of the party, who have used every tool at their disposal to shape the party in their image without swinging to authoritarianism in a different guise.
Centrism should be about finding economic balance, allowing true innovation and hard work to be rewarded while ensuring nobody is left behind, that education and health care is universal, that rights are protected, that the environment is protected for future generations, that everyone can afford to live a reasonable life without fear of economic ruin being out of their control, that the aims of equality for all is baked into our society.
But that isn't what "centrism" as a political project is delivering, currently is is nothing but PR falsely selling traditional right wing politics of the trickle down lie as a new way, while blaming the poor, immigrants and the different for its failures.
The voters don't expect immediate results, that's just an excuse trotted out to not change. They need to know there is a plan of action that will bring benefits to the whole of society and not just the few, they need hope that things will improve, that it is worth working towards the future in hope rather than fear.
Go on then, sell your plan for the future that delivers nothing today to the voting public. You'll be as popular as this PM. Blame the news cycle, blame social media, blame the call of the populists... but whatever the causes a large proportion of voters want to hear things will be fixed quickly and have no interest in plans that take time. I'll give an example... using "hotels" to house asylum seekers... the government plan was to reduce processing times and prepare other sites to enable hotel use to be phased out by the end of this parliament... that is painted simply as "inaction" and the voters buy it... DO IT NOW is what the government is told. You can apply that to plans to reduce NHS waiting times... nationalising rail... green energy transition... upgrading the grid.. rebuilding trading arrangements... protecting workers, tenants, leaseholders... or anything else. Having a plan, showing progress... none of it gets though to many of the public who want a politician to say something, and to see the impact straight away.
I follow politics a bit and read the chat on here once in a while from a distance.
Yes this is a very terrible thing, but in the wider context the way the media "bay for blood" , try and be first on the next big story. The next big story maybe a "might" happen ,but put out of context for views clicks and big headlines etc.
The Burnham story when it first broke was a case in pont...about 3 or 4 things that "might" happen were headline news for a few days and further undermine a PM .
In the wider context.
No wonder we get second rate PMs , who would want to.do an impossible job?
The media will hunt you 24hrs a day ..7 days a week. Chip chip away at you .
What a way to run a country.
A.few people do rise to rhe challenge but not many. The best people go into Industry?
Further thoughts are that Nigel Farage will sidestep leadership at some point to one of his new appointments to duck the responsibilities, he will not cope at all in my view .
My belief is the media is storing a load of stuff ready to pounce at the right time for him anyway t (probably we'll deserved tba for him!l
Again in the wider context ....
What a FUBAR .
Edit: The way some tv journalists "glow " when it goes pear-shaped is terrible too.
They love it!
The News Agents podcast has a recent episode on whether the UK has become ungovernable. I didn't agree with everything the academic was saying but I was an interesting listen.
none of it gets though to a public who want a politician to say something, and to see the impact straight away.
You keep saying this as your religious mantra.
The fact is peoples opinions right now short of rioting/general strikes etc are pretty irrelevant.
The government doesnt have to respond immediately to everything. What they can do is show a plan and get it sufficiently underway that prior to the next GE people get to see the impact.
The current government is doing the exact opposite. They should have had some plans ready to go and they shouldnt be obviously flailing around and over responding to the unpatriotic right wing press barons.
The "hotels" are actually a great example because, in case you didnt notice, that is one where the government has responded pretty quickly but then had the right wing loons change the rules. Which shows the problem with having the right wing press barons control the agenda.
The issue with Starmer for Labour MPs and Government (putting actual policy to one side for a moment) is lack of judgement and poor communication skills. These are basically two of the 3 skills that a PM needs - the third being the intellect to cope with the incredible wide brief. Looking at the string of failed PMs you can see where each has catastrophically lacked at least one of these key skills and it did for them.
Back to Starmer, the Mandelson thing is the lack of judgement failing writ big - cumulative on top of all the policy u-turns - this is why I think Starmer is probably toast
I think the question is whether the PLP go now or after an electoral disaster in May.
The "hotels" are actually a great example because, in case you didnt notice, that is one where the government has responded pretty quickly but then had the right wing loons change the rules.
