Best Of

These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.

"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

The reason this has happened is

a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.

What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.

1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
2. Go for PR
3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

All popular, big, and easy to describe.

He has said no PR this side of a GE.

How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?

Meanwhile this - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/nhs-hospital-nottinham-inquiry-baby-deaths-kj99rx3lw - will be familiar to Burnham from his time in Health. What's his plan to deal with these sorts of widespread scandals? A reminder: a Parliamentary Commission recently pointed out that good maternity care was the exception rather than the rule in Britain.

Maternity scandals are the rule rather than the exception in the UK.

I understand that the annual cost of litigation over maternity exceeds the annual cost of all maternity units. In part this is because of the lifetime cost of disability, but even so an astonishing figure.

Not unique to the UK, indeed the US figures are pretty appalling too, so to a degree Obstetrics is intrinsically high risk.

But there is an underlying issue between midwives and obstetricians in the UK over responsibility that goes back further than Wendy Savage in the Eighties. I think there is fault on both sides but a fundamental difference in culture.

There also has been neglect of services because there are few government targets apart from pressure to reduce section rates.

I find it shocking that something so fundamentally important as the start of new life is treated so neglectfully.

It is in large part because of a fundamental clash between high tech interventionist medicine and female centrered "natural childbirth" philosophies held by many midwives and mothers. Being a philosophical, almost theological conflict, it tips into war very quickly.

There is no easy answer to these issues and a lot of departments have very poor teamworking as a result. In particular there is an tension between unnessecary caesarian sections, and the obstetrician only being called in when the baby is in dire straits.

This has been the case for decades and is one reason that I am not an obstetrician. I couldn't work in that sort of environment.

Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.

He lasted longer than Rishi...

Not exactly a hard thing to have done considering Rishi was at the end of a terrible period of Johnsonism, Trussism, Covid, Ukraine and had a limited time due to a looming GE.

It’s even more embarrassing for Starmer that he had a ridiculous majority, an improving economy, changes in immigration laws passed by the last government and has still managed to fail completely.

Starmer had by far the worst economic inheritance of any new PM since 1945.

Sunak’s inheritance was far worse than Starmer’s. Sunak and Hunt had started steadying the ship. Sunak inherited the Truss clusterfuck on top of Covid and Ukraine.

All Sunak and Hunt did was cook the books.

Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.

He lasted longer than Rishi...

Not exactly a hard thing to have done considering Rishi was at the end of a terrible period of Johnsonism, Trussism, Covid, Ukraine and had a limited time due to a looming GE.

It’s even more embarrassing for Starmer that he had a ridiculous majority, an improving economy, changes in immigration laws passed by the last government and has still managed to fail completely.

Starmer had by far the worst economic inheritance of any new PM since 1945.

Hahahahaha. Sorry. I thought for a moment you were being serious.

Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.

He lasted longer than Rishi...

Not exactly a hard thing to have done considering Rishi was at the end of a terrible period of Johnsonism, Trussism, Covid, Ukraine and had a limited time due to a looming GE.

It’s even more embarrassing for Starmer that he had a ridiculous majority, an improving economy, changes in immigration laws passed by the last government and has still managed to fail completely.

Starmer had by far the worst economic inheritance of any new PM since 1945.

Sunak’s inheritance was far worse than Starmer’s. Sunak and Hunt had started steadying the ship. Sunak inherited the Truss clusterfuck on top of Covid and Ukraine.

I detest Burnham and fear him far more than Starmer in terms of the damage he could do to the country.

But, if there is not going to be a contest and Burnham is the new leader to be, then Starmer should resign on 22nd July, the day Parliament rises for the summer recess. I say this for the good of the country. Burnham will need time to get his house in order before he has to face Parliament. He will then have time to get his head round the financial sitation and the issues with various departments - especially defence - before he comes back with a programme in the Autumn. He shoudl reshuffle his cabinet as much as he sees necessary as soon as possible and then cancel holidays for his Ministers and get them working on his programme through the summer.

Like I say I detest him but right now I want him to do well as the country needs proper leadership and a proper, thought out programme for Government.

Oh and he should sack Miliband (although of course he won't)

He could make Milliband Foreign Secretary. Lots of private jet travel (a personal fave pastime) and signing things in gilded halls, and in theory a more senior job. And gets him the fuck away from DESNZ. If he refuses, he can be safely packed off to the back benches.

That would be a clever move. Putting Ed in a position where he can't avoid taking a lot of flights, lol.

These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.