It's still "the economy, stupid". I wouldn't be surprised to see some crude cash giveaway to voters, from the pot of collected tariff money, in the run up to November.
And he's still only just underwater with white voters, who clearly aren't paying attention
Given he’s already said he is planning to do it you are hardly Mystic Meg preciting it.
Miliband and value are incongruent. As is Rayner. No value to.the electorate.. in fact the exact opposite. God knows what QEII would have thought if she had still been alive.
Ed Miliband returned as Labour leader would be a dream scenario for the Tories and Reform, albeit less so for the Greens
True, they'd be able to relax back into dogwhistle anti-semitism as well
Reform as well as Galloway's and Corbyn's respective Islamists parties are competing on those grounds though.
On topic. Should I write off my bet on Bridget Phillipson as the next Labour PM (16/1)?
Yes, that bet is a Bridget too far, the deputy leadership contest showed how unpopular she is.
An alternative view might be the Deputy election was a proxy confidence vote on Starmer and so has limited forecasting value. Phillipson has been getting a lot of stick in the Telegraph for closing private schools but perhaps that is the sort of thing that might go down well with Labour members. She is also in the news this week for wanting to ban phones from classrooms.
As with Ed Miliband, you might not like what she is doing but at least she is doing something.
The DL contest was closer than most predicted. I wouldn't write her off.
From 25th - 26th January Changes with 19th January
Not much change in all honesty.
But worth noting that if YouGov is broadly correct recently - which of course is rather unknowable - nothing much at all can be said about General Election prospects as it is all too close.
It will be particularly interesting to see how the May elections fit in which which pollsters. It could quite informative. As the current situation ranges from 'Reform look unbeatable, extinction looms for the establishment' (Leon) to 'They are all bunched closely together with over 3 years to go and Reform are filling up with wasters' (me) there is a lot at stake, even more important than my pocket money.
Thank God that electing a Labour government with a massive majority has meant we've left behind the endless instability and personality-based psychodramas of the Tory years.
How often have big majorities meant stability? Only Blair, Boris and Starmer in my lifetime - one out of three - so I will have to defer to others for the long view.
Thatcher and Blair certainly proved it
Oh dear - apparently I am old enough for a Senior Moment - forgetting Thatcher! Though I was a child at the time, I suppose.
How stable a government was the Thatcher one post 83? She faced the Miners’ Strike, the Westland affair, the abandonment of monetarism, a financial panic, the splits over Europe, the psychodramas of Howe, Heseltine and Lawson, and the poll tax.
Yes with hindsight we know she surmounted all but the last one, but it’s easy to be wise with hindsight and I doubt if it felt so stable at the time.
You're right; it didn't feel particularly stable at the time. In addition to your excellent list, we also had both unemployment and interest rates averaging around 10% for most of the 80s. I remember it vividly as quite a torrid time for many people.
Thank God that electing a Labour government with a massive majority has meant we've left behind the endless instability and personality-based psychodramas of the Tory years.
How often have big majorities meant stability? Only Blair, Boris and Starmer in my lifetime - one out of three - so I will have to defer to others for the long view.
Thatcher and Blair certainly proved it
Oh dear - apparently I am old enough for a Senior Moment - forgetting Thatcher! Though I was a child at the time, I suppose.
How stable a government was the Thatcher one post 83? She faced the Miners’ Strike, the Westland affair, the abandonment of monetarism, a financial panic, the splits over Europe, the psychodramas of Howe, Heseltine and Lawson, and the poll tax.
Yes with hindsight we know she surmounted all but the last one, but it’s easy to be wise with hindsight and I doubt if it felt so stable at the time.
You're right; it didn't feel particularly stable at the time. In addition to your excellent list, we also had both unemployment and interest rates averaging around 10% for most of the 80s. I remember it vividly as quite a torrid time for many people.
It's still "the economy, stupid". I wouldn't be surprised to see some crude cash giveaway to voters, from the pot of collected tariff money, in the run up to November.
And he's still only just underwater with white voters, who clearly aren't paying attention
Given he’s already said he is planning to do it you are hardly Mystic Meg preciting it.
Given the humungous budget deficit the USA has it would be utterly insane to do.
I'd admire Ed M is still in the hunt for being PM after nearly 20 years in politcs and losing a GE, but have his qualities improved in the last 10 years to make him a better prospect for them?
It's the qualities of those around him that count.
If Labour led by Miliband achieved just over 30% of the vote at the next GE, as they did in 2015, they would be delighted.
Given that they're currently 10pp behind in the polls, even losing by the ~7pp margin of 2015 would be an improvement.
Labour are just 4% behind Reform in today's Yougov
From 25th - 26th January Changes with 19th January
Not much change in all honesty.
Starmer will be pleased with that I suspect, Labour up 2% in a poll largely taken after the Burnham blocking. The Tory defections to Reform not done much for Farage, Reform up 1% but Labour closed the gap with Reform to just 4%.
Bad poll for Kemi, the Tories now just 1% ahead of the Greens and with the LDs also closer to the Tories than the Tories are to Labour with Yougov.
It's another poll that would seem to suggest that the decline in the Reform share has halted. If there are more defections in the weeks ahead then we could see Reform rebuild their vote share going in to the May elections.
From Labour maybe but Tory defections to Reform have done nothing to increase Reform's lead over Labour, if anything they have shrunk it
From 25th - 26th January Changes with 19th January
Not much change in all honesty.
But worth noting that if YouGov is broadly correct recently - which of course is rather unknowable - nothing much at all can be said about General Election prospects as it is all too close.
It will be particularly interesting to see how the May elections fit in which which pollsters. It could quite informative. As the current situation ranges from 'Reform look unbeatable, extinction looms for the establishment' (Leon) to 'They are all bunched closely together with over 3 years to go and Reform are filling up with wasters' (me) there is a lot at stake, even more important than my pocket money.
Votes cast in 2022/23/24 by elections gave lie to the mid to high 40% VI for Labour at the time, so your pint about the May elections is a good one. All the evidence was there for a low turnout/low winning percentage election at the last GE. Unfortunately, I just laid Labour rather than sell turnout and Labour %
Off topic, but didn't anyone else watch last night's Panorama update on the Post Office scandal. Only half an hour but it did suggest that ere long some of the former top people in the Post Office are going to be questioned in Court about what they knew and what they did. Paula Vennels in particular had better get herself down to the consultant who gave evidence all those years ago in defence of Ernest Saunders ..... the only man, it was said, to have recovered from Alzheimers.
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
I think a shellacking would only strengthen the NEC's excuse to stop a Mayoral by-election (and probably makes the Parliamentary by-election even riskier for Burnham). Parties on the ropes tend to seek to minimise their exposure to the electorate.
The consensus seems to be that Reform or Greens will win Gorton and relegate labour to 3rd, thereby causing fury in labour
I would just suggest that if labour manage to hold on, then Starmer will be hailed a genius and his position is enhanced
I know it is unlikely but stranger things have happened
The one thing we can say it is a high stake election
I agree that Labour could hold on in D&G, but I doubt Starmer will be given the credit if that does happen. That's just not the way the world works for him. He could discover cold fusion and see his ratings drop as a try-too-hard nerd.
Thank God that electing a Labour government with a massive majority has meant we've left behind the endless instability and personality-based psychodramas of the Tory years.
How often have big majorities meant stability? Only Blair, Boris and Starmer in my lifetime - one out of three - so I will have to defer to others for the long view.
Thatcher and Blair certainly proved it
Oh dear - apparently I am old enough for a Senior Moment - forgetting Thatcher! Though I was a child at the time, I suppose.
How stable a government was the Thatcher one post 83? She faced the Miners’ Strike, the Westland affair, the abandonment of monetarism, a financial panic, the splits over Europe, the psychodramas of Howe, Heseltine and Lawson, and the poll tax.
Yes with hindsight we know she surmounted all but the last one, but it’s easy to be wise with hindsight and I doubt if it felt so stable at the time.
You're right; it didn't feel particularly stable at the time. In addition to your excellent list, we also had both unemployment and interest rates averaging around 10% for most of the 80s. I remember it vividly as quite a torrid time for many people.
The 1980s were completely feral.
'Loadsamoney' was a 'hero', IIRC.
The eighties was the crucible in which modern Britain was forged, for good or ill.
Thank God that electing a Labour government with a massive majority has meant we've left behind the endless instability and personality-based psychodramas of the Tory years.
How often have big majorities meant stability? Only Blair, Boris and Starmer in my lifetime - one out of three - so I will have to defer to others for the long view.
Thatcher and Blair certainly proved it
Oh dear - apparently I am old enough for a Senior Moment - forgetting Thatcher! Though I was a child at the time, I suppose.
How stable a government was the Thatcher one post 83? She faced the Miners’ Strike, the Westland affair, the abandonment of monetarism, a financial panic, the splits over Europe, the psychodramas of Howe, Heseltine and Lawson, and the poll tax.
Yes with hindsight we know she surmounted all but the last one, but it’s easy to be wise with hindsight and I doubt if it felt so stable at the time.
You're right; it didn't feel particularly stable at the time. In addition to your excellent list, we also had both unemployment and interest rates averaging around 10% for most of the 80s. I remember it vividly as quite a torrid time for many people.