That pressure doesn't just come from "the right wing loons"... a major part of reducing NHS waiting times is restoring pay levels for staff... that has begun... it'll take years to complete. "WHY ISN'T IT FINISHED?" On all policy areas, steady plans get no recognition, just a shrug of "you should be doing that anyway". This isn't just a problem of right wing media and populist politicians, the tendency to ignore long term renewal programmes is a problem across the political spectrum of voters.
Which shows the problem with having the right wing press barons control the agenda.
As I said, we can blame the media, social media, the pressure from populist grifters... but that doesn't make the problem go away. I don't have answers here... and I agree that Starmer doesn't either... or expect any successor to. Or anyone here to. It a rhetorical question really. When the fixes are slow and longer term, how do you curry political favour in the shorter term to remain in power? Without going full Trump with men in fatigues oppressing the "others" that is. What is the progressive answer?
I think long term renewal works with the public if there isn't a constant stream of misstep and u-turns constantly drawing attention. Yesterday's cancer plan announcement gets swamped by Mandelson scandal is a case in point
When the fixes are slow and longer term, how do you curry political favour in the shorter term to remain in power?
The key one is on day one you have some significant plans in place which will start to show benefits within four and a half years. Ideally some within two for midterm council elections. The entire point of five year terms is that you can afford to be unpopular for a bit.
What you dont want to do though is throw in some badly thought out ideas which are intended for short term appeal and then you have to walk back.
Which ultimately is the problem with Starmer and co. All their short term showy ideas have been either poorly sold or just been shit.
The media reaction helps create "reactive" politics?
So u turns etc and advance leaked info to see reactions etc. Not a way to govern strongly.
The public are not fools and get fed up with it as well.
Temu Starmer. 🤣 Good one.
Burnham can't be worse than Starmer.
I'm not buying that.
Starmer has to go not because he's useless (he is) but they need to clear out this legacy now. They need a yard sale and quickly.
Whomever replaces him is not worth debating currently.
Burnham is worse because he is not as clever. Starmer is crap at politic optics mind you. Burnham has not a principle in his body.
When the fixes are slow and longer term, how do you curry political favour in the shorter term to remain in power?
And that's when you look back at everyone's favourite demon, Tony Blair, and ask the question: How did he do it? His government delivered tangible improvements in the NHS by implementing a 10-year-plan.
The answer was mainly 'ride on the back of an economic recovery to invest in public services'.
That's the main difference, (aside from Starmer's awkwardness and inability to communicate effectively compared with Blair).
And why his first act with a massive majority should have been to use that authority to start marching rather than edging towards restoring our relationship with the EU. That is the key to economic recovery, and without it, you can put out all the NHS plans you want, but you can't actually fund them.
Instead, he listens to people like McSweeney who tilt him further rightwards to appease the dwindling mob of idiots or opportunists who think Brexit was a great idea.
He is timid, and it is that overcaution that stops him speaking clearly to the country, ignoring the squawking from the right-wing media, and getting on with the job. It may cost him his job in the end.
the thing is I still don't know who will replace him
It's obviously got to be Rayner. Yes, she has major problems, but she's the only one with distance from Mandelson (I hope!) to make it work. And she's the only one with the radical policy agenda to turn around the polls, even if that is a remote prospect. Burnham would have been better, but Starmer and McSweeney ensured that wouldn't happen out of spite. Just another example of Starmer's terrible judgement.
And now he's on the news making a speech about communities like an ostrich with his head in the sand. And I still can't believe there are some on here who still support him. Seems they have the same political nous as Starmer and his advisors.
Good riddance to him when he finally goes.
I think that's a good analysis Martin... so... what does Starmer or a successor propose?
I have nothing that offers short term answers... but additional long term plans that a large proportion of the public might get behind, assuming early steps can happen soon...
Water nationalisation. Explicit plan for much closer ties with the EU.
It's obviously got to be Rayner.
I think so. I don't agree Burnham would be better. Or that Labour MPs really wanted him other than because he'd have pushed for a leadership battle. Others would have stepped in once that had happened, looking all "loyal to the party not doing this for selfish reasons". Burnham was being played by Rayner and others. Using his ambition for their own ends. He'd have lost, again. There's no real reason to believe it would be third time lucky. Yes, he's rightly very popular in the NW, but so...? A likely Rayner/Streeting run off was always on the cards. Freezing Burnham out of parliament just stopped/delayed that run off.
