Best Of

Steven Swinford
@Steven_Swinford
Where we are tonight:

* Sir Keir Starmer is weighing up his future after cabinet ministers called on him to quit and make way for Andy Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister

* While publicly he insists he will fight on, privately his position is said to be ‘nuanced’. He will make up his mind about whether to fight on this weekend after speaking to his wife and family

* Starmer is considering his position after a series of what one aide described as “brutal” conversations with cabinet ministers. Heidi Alexander was said to have been “direct” with Starmer about his unpopularity

* Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, is also said to have pressed Starmer to set out a timeline for his departure during a one-to-one meeting. A spokeswoman for Cooper declined to comment

https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2068065592561557542

He won't fight. He's just making it clear how unhappy he is about being ousted so any comments about supporting Burnham later will be clear lies.

Maybe Andy Burnham is the figure that can finally unite the country. He deserves a chance at that.

Since when did we expect it to be the job of politicians to unite people rather than to govern effectively?

Churchill?

Degrees of uniting people. There's the "All behind you, Winston" of the David Low cartoon. Wartime Churchill probably was the last PM to manage that, and that's probably for the best... You need wartime for that degree of unity to work.

What's more alarming is the lack of "loyal opposition to an acknowledged PM" thing. One of the questions Starmer has never successfully answered is how to respond to the "you're not my REAL PM" from the Kevins to his left and right. Then again, neither did Sunak or May. Truss didn't have time to be asked that. Johnson could initially point to his huge majority, but that effect didn't last. And then we're back to Cameron.

Looking forward, it's pretty easy to see how the strange structure of Burnham's mandate would come back to bite him if things turn sour.

You could say that's a character failure of their leadership. Fair enough, but it's not obvious who the better-but-cruelly-denied Prime Ministers We Never Had were. Some of what we've seen is also a failure of followership, I suspect because society has atomised. And that's going to be much harder to fix.

But this at least was definitely and unequivocally of Starmer's own doing. Every previous Prime Minister acknowledged they were Prime Minister for everyone whether they voted for them or not. The Presidents of France explicitly say the same. But no, Starmer said he was Prime Minister for those who voted for him and the rest of us were "Free to Leave". Well Keir, the time has come and you are free to leave, the most despised leader this country has had since 1689. Don't lose you seal in the Thames on your way out !

and that comment was addressed at the labour party and it's members not the whole country

Maybe Andy Burnham is the figure that can finally unite the country. He deserves a chance at that.

Since when did we expect it to be the job of politicians to unite people rather than to govern effectively?

Churchill?

Degrees of uniting people. There's the "All behind you, Winston" of the David Low cartoon. Wartime Churchill probably was the last PM to manage that, and that's probably for the best... You need wartime for that degree of unity to work.

What's more alarming is the lack of "loyal opposition to an acknowledged PM" thing. One of the questions Starmer has never successfully answered is how to respond to the "you're not my REAL PM" from the Kevins to his left and right. Then again, neither did Sunak or May. Truss didn't have time to be asked that. Johnson could initially point to his huge majority, but that effect didn't last. And then we're back to Cameron.

Looking forward, it's pretty easy to see how the strange structure of Burnham's mandate would come back to bite him if things turn sour.

You could say that's a character failure of their leadership. Fair enough, but it's not obvious who the better-but-cruelly-denied Prime Ministers We Never Had were. Some of what we've seen is also a failure of followership, I suspect because society has atomised. And that's going to be much harder to fix.

But this at least was definitely and unequivocally of Starmer's own doing. Every previous Prime Minister acknowledged they were Prime Minister for everyone whether they voted for them or not. The Presidents of France explicitly say the same. But no, Starmer said he was Prime Minister for those who voted for him and the rest of us were "Free to Leave". Well Keir, the time has come and you are free to leave, the most despised leader this country has had since 1689. Don't lose you seal in the Thames on your way out !

@A_View_From_Cumbria5 You are so disingenuous it is unbelievable. You are not a member of the Labour Party. He wasn’t talking to you or anyone else but instead suggesting those in the Labour Party - most of whom DID vote for him - were free to leave THE LABOUR PARTY.

https://pa.media/blogs/fact-check/fact-check-sir-keir-starmer-told-labour-members-the-door-is-open-to-leave/

Please retract this rubbish or post evidence that he said what he did. He’s a poor PM but the fact you have to make up bullshit shows you’re a terrible poster.

Turkey out after failing to score against a 10 men Paraguay in the second half.

Rather bizarre red card explained here:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-20/world-cup-laws-paraguay-miguel-almirón-sent-off-covering-mouth/106823206?utm_source=Bluesky&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=bluesky_news.abc.net.au

I quite like 10 seconds for substituted players to get off the pitch and 5 seconds for goal kicks and throw ins.

Can't footballers just learn to speak without moving their lips to circumvent that rule ?

Team ventriloquism coaches are surely on the horizon.

No evidence a player has been called a "gottle of geer"...

Only a matter of time.

Only a gatter og gine.