The 1980s were completely feral.
'Loadsamoney' was a 'hero', IIRC.
The eighties was the crucible in which modern Britain was forged, for good or ill.
I treat YouGov with a high degree of scepticism as an outlier.
However I do instinctively think that this government will recover popularity and is slowly doing so.
I personally think this by-election is totally irrelevant to the long term prospects of the government. Just as I said after the Hartlepool by-election, to much laughter here.
From 25th - 26th January Changes with 19th January
Not much change in all honesty.
Central mystery of our times.
If YouGov are right, Labour are doing perfectly adequately for a mid-term government, and all this Change The Leader stuff is a mixture of panic in the ranks and selfish ambition amongst the officers.
If FoN are right, Labour are in pretty deep doodoo.
It's all about how they collect and read their runes, and right now it's impossible to tell who is doing it right.
Feels right. There just isn't too much to be angry about at the moment. Self assessed folk have just paid their tax and everything's rumbling along. Starmer seems a safe pair of hands and giving Trump a mauling last week did him no harm and seeing him shoulder to shoulder with Macron and Carney is what people like to see
Meanwhile Kemi doesn't feel like the answer to anything. Losing so many colleagues isn't impressive even if they were from the bottom of the barell. To be spurned by a bunch of misfits doesn't fill the voters with confidence
Which leaves Farage..... If he could have played his hand any worse than last week I can't think how. It s not quantity of recruit he needs but quality and that's exactly what he failed to get. Watching him cavort with Braverman was not for the faint hearted.
It's starting to look like the tortoise and the hare. If he can navigate the next few months he should be done and dusted
Thank God that electing a Labour government with a massive majority has meant we've left behind the endless instability and personality-based psychodramas of the Tory years.
How often have big majorities meant stability? Only Blair, Boris and Starmer in my lifetime - one out of three - so I will have to defer to others for the long view.
Thatcher and Blair certainly proved it
Oh dear - apparently I am old enough for a Senior Moment - forgetting Thatcher! Though I was a child at the time, I suppose.
How stable a government was the Thatcher one post 83? She faced the Miners’ Strike, the Westland affair, the abandonment of monetarism, a financial panic, the splits over Europe, the psychodramas of Howe, Heseltine and Lawson, and the poll tax.
Yes with hindsight we know she surmounted all but the last one, but it’s easy to be wise with hindsight and I doubt if it felt so stable at the time.
Re Thatcher
There was not the slightest question of a challenge, pre-poll tax. Hesletine’s performative flounce landed utterly flat.
This was because of deep loyalty in the party - even in the leadership election post poll tax, the party was largely still with her.
From 25th - 26th January Changes with 19th January
Not much change in all honesty.
But worth noting that if YouGov is broadly correct recently - which of course is rather unknowable - nothing much at all can be said about General Election prospects as it is all too close.
It will be particularly interesting to see how the May elections fit in which which pollsters. It could quite informative. As the current situation ranges from 'Reform look unbeatable, extinction looms for the establishment' (Leon) to 'They are all bunched closely together with over 3 years to go and Reform are filling up with wasters' (me) there is a lot at stake, even more important than my pocket money.
Nothing much can be said about GE prospects as it is many many months away and both our politics and the economy are incredibly volatile at the moment.
From 25th - 26th January Changes with 19th January
Not much change in all honesty.
Central mystery of our times.
If YouGov are right, Labour are doing perfectly adequately for a mid-term government, and all this Change The Leader stuff is a mixture of panic in the ranks and selfish ambition amongst the officers.
If FoN are right, Labour are in pretty deep doodoo.
It's all about how they collect and read their runes, and right now it's impossible to tell who is doing it right.
Feels right. There just isn't too much to be angry about at the moment. Self assessed folk have just paid their tax and everything's rumbling along. Starmer seems a safe pair of hands and giving Trump a mauling last week did him no harm and seeing him shoulder to shoulder with Macron and Carney is what people like to see
Meanwhile Kemi doesn't feel like the answer to anything. Losing so many colleagues isn't impressive even if they were from the bottom of the barell. To be spurned by a bunch of misfits doesn't fill the voters with confidence
Which leaves Farage..... If he could have played his hand any worse than last week I can't think how. It s not quantity of recruit he needs but quality and that's exactly what he failed to get. Watching him cavort with Braverman was not for the faint hearted.
It's starting to look like the tortoise and the hare. If he can navigate the next few months he should be done and dusted
Still in an even numbered hour then.
So in 10 minutes or so, you’ll be calling for Starmer to resign.
From 25th - 26th January Changes with 19th January
Not much change in all honesty.
Central mystery of our times.
If YouGov are right, Labour are doing perfectly adequately for a mid-term government, and all this Change The Leader stuff is a mixture of panic in the ranks and selfish ambition amongst the officers.
If FoN are right, Labour are in pretty deep doodoo.
It's all about how they collect and read their runes, and right now it's impossible to tell who is doing it right.
I guess that 'swingback', the idea that pretty much all governments will suffer in mid-term but recover closer to the election is one of those rules that is there to be broken. It certainly is possible that Labour will recover by enough to be comfortably largest party or even a Cameron style small majority. I think what mitigates against that is Starmer and his governments actual governing so far. He has been shown to be utterly devoid of ideas. It was all slogans, such as 'smash the gangs'. Well we are waiting for the gangs to be smashed, Keir. Not being the Tories was enough to get you into power, but that mandate which you seem so proud of was a massive artefact of a broken voting system not designed for multiparty politics.
Up to a point. Yes, gangs are largely unsmashed and homes unbuilt but slow and steady progress is being made on several fronts (and anaemic growth is the default state of the economy) so with three and a bit years before a summer 2029 election, it is not impossible Labour will recover to win again.
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
Swiss cheese model suggests a lot of holes to get through for ALL that to happen. The NEC don't give a shit - they showed that at the weekend. These are people in deep in the tribal politics of the left. They life for the fight. No, not the fight against the Tories, or Reform, the internal fights in their own party.
Yes, and that's why I was reasonably sure AB would not succeed SKS. There are, what six hurdles: - there being a by-election - AB having the balls to put himself forward for the by-election - the NEC acceding - Winning the by-election - Engineering a challenge for the leadership - Winning the leadership
But I have been surprised by the strength of feeling within the Labour Party that the NEC have made the wrong decision. I have become convinced that enough pressure will be applied. I'm convinced 1 can be re-engineered, and clearly there is no problem with 2. 4 will be tricky but not insurmountable and I'm sure 5 and 6 are relatively easy. 3 is the biggest, and arguably the only significant barrier. It is just a case for the not-SKS bloc - which is large - of applying enough pressure.
i.e. it was Swiss Cheese theory, but it isn't any more. It's simply a case of hammering the NEC nut hard enough - and last weekend was the start of that. The others can all line up fairly easily.
Do you have a vote in the GM Mayoral election @Cookie? If so, would you / did you vote for Burnham?
I treat YouGov with a high degree of scepticism as an outlier.
However I do instinctively think that this government will recover popularity and is slowly doing so.
I personally think this by-election is totally irrelevant to the long term prospects of the government. Just as I said after the Hartlepool by-election, to much laughter here.
I think that is rather optimistic in view of all the rumblings in labour at present, but if it is a poor result and then in May labour loses Wales, and underperforms in Scotland and the locals, Starmer is going to come under severe pressure
As far as the GE is concerned I do not believe anyone can be confident of the outcome - it is simply too far away
OT HMG just sent me a warning to check my passport is valid for my planned destination (although I've no plans to leave the country). Have we upset another bunch of foreigners over the weekend?
I offer this as a Labour Party nerd who studies the Party's rules. For a challenge to happen, Starmer has to have a huge proportion of his own Starmtroopers publicly oppose him, and given how their selections as candidates were stitched up, I can't see that happening. It would not be a Miliband or Streeting vs Starmer contest, because they'd have to resign from the Cabinet first, and they both like their ministerial limos too much and they both think they're doing too good a job to want to resign from it. So there won't be a challenge to Starmer per se; there can in practice only be an election if he creates a vacancy by resigning, presumably after disastrous results in May. Then there would be an open field, with Cabinet ministers and others slugging it out.
Off topic, but didn't anyone else watch last night's Panorama update on the Post Office scandal. Only half an hour but it did suggest that ere long some of the former top people in the Post Office are going to be questioned in Court about what they knew and what they did. Paula Vennels in particular had better get herself down to the consultant who gave evidence all those years ago in defence of Ernest Saunders ..... the only man, it was said, to have recovered from Alzheimers.
As a result of a train of thought engendered by my earlier comment I've been, albeit in Wikipedia, looking at the Guinness case and there's an ECHR judgement referred to which seems to suggest that those questioned elsewhere, such as at an Inquiry, cannot have those statements used in evidence against them in a criminal trial. IANAL, so I'm not competent to judge the effect on Vennels et al, but I would be interested in an informed opinion.
Thank God that electing a Labour government with a massive majority has meant we've left behind the endless instability and personality-based psychodramas of the Tory years.
How often have big majorities meant stability? Only Blair, Boris and Starmer in my lifetime - one out of three - so I will have to defer to others for the long view.