Interesting legal take on Mandelson over how hard it will be to get a conviction.
https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/news/2026/february/peter-mandelson/
(Im awaiting the YouTube to drop from my fave legal commentator to see what he has to say.)
I like Rayner. Starmer allowing her to be removed by the media over pretty much nothing was another badge of weakness for him. Perhaps the likes of McSweeney thought it benefited him for her to go. It did not.
But him allowing that to happen rather than backing her and keeping her in post makes it much harder for her to rise again, and I would have thought PM is too far for her right now.
Ironically, setting that kind of misdemeanour as the benchmark for resignation does him no favours now.
Who does that leave? I'm scratching my head. There are plenty of people who would put themselves forward. All of them fairly mediocre.
Burnham is a good communicator/campaigner. He has a veneer of competence via the Manchester mayor job. No idea how deep that runs. He wisely stepped away to do the 'King in the North' thing while the party was having its previous spasm. But this opportunity may have come about too suddenly for him, given his situation.
Who does that leave? I'm scratching my head.
No one. She is the only option unless they want to go for the wild cards of Shabana Mahmood (jesus! Imagine that!) or Al Cairns. Streeting is done, he's even more compromised by Mandelson than Starmer. All the others have either too much baggage, are too old, or are so mediocre no one has any idea who they are.
He wisely stepped away to do the 'King in the North' thing while the party was having its previous spasm.
After losing two leadership campaigns. Yes, he was wise to make himself a new career away from parliament. And IMHO he's done his job well on the whole (with a bit of shying away from some difficult measures thrown in). But this returning hero line... he's tried to be leader twice... it wasn't happening... he's made the most of it... but the idea he can now just stroll back into parliament and become PM.... hmm...
or are so mediocre no one has any idea who they are.
I had to google Al Carns. 🙂
What's Dan Jarvis up to these days..... 🙂 😉 ?
Rayner is the subject of an ongoing HMRC investigation. She can't run for leader.
Theres absolutely loads of labour MPs from the new intake, theres gotta be some good ines in there
Isn't the point to just be better than Starmer? Plus reset of Labour to where it should be.
Rayner is the subject of an ongoing HMRC investigation. She can't run for leader.
Everything I've read about this suggests she'll be cleared. I thought she had been already to be honest. She should never have had to resign in the first place. Another political cockup by Starmer and his idiot advisors.
And why his first act with a massive majority should have been to use that authority to start marching rather than edging towards restoring our relationship with the EU
But also raises the not inconsiderable problem of it being incompatible with y'know, actual democracy.
I genuinely think whoever replaces Starmer will fail just as rapidly, and will become the 6th in line as 'most hated PM' the press are addicted to this world now- where scandal and anger makes for clicks and advertising revenue, and every day needs to be the next scandal. It's why Farage gets treated like a rock-star and every utterance is met with fawning coverage, and why falling immigration numbers, increased removals, closing of 400 hotels for immigrant housing, lifting ban of wind farms, lifting planning restrictions to actually build houses, teacher recruitment, breakfast clubs, lifting of the 2 child cap and all the other myraid things that people said they actually wanted, and have happened, don't get a look in anywhere.
The media will hunt you 24hrs a day ..7 days a week. Chip chip away at you .
World at One, Radio4, they just played 4 or 5 “questions” from different journalists asked of Starmer, without playing the replies. Literally making the story about the journalists chipping away, without even airing the attempts to respond to them.
don't get a look in anywhere
Anything that gets done by this government is filed under ‘well, any government should be doing this anyway’, ignoring the opposition to all those measures from Reform and the Tories.
Still, this Mandelson mess up is on Starmer. It’s a real story, with poor judgment at the heart of it.
But also raises the not inconsiderable problem of it being incompatible with y'know, actual democracy.
The voters a decade ago said we should leave the EU, not sure that covers the way that we left. It's clear that it has totally failed, the US is not riding to our rescue, to put it mildly, and we don't have to fully rejoin to undo some of the damage.
Laggy site double post.