Thatcher and Blair certainly proved it
Oh dear - apparently I am old enough for a Senior Moment - forgetting Thatcher! Though I was a child at the time, I suppose.
How stable a government was the Thatcher one post 83? She faced the Miners’ Strike, the Westland affair, the abandonment of monetarism, a financial panic, the splits over Europe, the psychodramas of Howe, Heseltine and Lawson, and the poll tax.
Yes with hindsight we know she surmounted all but the last one, but it’s easy to be wise with hindsight and I doubt if it felt so stable at the time.
You're right; it didn't feel particularly stable at the time. In addition to your excellent list, we also had both unemployment and interest rates averaging around 10% for most of the 80s. I remember it vividly as quite a torrid time for many people.
The 1980s were completely feral.
'Loadsamoney' was a 'hero', IIRC.
The eighties was the crucible in which modern Britain was forged, for good or ill.
On current empirical evidence, we're pretty ill.
I'd say it is a mixed legacy overall. Ironically the greatest harm stems from the one piece of Thatcherite policy that we have cast aside, namely the creation of the EU single market.
Less than a week ago, I reported how Noem and Lewandowski had waged an ugly campaign to push out Rodney Scott, the head of CBP (which is over Border Patrol).
It seemed like no big deal to some, but really it was about getting rid of someone who was not a “yes” man and replacing him with lower agents who believed in carrying out immigration enforcement in the way that DHS leadership wanted.
Career law enforcement officials at the DHS, as well as Homan, have focus on arresting people with criminal histories in the United States, as well as those with deportation orders. DHS leadership has wanted to ramp up numbers overall, not just criminals.
Last week, Rodney Scott was accused of undertaking a massive renovation and three sources told me that they believe DHS leadership planted that story as a way to hurt Scott’s image. I ran a story about DHS leadership going after Scott, then the Border Patrol shooting happened on Saturday. The White House seems to be coming out on Homan’s side, which has serious implications for DHS leadership.
Bovino is out, for one. Noem is seriously concerned for her job, 3 others said today.
And Scott has arrived in Minneapolis. His first time there and his authorities that were revoked by Noem and Lewandowski have since been restored since this weekend.
It's still "the economy, stupid". I wouldn't be surprised to see some crude cash giveaway to voters, from the pot of collected tariff money, in the run up to November.
And he's still only just underwater with white voters, who clearly aren't paying attention
Given he’s already said he is planning to do it you are hardly Mystic Meg preciting it.
Given the humungous budget deficit the USA has it would be utterly insane to do.
Off topic, but didn't anyone else watch last night's Panorama update on the Post Office scandal. Only half an hour but it did suggest that ere long some of the former top people in the Post Office are going to be questioned in Court about what they knew and what they did. Paula Vennels in particular had better get herself down to the consultant who gave evidence all those years ago in defence of Ernest Saunders ..... the only man, it was said, to have recovered from Alzheimers.
As a result of a train of thought engendered by my earlier comment I've been, albeit in Wikipedia, looking at the Guinness case and there's an ECHR judgement referred to which seems to suggest that those questioned elsewhere, such as at an Inquiry, cannot have those statements used in evidence against them in a criminal trial. IANAL, so I'm not competent to judge the effect on Vennels et al, but I would be interested in an informed opinion.
Ah, the Oliver North trick?
For those who don’t remember, Col Oliver North was nearly unprosecutable for his part in the Iran Contra scandal.
This was because he stood up in front of a Senate Committee and told them what he did, under oath (and penalty of prison if he lied). Due to legal technicalities this meant that prospecting him for anything covered in his testimony was impossible.
IIRC they only managed to get him on the basis of misuse of funds regarding the installation of a security system at his home.
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
I don’t know about favourite (I still like Streeting for that berth) but this is right about the route for Burnham. The blocking was predictable so either he doesn’t have a strategy (unlikely) or it was part of it. It has crystallised him as the potential savour willing to ride to the rescue if only he’s granted a steed.
What he now needs is Labour to lose Girton (preferably to Reform) and get smashed to pieces in the Locals. Cue panic in the party and (he hopes) an unstoppable momentum behind his return. It gets louder and louder. Chants of “Andy Andy, we want Andy” break out in constituency meetings, the Commons, at football matches, perhaps even the streets. The movement cannot be resisted. He becomes inevitable.
If we need recent precedent to help visualise how things might play out it can be found in the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. There are differences, the UK is not Iran, Keir Starmer is not the Shah, King of Kings, the alternative in exile is waiting in Manchester not in Paris and (perhaps the biggest discrepancy) it’s not the Ayatollah Khomeini it’s Andy Burnham – but the essential dynamic (as Burnham himself will have clocked) is the same.
The consensus seems to be that Reform or Greens will win Gorton and relegate labour to 3rd, thereby causing fury in labour
I would just suggest that if labour manage to hold on, then Starmer will be hailed a genius and his position is enhanced
I know it is unlikely but stranger things have happened
The one thing we can say it is a high stake election
Is there a consensus? (Genuine question, I didn't get that sense).
I haven't read on here anyone predicting a labour hold
That's different to relegation to third though.
Maybe a wee bit pedantic there
Indeed does anyone expect labour to win or achieve second place ?
Too early to tell.
The swingometer sites seem to have Ref, Green and Lab fairly closely bunched. In Caerphilly, Plaid were able to ride the "two horse race" narrative all the way to a big win; can the Greens do the same? Possibly, maybe even probably. But we don't really know how good the Green By-Election Machine is. But I'd be surprised if it were as good as Plaid's, let alone the Lib Dems'.
The first big clue to how confident the various parties are will be who they pick as candidates. Serious potential winners or plucky losing flag-carriers?
I offer this as a Labour Party nerd who studies the Party's rules. For a challenge to happen, Starmer has to have a huge proportion of his own Starmtroopers publicly oppose him, and given how their selections as candidates were stitched up, I can't see that happening. It would not be a Miliband or Streeting vs Starmer contest, because they'd have to resign from the Cabinet first, and they both like their ministerial limos too much and they both think they're doing too good a job to want to resign from it. So there won't be a challenge to Starmer per se; there can in practice only be an election if he creates a vacancy by resigning, presumably after disastrous results in May. Then there would be an open field, with Cabinet ministers and others slugging it out.
He can be laid at 1.86 on Betfair to be replaced in 2026... Longer and less lucrative than Arsenal to bottle it though
The consensus seems to be that Reform or Greens will win Gorton and relegate labour to 3rd, thereby causing fury in labour
I would just suggest that if labour manage to hold on, then Starmer will be hailed a genius and his position is enhanced
I know it is unlikely but stranger things have happened
The one thing we can say it is a high stake election
Is there a consensus? (Genuine question, I didn't get that sense).
I haven't read on here anyone predicting a labour hold
That's different to relegation to third though.
Maybe a wee bit pedantic there
Indeed does anyone expect labour to win or achieve second place ?
Too early to tell.
The swingometer sites seem to have Ref, Green and Lab fairly closely bunched. In Caerphilly, Plaid were able to ride the "two horse race" narrative all the way to a big win; can the Greens do the same? Possibly, maybe even probably. But we don't really know how good the Green By-Election Machine is. But I'd be surprised if it were as good as Plaid's, let alone the Lib Dems'.
The first big clue to how confident the various parties are will be who they pick as candidates. Serious potential winners or plucky losing flag-carriers?
The most important question is who Labour pick as their candidate. Local or bussed in?
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
Swiss cheese model suggests a lot of holes to get through for ALL that to happen. The NEC don't give a shit - they showed that at the weekend. These are people in deep in the tribal politics of the left. They life for the fight. No, not the fight against the Tories, or Reform, the internal fights in their own party.
Yes, and that's why I was reasonably sure AB would not succeed SKS. There are, what six hurdles: - there being a by-election - AB having the balls to put himself forward for the by-election - the NEC acceding - Winning the by-election - Engineering a challenge for the leadership - Winning the leadership
But I have been surprised by the strength of feeling within the Labour Party that the NEC have made the wrong decision. I have become convinced that enough pressure will be applied. I'm convinced 1 can be re-engineered, and clearly there is no problem with 2. 4 will be tricky but not insurmountable and I'm sure 5 and 6 are relatively easy. 3 is the biggest, and arguably the only significant barrier. It is just a case for the not-SKS bloc - which is large - of applying enough pressure.
i.e. it was Swiss Cheese theory, but it isn't any more. It's simply a case of hammering the NEC nut hard enough - and last weekend was the start of that. The others can all line up fairly easily.
Do you have a vote in the GM Mayoral election @Cookie? If so, would you / did you vote for Burnham?
I do, yes. I genuinely don't think I voted last time around. It seemed such a foregone conclusion for Burnham there didn't seem much point. I'm happy enough with him as mayor but not to the extent of going out of my way to cast a vote for no practical reason. I have various issues with him, but that's true of any candidate and I wasn't sufficiently enthused by any of his competitors to vote against him. Back when it was AV, I voted for the Conservative candidate with Burnham as my second preference. But the Conservative candidate that time around was rather more to my taste.
If there was an election tomorrow my inference would be that it would be a much closer two horse race between Labour and Reform, and assuming a reasonable Labour candidate (potentially Burnham's deputy, with whom I have no serious issues; or potentially Bev Craig from Manchester City Council, whom I rate) I'd vote Labour.
OT HMG just sent me a warning to check my passport is valid for my planned destination (although I've no plans to leave the country). Have we upset another bunch of foreigners over the weekend?
Off topic, but didn't anyone else watch last night's Panorama update on the Post Office scandal. Only half an hour but it did suggest that ere long some of the former top people in the Post Office are going to be questioned in Court about what they knew and what they did. Paula Vennels in particular had better get herself down to the consultant who gave evidence all those years ago in defence of Ernest Saunders ..... the only man, it was said, to have recovered from Alzheimers.
As a result of a train of thought engendered by my earlier comment I've been, albeit in Wikipedia, looking at the Guinness case and there's an ECHR judgement referred to which seems to suggest that those questioned elsewhere, such as at an Inquiry, cannot have those statements used in evidence against them in a criminal trial. IANAL, so I'm not competent to judge the effect on Vennels et al, but I would be interested in an informed opinion.
A number of witnesses at the PO enquiry were warned before giving evidence and. IIRC, were advised that they could say that they would not answer a question if they thought it might incriminate them
No it isn't! Nothing with 'Hodges'in the title is anything other than puffed up piffle
You need to read the nessage rather than shoot the messenger
I think you are entitled to evaluate the information and opinion based on the author. Hodges is possibly the least reliable political commentator there is (depending on which publication is paying him)
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
Swiss cheese model suggests a lot of holes to get through for ALL that to happen. The NEC don't give a shit - they showed that at the weekend. These are people in deep in the tribal politics of the left. They life for the fight. No, not the fight against the Tories, or Reform, the internal fights in their own party.
Yes, and that's why I was reasonably sure AB would not succeed SKS. There are, what six hurdles: - there being a by-election - AB having the balls to put himself forward for the by-election - the NEC acceding - Winning the by-election - Engineering a challenge for the leadership - Winning the leadership
But I have been surprised by the strength of feeling within the Labour Party that the NEC have made the wrong decision. I have become convinced that enough pressure will be applied. I'm convinced 1 can be re-engineered, and clearly there is no problem with 2. 4 will be tricky but not insurmountable and I'm sure 5 and 6 are relatively easy. 3 is the biggest, and arguably the only significant barrier. It is just a case for the not-SKS bloc - which is large - of applying enough pressure.
i.e. it was Swiss Cheese theory, but it isn't any more. It's simply a case of hammering the NEC nut hard enough - and last weekend was the start of that. The others can all line up fairly easily.
Do you have a vote in the GM Mayoral election @Cookie? If so, would you / did you vote for Burnham?
I do, yes. I genuinely don't think I voted last time around. It seemed such a foregone conclusion for Burnham there didn't seem much point. I'm happy enough with him as mayor but not to the extent of going out of my way to cast a vote for no practical reason. I have various issues with him, but that's true of any candidate and I wasn't sufficiently enthused by any of his competitors to vote against him. Back when it was AV, I voted for the Conservative candidate with Burnham as my second preference. But the Conservative candidate that time around was rather more to my taste.
If there was an election tomorrow my inference would be that it would be a much closer two horse race between Labour and Reform, and assuming a reasonable Labour candidate (potentially Burnham's deputy, with whom I have no serious issues; or potentially Bev Craig from Manchester City Council, whom I rate) I'd vote Labour.
Thank God that electing a Labour government with a massive majority has meant we've left behind the endless instability and personality-based psychodramas of the Tory years.
How often have big majorities meant stability? Only Blair, Boris and Starmer in my lifetime - one out of three - so I will have to defer to others for the long view.
Thatcher and Blair certainly proved it
Oh dear - apparently I am old enough for a Senior Moment - forgetting Thatcher! Though I was a child at the time, I suppose.
How stable a government was the Thatcher one post 83? She faced the Miners’ Strike, the Westland affair, the abandonment of monetarism, a financial panic, the splits over Europe, the psychodramas of Howe, Heseltine and Lawson, and the poll tax.
Yes with hindsight we know she surmounted all but the last one, but it’s easy to be wise with hindsight and I doubt if it felt so stable at the time.
You're right; it didn't feel particularly stable at the time. In addition to your excellent list, we also had both unemployment and interest rates averaging around 10% for most of the 80s. I remember it vividly as quite a torrid time for many people.
The 1980s were completely feral.
'Loadsamoney' was a 'hero', IIRC.
The eighties was the crucible in which modern Britain was forged, for good or ill.
On current empirical evidence, we're pretty ill.
I'd say it is a mixed legacy overall. Ironically the greatest harm stems from the one piece of Thatcherite policy that we have cast aside, namely the creation of the EU single market.
(By which I mean the harm came from casting it aside).
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
I don’t know about favourite (I still like Streeting for that berth) but this is right about the route for Burnham. The blocking was predictable so either he doesn’t have a strategy (unlikely) or it was part of it. It has crystallised him as the potential savour willing to ride to the rescue if only he’s granted a steed.
What he now needs is Labour to lose Girton (preferably to Reform) and get smashed to pieces in the Locals. Cue panic in the party and (he hopes) an unstoppable momentum behind his return. It gets louder and louder. Chants of “Andy Andy, we want Andy” break out in constituency meetings, the Commons, at football matches, perhaps even the streets. The movement cannot be resisted. He becomes inevitable.
If we need recent precedent to help visualise how things might play out it can be found in the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. There are differences, the UK is not Iran, Keir Starmer is not the Shah, King of Kings, the alternative in exile is waiting in Manchester not in Paris and (perhaps the biggest discrepancy) it’s not the Ayatollah Khomeini it’s Andy Burnham – but the essential dynamic (as Burnham himself will have clocked) is the same.
Back on planet earth.......I'll have three black puddings please .
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
Swiss cheese model suggests a lot of holes to get through for ALL that to happen. The NEC don't give a shit - they showed that at the weekend. These are people in deep in the tribal politics of the left. They life for the fight. No, not the fight against the Tories, or Reform, the internal fights in their own party.
Yes, and that's why I was reasonably sure AB would not succeed SKS. There are, what six hurdles: - there being a by-election - AB having the balls to put himself forward for the by-election - the NEC acceding - Winning the by-election - Engineering a challenge for the leadership - Winning the leadership
But I have been surprised by the strength of feeling within the Labour Party that the NEC have made the wrong decision. I have become convinced that enough pressure will be applied. I'm convinced 1 can be re-engineered, and clearly there is no problem with 2. 4 will be tricky but not insurmountable and I'm sure 5 and 6 are relatively easy. 3 is the biggest, and arguably the only significant barrier. It is just a case for the not-SKS bloc - which is large - of applying enough pressure.
i.e. it was Swiss Cheese theory, but it isn't any more. It's simply a case of hammering the NEC nut hard enough - and last weekend was the start of that. The others can all line up fairly easily.
Do you have a vote in the GM Mayoral election @Cookie? If so, would you / did you vote for Burnham?
I do, yes. I genuinely don't think I voted last time around. It seemed such a foregone conclusion for Burnham there didn't seem much point. I'm happy enough with him as mayor but not to the extent of going out of my way to cast a vote for no practical reason. I have various issues with him, but that's true of any candidate and I wasn't sufficiently enthused by any of his competitors to vote against him. Back when it was AV, I voted for the Conservative candidate with Burnham as my second preference. But the Conservative candidate that time around was rather more to my taste.
If there was an election tomorrow my inference would be that it would be a much closer two horse race between Labour and Reform, and assuming a reasonable Labour candidate (potentially Burnham's deputy, with whom I have no serious issues; or potentially Bev Craig from Manchester City Council, whom I rate) I'd vote Labour.
No, I’m in Ayrshire. I was just interested because I often agree with your posts.
Oh, sorry - I'm confusing you with someone else! Of course you are (you enthused about the Bon Accord in Glasgow, didn't you?) There is a poster who by his name I always think should be Scottish, but isn't. I think he lives in Gatley and sometimes discusses cycling. In my head your name and his are interchangeable, though only in looking vaguely Highland to my eyes.
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
Swiss cheese model suggests a lot of holes to get through for ALL that to happen. The NEC don't give a shit - they showed that at the weekend. These are people in deep in the tribal politics of the left. They life for the fight. No, not the fight against the Tories, or Reform, the internal fights in their own party.
Yes, and that's why I was reasonably sure AB would not succeed SKS. There are, what six hurdles: - there being a by-election - AB having the balls to put himself forward for the by-election - the NEC acceding - Winning the by-election - Engineering a challenge for the leadership - Winning the leadership
But I have been surprised by the strength of feeling within the Labour Party that the NEC have made the wrong decision. I have become convinced that enough pressure will be applied. I'm convinced 1 can be re-engineered, and clearly there is no problem with 2. 4 will be tricky but not insurmountable and I'm sure 5 and 6 are relatively easy. 3 is the biggest, and arguably the only significant barrier. It is just a case for the not-SKS bloc - which is large - of applying enough pressure.
i.e. it was Swiss Cheese theory, but it isn't any more. It's simply a case of hammering the NEC nut hard enough - and last weekend was the start of that. The others can all line up fairly easily.
Do you have a vote in the GM Mayoral election @Cookie? If so, would you / did you vote for Burnham?
I do, yes. I genuinely don't think I voted last time around. It seemed such a foregone conclusion for Burnham there didn't seem much point. I'm happy enough with him as mayor but not to the extent of going out of my way to cast a vote for no practical reason. I have various issues with him, but that's true of any candidate and I wasn't sufficiently enthused by any of his competitors to vote against him. Back when it was AV, I voted for the Conservative candidate with Burnham as my second preference. But the Conservative candidate that time around was rather more to my taste.
If there was an election tomorrow my inference would be that it would be a much closer two horse race between Labour and Reform, and assuming a reasonable Labour candidate (potentially Burnham's deputy, with whom I have no serious issues; or potentially Bev Craig from Manchester City Council, whom I rate) I'd vote Labour.
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
Swiss cheese model suggests a lot of holes to get through for ALL that to happen. The NEC don't give a shit - they showed that at the weekend. These are people in deep in the tribal politics of the left. They life for the fight. No, not the fight against the Tories, or Reform, the internal fights in their own party.
Yes, and that's why I was reasonably sure AB would not succeed SKS. There are, what six hurdles: - there being a by-election - AB having the balls to put himself forward for the by-election - the NEC acceding - Winning the by-election - Engineering a challenge for the leadership - Winning the leadership
But I have been surprised by the strength of feeling within the Labour Party that the NEC have made the wrong decision. I have become convinced that enough pressure will be applied. I'm convinced 1 can be re-engineered, and clearly there is no problem with 2. 4 will be tricky but not insurmountable and I'm sure 5 and 6 are relatively easy. 3 is the biggest, and arguably the only significant barrier. It is just a case for the not-SKS bloc - which is large - of applying enough pressure.
i.e. it was Swiss Cheese theory, but it isn't any more. It's simply a case of hammering the NEC nut hard enough - and last weekend was the start of that. The others can all line up fairly easily.
Do you have a vote in the GM Mayoral election @Cookie? If so, would you / did you vote for Burnham?
I do, yes. I genuinely don't think I voted last time around. It seemed such a foregone conclusion for Burnham there didn't seem much point. I'm happy enough with him as mayor but not to the extent of going out of my way to cast a vote for no practical reason. I have various issues with him, but that's true of any candidate and I wasn't sufficiently enthused by any of his competitors to vote against him. Back when it was AV, I voted for the Conservative candidate with Burnham as my second preference. But the Conservative candidate that time around was rather more to my taste.
If there was an election tomorrow my inference would be that it would be a much closer two horse race between Labour and Reform, and assuming a reasonable Labour candidate (potentially Burnham's deputy, with whom I have no serious issues; or potentially Bev Craig from Manchester City Council, whom I rate) I'd vote Labour.
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
Swiss cheese model suggests a lot of holes to get through for ALL that to happen. The NEC don't give a shit - they showed that at the weekend. These are people in deep in the tribal politics of the left. They life for the fight. No, not the fight against the Tories, or Reform, the internal fights in their own party.
Yes, and that's why I was reasonably sure AB would not succeed SKS. There are, what six hurdles: - there being a by-election - AB having the balls to put himself forward for the by-election - the NEC acceding - Winning the by-election - Engineering a challenge for the leadership - Winning the leadership
But I have been surprised by the strength of feeling within the Labour Party that the NEC have made the wrong decision. I have become convinced that enough pressure will be applied. I'm convinced 1 can be re-engineered, and clearly there is no problem with 2. 4 will be tricky but not insurmountable and I'm sure 5 and 6 are relatively easy. 3 is the biggest, and arguably the only significant barrier. It is just a case for the not-SKS bloc - which is large - of applying enough pressure.
i.e. it was Swiss Cheese theory, but it isn't any more. It's simply a case of hammering the NEC nut hard enough - and last weekend was the start of that. The others can all line up fairly easily.
Do you have a vote in the GM Mayoral election @Cookie? If so, would you / did you vote for Burnham?
I do, yes. I genuinely don't think I voted last time around. It seemed such a foregone conclusion for Burnham there didn't seem much point. I'm happy enough with him as mayor but not to the extent of going out of my way to cast a vote for no practical reason. I have various issues with him, but that's true of any candidate and I wasn't sufficiently enthused by any of his competitors to vote against him. Back when it was AV, I voted for the Conservative candidate with Burnham as my second preference. But the Conservative candidate that time around was rather more to my taste.
If there was an election tomorrow my inference would be that it would be a much closer two horse race between Labour and Reform, and assuming a reasonable Labour candidate (potentially Burnham's deputy, with whom I have no serious issues; or potentially Bev Craig from Manchester City Council, whom I rate) I'd vote Labour.
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
Swiss cheese model suggests a lot of holes to get through for ALL that to happen. The NEC don't give a shit - they showed that at the weekend. These are people in deep in the tribal politics of the left. They life for the fight. No, not the fight against the Tories, or Reform, the internal fights in their own party.
Yes, and that's why I was reasonably sure AB would not succeed SKS. There are, what six hurdles: - there being a by-election - AB having the balls to put himself forward for the by-election - the NEC acceding - Winning the by-election - Engineering a challenge for the leadership - Winning the leadership
But I have been surprised by the strength of feeling within the Labour Party that the NEC have made the wrong decision. I have become convinced that enough pressure will be applied. I'm convinced 1 can be re-engineered, and clearly there is no problem with 2. 4 will be tricky but not insurmountable and I'm sure 5 and 6 are relatively easy. 3 is the biggest, and arguably the only significant barrier. It is just a case for the not-SKS bloc - which is large - of applying enough pressure.
i.e. it was Swiss Cheese theory, but it isn't any more. It's simply a case of hammering the NEC nut hard enough - and last weekend was the start of that. The others can all line up fairly easily.
Do you have a vote in the GM Mayoral election @Cookie? If so, would you / did you vote for Burnham?
I do, yes. I genuinely don't think I voted last time around. It seemed such a foregone conclusion for Burnham there didn't seem much point. I'm happy enough with him as mayor but not to the extent of going out of my way to cast a vote for no practical reason. I have various issues with him, but that's true of any candidate and I wasn't sufficiently enthused by any of his competitors to vote against him. Back when it was AV, I voted for the Conservative candidate with Burnham as my second preference. But the Conservative candidate that time around was rather more to my taste.
If there was an election tomorrow my inference would be that it would be a much closer two horse race between Labour and Reform, and assuming a reasonable Labour candidate (potentially Burnham's deputy, with whom I have no serious issues; or potentially Bev Craig from Manchester City Council, whom I rate) I'd vote Labour.
No, I’m in Ayrshire. I was just interested because I often agree with your posts.
Oh, sorry - I'm confusing you with someone else! Of course you are (you enthused about the Bon Accord in Glasgow, didn't you?) There is a poster who by his name I always think should be Scottish, but isn't. I think he lives in Gatley and sometimes discusses cycling. In my head your name and his are interchangeable, though only in looking vaguely Highland to my eyes.
Sad news about the Bon Accord, BTW. The manager is giving it up in May due to a 400% rent rise. He has found a new place opposite the Pot Still but I don’t know when it will open.
I think he should just make any representations privately.
Peston could be shit stirring.
It all adds to the impression of division.
Agree about Peston. That, after all, is what he's paid to do!
Taking of history - before Thatcher went, there was a regular stream of stories about internal dissent and rumblings. And of partisans of the Conservative Party saying they were all media lies.
No it isn't! Nothing with 'Hodges'in the title is anything other than puffed up piffle
You need to read the nessage rather than shoot the messenger
I think you are entitled to evaluate the information and opinion based on the author. Hodges is possibly the least reliable political commentator there is (depending on which publication is paying him)
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
I don’t know about favourite (I still like Streeting for that berth) but this is right about the route for Burnham. The blocking was predictable so either he doesn’t have a strategy (unlikely) or it was part of it. It has crystallised him as the potential savour willing to ride to the rescue if only he’s granted a steed.
What he now needs is Labour to lose Girton (preferably to Reform) and get smashed to pieces in the Locals. Cue panic in the party and (he hopes) an unstoppable momentum behind his return. It gets louder and louder. Chants of “Andy Andy, we want Andy” break out in constituency meetings, the Commons, at football matches, perhaps even the streets. The movement cannot be resisted. He becomes inevitable.
If we need recent precedent to help visualise how things might play out it can be found in the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. There are differences, the UK is not Iran, Keir Starmer is not the Shah, King of Kings, the alternative in exile is waiting in Manchester not in Paris and (perhaps the biggest discrepancy) it’s not the Ayatollah Khomeini it’s Andy Burnham – but the essential dynamic (as Burnham himself will have clocked) is the same.
Back on planet earth.......I'll have three black puddings please .
Yes, fair enough, but you know what I mean. It's just to illustrate Cookie's point that the route for Burnham is (i) set himself up as the clear alternative in exile, then (ii) hope for regime meltdown and the party to turn to him. (i) is done. (ii) is possible depending on polling and electoral results.
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
Swiss cheese model suggests a lot of holes to get through for ALL that to happen. The NEC don't give a shit - they showed that at the weekend. These are people in deep in the tribal politics of the left. They life for the fight. No, not the fight against the Tories, or Reform, the internal fights in their own party.
Yes, and that's why I was reasonably sure AB would not succeed SKS. There are, what six hurdles: - there being a by-election - AB having the balls to put himself forward for the by-election - the NEC acceding - Winning the by-election - Engineering a challenge for the leadership - Winning the leadership
But I have been surprised by the strength of feeling within the Labour Party that the NEC have made the wrong decision. I have become convinced that enough pressure will be applied. I'm convinced 1 can be re-engineered, and clearly there is no problem with 2. 4 will be tricky but not insurmountable and I'm sure 5 and 6 are relatively easy. 3 is the biggest, and arguably the only significant barrier. It is just a case for the not-SKS bloc - which is large - of applying enough pressure.
i.e. it was Swiss Cheese theory, but it isn't any more. It's simply a case of hammering the NEC nut hard enough - and last weekend was the start of that. The others can all line up fairly easily.
Do you have a vote in the GM Mayoral election @Cookie? If so, would you / did you vote for Burnham?
I do, yes. I genuinely don't think I voted last time around. It seemed such a foregone conclusion for Burnham there didn't seem much point. I'm happy enough with him as mayor but not to the extent of going out of my way to cast a vote for no practical reason. I have various issues with him, but that's true of any candidate and I wasn't sufficiently enthused by any of his competitors to vote against him. Back when it was AV, I voted for the Conservative candidate with Burnham as my second preference. But the Conservative candidate that time around was rather more to my taste.
If there was an election tomorrow my inference would be that it would be a much closer two horse race between Labour and Reform, and assuming a reasonable Labour candidate (potentially Burnham's deputy, with whom I have no serious issues; or potentially Bev Craig from Manchester City Council, whom I rate) I'd vote Labour.
OT HMG just sent me a warning to check my passport is valid for my planned destination (although I've no plans to leave the country). Have we upset another bunch of foreigners over the weekend?
Is it close to expiry / over ten years old?
No, I've only had it a few weeks. I vaguely assumed the warning was somehow connected with President Trump or the Middle East.
I think he should just make any representations privately.
Peston could be shit stirring.
It all adds to the impression of division.
Agree about Peston. That, after all, is what he'd paid to do!
Indeed.
No need to swallow the bait, that just perpetuates the story.
According to the Guardian's rolling news page "Peston then posted a follow-up message saying that he had spoken to a second insider source saying that the first one was wrong and Burnham was right."
I treat YouGov with a high degree of scepticism as an outlier.
However I do instinctively think that this government will recover popularity and is slowly doing so.
I personally think this by-election is totally irrelevant to the long term prospects of the government. Just as I said after the Hartlepool by-election, to much laughter here.
We are about 3.5 years off an election. If you go back 3.5 years from the 2024 election (January 2021) the polls were roughly:
Tories 39 Labour 38 LD 8.
The rest all in single figures bumping along.
Which makes me feel that the past is a foreign country, and that 2021 is about 40 years ago. And that predicting elections three years ahead is both a mug's game and totally fascinating. There is absolutely no point at all in either assuming something like status quo nor looking for consistent trends in the moving line of the graph (see Wiki moving lines 2019-2024 for evidence!)
So, for example, my view that Reform will come second or third in votes and seats is neither evidence based nor irrational. In just the same way as (Arsenal I'm looking at you) the fact that you always win or draw at home and scored first does not mean that you are not about to be beaten by Man U.
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
Swiss cheese model suggests a lot of holes to get through for ALL that to happen. The NEC don't give a shit - they showed that at the weekend. These are people in deep in the tribal politics of the left. They life for the fight. No, not the fight against the Tories, or Reform, the internal fights in their own party.
Yes, and that's why I was reasonably sure AB would not succeed SKS. There are, what six hurdles: - there being a by-election - AB having the balls to put himself forward for the by-election - the NEC acceding - Winning the by-election - Engineering a challenge for the leadership - Winning the leadership
But I have been surprised by the strength of feeling within the Labour Party that the NEC have made the wrong decision. I have become convinced that enough pressure will be applied. I'm convinced 1 can be re-engineered, and clearly there is no problem with 2. 4 will be tricky but not insurmountable and I'm sure 5 and 6 are relatively easy. 3 is the biggest, and arguably the only significant barrier. It is just a case for the not-SKS bloc - which is large - of applying enough pressure.
i.e. it was Swiss Cheese theory, but it isn't any more. It's simply a case of hammering the NEC nut hard enough - and last weekend was the start of that. The others can all line up fairly easily.
Do you have a vote in the GM Mayoral election @Cookie? If so, would you / did you vote for Burnham?
I do, yes. I genuinely don't think I voted last time around. It seemed such a foregone conclusion for Burnham there didn't seem much point. I'm happy enough with him as mayor but not to the extent of going out of my way to cast a vote for no practical reason. I have various issues with him, but that's true of any candidate and I wasn't sufficiently enthused by any of his competitors to vote against him. Back when it was AV, I voted for the Conservative candidate with Burnham as my second preference. But the Conservative candidate that time around was rather more to my taste.
If there was an election tomorrow my inference would be that it would be a much closer two horse race between Labour and Reform, and assuming a reasonable Labour candidate (potentially Burnham's deputy, with whom I have no serious issues; or potentially Bev Craig from Manchester City Council, whom I rate) I'd vote Labour.
No, I’m in Ayrshire. I was just interested because I often agree with your posts.
Oh, sorry - I'm confusing you with someone else! Of course you are (you enthused about the Bon Accord in Glasgow, didn't you?) There is a poster who by his name I always think should be Scottish, but isn't. I think he lives in Gatley and sometimes discusses cycling. In my head your name and his are interchangeable, though only in looking vaguely Highland to my eyes.
Sad news about the Bon Accord, BTW. The manager is giving it up in May due to a 400% rent rise. He has found a new place opposite the Pot Still but I don’t know when it will open.
That is shit. It's a perfect pub. And frankly, it's not obvious what else would go in there? Hopefully the new place will be as good.
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
I don’t know about favourite (I still like Streeting for that berth) but this is right about the route for Burnham. The blocking was predictable so either he doesn’t have a strategy (unlikely) or it was part of it. It has crystallised him as the potential savour willing to ride to the rescue if only he’s granted a steed.
What he now needs is Labour to lose Girton (preferably to Reform) and get smashed to pieces in the Locals. Cue panic in the party and (he hopes) an unstoppable momentum behind his return. It gets louder and louder. Chants of “Andy Andy, we want Andy” break out in constituency meetings, the Commons, at football matches, perhaps even the streets. The movement cannot be resisted. He becomes inevitable.
If we need recent precedent to help visualise how things might play out it can be found in the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. There are differences, the UK is not Iran, Keir Starmer is not the Shah, King of Kings, the alternative in exile is waiting in Manchester not in Paris and (perhaps the biggest discrepancy) it’s not the Ayatollah Khomeini it’s Andy Burnham – but the essential dynamic (as Burnham himself will have clocked) is the same.
I am prepared to bet that Girton is a safe haven from Reform.
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
Swiss cheese model suggests a lot of holes to get through for ALL that to happen. The NEC don't give a shit - they showed that at the weekend. These are people in deep in the tribal politics of the left. They life for the fight. No, not the fight against the Tories, or Reform, the internal fights in their own party.
Yes, and that's why I was reasonably sure AB would not succeed SKS. There are, what six hurdles: - there being a by-election - AB having the balls to put himself forward for the by-election - the NEC acceding - Winning the by-election - Engineering a challenge for the leadership - Winning the leadership
But I have been surprised by the strength of feeling within the Labour Party that the NEC have made the wrong decision. I have become convinced that enough pressure will be applied. I'm convinced 1 can be re-engineered, and clearly there is no problem with 2. 4 will be tricky but not insurmountable and I'm sure 5 and 6 are relatively easy. 3 is the biggest, and arguably the only significant barrier. It is just a case for the not-SKS bloc - which is large - of applying enough pressure.
i.e. it was Swiss Cheese theory, but it isn't any more. It's simply a case of hammering the NEC nut hard enough - and last weekend was the start of that. The others can all line up fairly easily.
Do you have a vote in the GM Mayoral election @Cookie? If so, would you / did you vote for Burnham?
I do, yes. I genuinely don't think I voted last time around. It seemed such a foregone conclusion for Burnham there didn't seem much point. I'm happy enough with him as mayor but not to the extent of going out of my way to cast a vote for no practical reason. I have various issues with him, but that's true of any candidate and I wasn't sufficiently enthused by any of his competitors to vote against him. Back when it was AV, I voted for the Conservative candidate with Burnham as my second preference. But the Conservative candidate that time around was rather more to my taste.
If there was an election tomorrow my inference would be that it would be a much closer two horse race between Labour and Reform, and assuming a reasonable Labour candidate (potentially Burnham's deputy, with whom I have no serious issues; or potentially Bev Craig from Manchester City Council, whom I rate) I'd vote Labour.
Farage and Reform just wets according to him it seems
'Mark my words on this:
In the event of a Reform UK government, the resultant 'Reformwave' of immigration will make the Boriswave look like a millpond by comparison.
Why?
Because despite all the rhetoric, despite all the complaints, the ideology and values of Reform UK and the people running it are the same internationalist, free-market, hardcore capitalist values that have caused mass immigration in the first place.
The exact same logic will also guarantee that despite all promises to the contrary, a Reform UK government would also make public services worse, make taxes higher for no gain, increase unemployment, worsen the cost of living crisis, and offshore/privatise even more industries.
No it isn't! Nothing with 'Hodges'in the title is anything other than puffed up piffle
You need to read the nessage rather than shoot the messenger
I think you are entitled to evaluate the information and opinion based on the author. Hodges is possibly the least reliable political commentator there is (depending on which publication is paying him)
But Hodges is not the author
Hodges was the author of this;
"A declaration of war from the head of Unison on the Labour Party leadership. This is a big deal".
The interesting story is from Peston. The rest is an opinion piece from Hodges. Peston's story does not say it's a 'declaration of war' by Unison or that it's 'a big deal'
Farage and Reform just wets according to him it seems
'Mark my words on this:
In the event of a Reform UK government, the resultant 'Reformwave' of immigration will make the Boriswave look like a millpond by comparison.
Why?
Because despite all the rhetoric, despite all the complaints, the ideology and values of Reform UK and the people running it are the same internationalist, free-market, hardcore capitalist values that have caused mass immigration in the first place.
The exact same logic will also guarantee that despite all promises to the contrary, a Reform UK government would also make public services worse, make taxes higher for no gain, increase unemployment, worsen the cost of living crisis, and offshore/privatise even more industries.
New Australian poll has Pauline Hanson's rightwing populist One Nation party now a clear second on the primary vote behind Labor.
The Coalition broke up a few days ago with the Nationals leaving it (their former leader and Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce has joined One Nation) and so the Liberals are now effectively the third party NEW: Federal voting intention
On Sunday, I said I had agreed with @TSE's 'lay Burnham' strategy. And I had, up until yesterday. But I now see Burnham as the favourite. He is now the clear challenger to Starmer in a way which he wasn't before the weekend. A colleague laid out a scenario which I find convincing: following Labour's shellacking at the by-election and then again in May, another by-election in GM is engineered (it is rumoured that G&D isn't even the one AB had his eye on). Having turned him down - and got a very negative reaction from the party and its voters - the NEC will struggle to justify doing so again. Burnham then wins a by-election, returns to parliament, and immediately challenges Starmer, and wins. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works at the GM combined authority yesterday received a hilariously terse email from the head of the CA confirming the mayor had made it clear that 'his full focus remains on Greater Manchester' - which was apparently greeted with laughter.)
If I was exposed to AB becoming the next Labour leader and/or PM, I would probably be trying to ease myself out of that position now with a view to swinging modestly the other way should Labour lose the G&D by-election (which I think they will).
I don’t know about favourite (I still like Streeting for that berth) but this is right about the route for Burnham. The blocking was predictable so either he doesn’t have a strategy (unlikely) or it was part of it. It has crystallised him as the potential savour willing to ride to the rescue if only he’s granted a steed.
What he now needs is Labour to lose Girton (preferably to Reform) and get smashed to pieces in the Locals. Cue panic in the party and (he hopes) an unstoppable momentum behind his return. It gets louder and louder. Chants of “Andy Andy, we want Andy” break out in constituency meetings, the Commons, at football matches, perhaps even the streets. The movement cannot be resisted. He becomes inevitable.
If we need recent precedent to help visualise how things might play out it can be found in the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. There are differences, the UK is not Iran, Keir Starmer is not the Shah, King of Kings, the alternative in exile is waiting in Manchester not in Paris and (perhaps the biggest discrepancy) it’s not the Ayatollah Khomeini it’s Andy Burnham – but the essential dynamic (as Burnham himself will have clocked) is the same.
I am prepared to bet that Girton is a safe haven from Reform.
Gorton OTOH will trend Green I think.
The Greens are actually the betting favourite (2.14) for the Gordon and Denton by-election. So that was a good call by PBers who took the much bigger price available before the Andy block.
Farage and Reform just wets according to him it seems
'Mark my words on this:
In the event of a Reform UK government, the resultant 'Reformwave' of immigration will make the Boriswave look like a millpond by comparison.
Why?
Because despite all the rhetoric, despite all the complaints, the ideology and values of Reform UK and the people running it are the same internationalist, free-market, hardcore capitalist values that have caused mass immigration in the first place.
The exact same logic will also guarantee that despite all promises to the contrary, a Reform UK government would also make public services worse, make taxes higher for no gain, increase unemployment, worsen the cost of living crisis, and offshore/privatise even more industries.
Entertaingly, that could have been written by some of the hard-left types on Twatter or Reddit - the one who are incensed by the use of immigration to suppress wages.
"A senior government figure told The Times: “Realistically we know that we’re going to lose. But it was a question of what was worse: losing a by-election or losing control of Greater Manchester, which would have been a total disaster."
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
Tice has tweeted the full list of Conservative politician backers of the new Tory centrists pressure group, ProsperUK.
Includes James Arbuthnot, Greg Barker, Gavin Barwell, Virginia Bottomley, Nick Bourne, Robert Buckland, Elizabeth Campbell, Alex Chalk, Ken Clarke, Ruth Davidson, Jackie Doyle-Price, Alan Duncan, Philip Dunne, Tobias Ellwood, Edward Garnier, David Gauke, John Gummer, Damian Green, Justine Greening, John Gummer, Philip Hammond, Matt Hancock, Greg Hands, Michael Heseltine, Nick Hurd, Margot James, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Johnny Mercer, Bob Neil, Malcolm Rifkind, Amber Rudd, Nicholas Soames, Caroline Spelman, Andy Street, Edward Timpson and Ed Vaizey and David Willetts https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/2016027595767189928?s=20
Thank God that electing a Labour government with a massive majority has meant we've left behind the endless instability and personality-based psychodramas of the Tory years.
How often have big majorities meant stability? Only Blair, Boris and Starmer in my lifetime - one out of three - so I will have to defer to others for the long view.
Well I don't know how old you are but the second Thatcher term was a landslide that also delivered political stability, interrupted for a week or two by the Westland affair. So that's two out of four. The third Thatcher term, admittedly, less so, so that's two out of five. Perhaps we can quibble about definitions and say that 80 seats isn't massive, (100+ is a common definition) so that's two out of four. And we're actually discussing Starmer, so that's two out of three of his predecessors in my lifetime, the exception being Mrs Thatcher's third term.
But you're right in that having a landslide majority certainly doesn't guarantee stability. What is weirder about the Starmer government are other factors. In particular, it had no honeymoon in the polls, unlike every other landslide government; it has had no large external crises or shocks to deal with, unlike Brexit/COVID/Ukraine/inflation with Boris or the global early 90s recession under the third Thatcher term, and it has no loyal supporters who believe in its goals and support it through thick and thin, not surprisingly as it seems unable to say what it's for, unlike Mrs Thatcher, Boris or even Blair on occasion.
So the only explanation for its unpopularity seems to be huge and lasting political ineptitude.
Tice has tweeted the full list of Conservative politician backers of the new Tory centrists pressure group, ProsperUK.
Includes James Arbuthnot, Greg Barker, Gavin Barwell, Virginia Bottomley, Nick Bourne, Robert Buckland, Elizabeth Campbell, Alex Chalk, Ken Clarke, Ruth Davidson, Jackie Doyle-Price, Alan Duncan, Philip Dunne, Tobias Ellwood, Edward Garnier, David Gauke, John Gummer, Damian Green, Justine Greening, John Gummer, Philip Hammond, Matt Hancock, Greg Hands, Michael Heseltine, Nick Hurd, Margot James, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Johnny Mercer, Bob Neil, Malcolm Rifkind, Amber Rudd, Nicholas Soames, Caroline Spelman, Andy Street, Edward Timpson and Ed Vaizey and David Willetts https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/2016027595767189928?s=20
And they'll none of them be missed, they'll none of them be missed.
Comments
It will be particularly interesting to see how the May elections fit in which which pollsters. It could quite informative. As the current situation ranges from 'Reform look unbeatable, extinction looms for the establishment' (Leon) to 'They are all bunched closely together with over 3 years to go and Reform are filling up with wasters' (me) there is a lot at stake, even more important than my pocket money.
So he probably will do it.
The consensus seems to be that Reform or Greens will win Gorton and relegate labour to 3rd, thereby causing fury in labour
I would just suggest that if labour manage to hold on, then Starmer will be hailed a genius and his position is enhanced
I know it is unlikely but stranger things have happened
The one thing we can say it is a high stake election
Paula Vennels in particular had better get herself down to the consultant who gave evidence all those years ago in defence of Ernest Saunders ..... the only man, it was said, to have recovered from Alzheimers.
Everyone would be better waiting for the GE.
However I do instinctively think that this government will recover popularity and is slowly doing so.
I personally think this by-election is totally irrelevant to the long term prospects of the government. Just as I said after the Hartlepool by-election, to much laughter here.
Meanwhile Kemi doesn't feel like the answer to anything. Losing so many colleagues isn't impressive even if they were from the bottom of the barell. To be spurned by a bunch of misfits doesn't fill the voters with confidence
Which leaves Farage..... If he could have played his hand any worse than last week I can't think how. It s not quantity of recruit he needs but quality and that's exactly what he failed to get. Watching him cavort with Braverman was not for the faint hearted.
It's starting to look like the tortoise and the hare. If he can navigate the next few months he should be done and dusted
There was not the slightest question of a challenge, pre-poll tax. Hesletine’s performative flounce landed utterly flat.
This was because of deep loyalty in the party - even in the leadership election post poll tax, the party was largely still with her.
So in 10 minutes or so, you’ll be calling for Starmer to resign.
Cosplaying Hitler actually looks like the shop steward Fred Kite played by Peter Sellers in I'm Alright Jack.
https://x.com/Natrebirthparty/status/2015117507506340099?s=20
As far as the GE is concerned I do not believe anyone can be confident of the outcome - it is simply too far away
The real answer is - who knows ?
IANAL, so I'm not competent to judge the effect on Vennels et al, but I would be interested in an informed opinion.
Indeed does anyone expect labour to win or achieve second place ?
📣 if you read one tweet on the chaos at DHS:
Less than a week ago, I reported how Noem and Lewandowski had waged an ugly campaign to push out Rodney Scott, the head of CBP (which is over Border Patrol).
It seemed like no big deal to some, but really it was about getting rid of someone who was not a “yes” man and replacing him with lower agents who believed in carrying out immigration enforcement in the way that DHS leadership wanted.
Career law enforcement officials at the DHS, as well as Homan, have focus on arresting people with criminal histories in the United States, as well as those with deportation orders. DHS leadership has wanted to ramp up numbers overall, not just criminals.
Last week, Rodney Scott was accused of undertaking a massive renovation and three sources told me that they believe DHS leadership planted that story as a way to hurt Scott’s image. I ran a story about DHS leadership going after Scott, then the Border Patrol shooting happened on Saturday. The White House seems to be coming out on Homan’s side, which has serious implications for DHS leadership.
Bovino is out, for one. Noem is seriously concerned for her job, 3 others said today.
And Scott has arrived in Minneapolis. His first time there and his authorities that were revoked by Noem and Lewandowski have since been restored since this weekend.
For those who don’t remember, Col Oliver North was nearly unprosecutable for his part in the Iran Contra scandal.
This was because he stood up in front of a Senate Committee and told them what he did, under oath (and penalty of prison if he lied). Due to legal technicalities this meant that prospecting him for anything covered in his testimony was impossible.
IIRC they only managed to get him on the basis of misuse of funds regarding the installation of a security system at his home.
What he now needs is Labour to lose Girton (preferably to Reform) and get smashed to pieces in the Locals. Cue panic in the party and (he hopes) an unstoppable momentum behind his return. It gets louder and louder. Chants of “Andy Andy, we want Andy” break out in constituency meetings, the Commons, at football matches, perhaps even the streets. The movement cannot be resisted. He becomes inevitable.
If we need recent precedent to help visualise how things might play out it can be found in the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. There are differences, the UK is not Iran, Keir Starmer is not the Shah, King of Kings, the alternative in exile is waiting in Manchester not in Paris and (perhaps the biggest discrepancy) it’s not the Ayatollah Khomeini it’s Andy Burnham – but the essential dynamic (as Burnham himself will have clocked) is the same.
The swingometer sites seem to have Ref, Green and Lab fairly closely bunched. In Caerphilly, Plaid were able to ride the "two horse race" narrative all the way to a big win; can the Greens do the same? Possibly, maybe even probably. But we don't really know how good the Green By-Election Machine is. But I'd be surprised if it were as good as Plaid's, let alone the Lib Dems'.
The first big clue to how confident the various parties are will be who they pick as candidates. Serious potential winners or plucky losing flag-carriers?
Longer and less lucrative than Arsenal to bottle it though
I genuinely don't think I voted last time around. It seemed such a foregone conclusion for Burnham there didn't seem much point. I'm happy enough with him as mayor but not to the extent of going out of my way to cast a vote for no practical reason. I have various issues with him, but that's true of any candidate and I wasn't sufficiently enthused by any of his competitors to vote against him.
Back when it was AV, I voted for the Conservative candidate with Burnham as my second preference. But the Conservative candidate that time around was rather more to my taste.
If there was an election tomorrow my inference would be that it would be a much closer two horse race between Labour and Reform, and assuming a reasonable Labour candidate (potentially Burnham's deputy, with whom I have no serious issues; or potentially Bev Craig from Manchester City Council, whom I rate) I'd vote Labour.
How about you @Fairliered ? You're in GM IIRC?
Political principles are so transactional these days.
'Here are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.'
At least, I think that's what TSE said.
https://x.com/andyburnhamgm/status/2016107699243483586?s=61
Either that, or I am!
There is a poster who by his name I always think should be Scottish, but isn't. I think he lives in Gatley and sometimes discusses cycling. In my head your name and his are interchangeable, though only in looking vaguely Highland to my eyes.
I think he should just make any representations privately.
Peston could be shit stirring.
It all adds to the impression of division.
No need to swallow the bait, that just perpetuates the story.
"Peston then posted a follow-up message saying that he had spoken to a second insider source saying that the first one was wrong and Burnham was right."
There's a deal of imagination being used today!
Tories 39
Labour 38
LD 8.
The rest all in single figures bumping along.
Which makes me feel that the past is a foreign country, and that 2021 is about 40 years ago. And that predicting elections three years ahead is both a mug's game and totally fascinating. There is absolutely no point at all in either assuming something like status quo nor looking for consistent trends in the moving line of the graph (see Wiki moving lines 2019-2024 for evidence!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#/media/File:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_after_2019_(LOESS).svg
So, for example, my view that Reform will come second or third in votes and seats is neither evidence based nor irrational. In just the same way as (Arsenal I'm looking at you) the fact that you always win or draw at home and scored first does not mean that you are not about to be beaten by Man U.
Root has a century and Harry Brook 50 in Sri Lanka. England 257-3. 6 overs to go.
Gorton OTOH will trend Green I think.
'Mark my words on this:
In the event of a Reform UK government, the resultant 'Reformwave' of immigration will make the Boriswave look like a millpond by comparison.
Why?
Because despite all the rhetoric, despite all the complaints, the ideology and values of Reform UK and the people running it are the same internationalist, free-market, hardcore capitalist values that have caused mass immigration in the first place.
The exact same logic will also guarantee that despite all promises to the contrary, a Reform UK government would also make public services worse, make taxes higher for no gain, increase unemployment, worsen the cost of living crisis, and offshore/privatise even more industries.
If the House of Commons and the people in it are a brain tumour on Britain, Reform UK would 'fix' it with a shotgun to the head.'
https://x.com/AlekYerbury/status/1985376480608625071?s=20
'This would result in a Parliament with 322 right-of-centre MPs and 320 left-of-centre MPs.'
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2016084917877153931?s=20
"A declaration of war from the head of Unison on the Labour Party leadership. This is a big deal".
The interesting story is from Peston. The rest is an opinion piece from Hodges. Peston's story does not say it's a 'declaration of war' by Unison or that it's 'a big deal'
It would be massively well hung.
Admittedly his mob would be the equivalent of a howitzer to the belly instead.
The Coalition broke up a few days ago with the Nationals leaving it (their former leader and Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce has joined One Nation) and so the Liberals are now effectively the third party
NEW: Federal voting intention
🟥 ALP: 30% (+1)
🟧 ONP: 24% (+1)
🟦 L/NP: 21% (-2)
🟩 GRN: 13% (+1)
⬛️ OTH: 12% (-1)
https://x.com/AusPoll6/status/2015927117675118711?s=20
So, once again, the circle is complete.
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
Surely this is more than enough.
Includes James Arbuthnot, Greg Barker, Gavin Barwell, Virginia Bottomley, Nick Bourne, Robert Buckland, Elizabeth Campbell, Alex Chalk, Ken Clarke, Ruth Davidson, Jackie Doyle-Price, Alan Duncan, Philip Dunne, Tobias Ellwood, Edward Garnier, David Gauke, John Gummer, Damian Green, Justine Greening, John Gummer, Philip Hammond, Matt Hancock, Greg Hands, Michael Heseltine, Nick Hurd, Margot James, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Johnny Mercer, Bob Neil, Malcolm Rifkind, Amber Rudd, Nicholas Soames, Caroline Spelman, Andy Street, Edward Timpson and Ed Vaizey and David Willetts
https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/2016027595767189928?s=20
But you're right in that having a landslide majority certainly doesn't guarantee stability. What is weirder about the Starmer government are other factors. In particular, it had no honeymoon in the polls, unlike every other landslide government; it has had no large external crises or shocks to deal with, unlike Brexit/COVID/Ukraine/inflation with Boris or the global early 90s recession under the third Thatcher term, and it has no loyal supporters who believe in its goals and support it through thick and thin, not surprisingly as it seems unable to say what it's for, unlike Mrs Thatcher, Boris or even Blair on occasion.
So the only explanation for its unpopularity seems to be huge and lasting political ineptitude.