As Jimmy Carr put it, Starmer, there is an Asda in the Midlands missing a store manager.
Or Whitbury New Town Leisure Centre is missing its emperor...
We tried to tell you he was Gordon Brittas. But so much faith had been put in him as Not Corbyn that no criticism could be tolerated. We Tories know a duff 'un when we elect them. You should have listened.
Heh.
I remember i got a lot of criticism when I said he reminded me of Gordon Brittas in his mannerisms. I didn't expect he would be copying his management style. Unlike Brittas, don’t think Starmer will be a local hero after burning down the leisure centre / government.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
If Lucy gets the deputy's job will they be known as doofus and doofa?
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
Completely useless and out of touch with reality will sum up many Labour politicians.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 51m The primary focus has obviously been on the Mandelson saga this week. But people are overlooking the significance of Lucy Powell securing over 100 nominations for Deputy Leader when No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest. Labour MPs see it as a watershed moment.
Senior Labour party figures revealed that an existing Manchester MP who is in ill health is ready to stand down [for Burngham], causing a byelection – the party leadership is likely to do everything it can to block it.
Guardian
I’m not sure you can in practice? Wouldn’t blocking the Mayor of Manchester from running for a Manchester seat just invite that open warfare.
They put him back in his box. 'The people of Gtr Manchester elected you to do a job which the Labour Party put you forward for. Get on with it'
It’s the internal politics that’s the issue not the public messaging - it could seriously undermine Starmer and create a king over the water
Nightmare or dream scenario depending on your point of view......
Burnham resigns as Mayor after winning a by election and SKS is ousted in a coup/resigns Burnham loses leadership contest/doesn't get the noms and is not put in cabinet Labour lose Gtr Manchester mayor by election to Reform as its still being run on FPTP Burnham becomes the turd that lost Labour Manchester for nothing
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
I can’t explain it as she’s very underwhelming and done nothing . She’s no saviour but might end up winning as Phillipson might be seen as too much of a Starmer loyalist .
It does highlight though what a huge loss Rayner is for the party .
There are two giant USPs up for grabs and only Starmer can realistically grab both. One is Rejoin the second is showing decisive action in putting a stop to Israel. Both would be massively popular.
The Party Conference would be the time. it would require a massive reset but it's there for the taking
You, an experienced man of the world, surely know the political principle.
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
(No Starmer won't move to rejoin. It's one of those things that needs a Political Generation to pass first. The irony is that those who want a fettled version of the status quo to stick should be wishing Starmer a long and happy premiership, so that this political generation lasts as long as possible.)
I wish SKS a long and happy premiership for many more reasons than that, regardless of his decisions on Rejoin. If SKS is happy, it's likely the country will be moving to a happier place.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
If Lucy gets the deputy's job will they be known as doofus and doofa?
Officials at No 10 and the Foreign Office were aware of supportive emails between Lord Mandelson and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when the prime minister initially defended the former ambassador on Wednesday, the BBC understands.
Sources stressed Sir Keir was not aware of the contents of the emails when he stood by Lord Mandelson at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.
The BBC understands that a media enquiry outlining details of the messages between the pair was sent to the Foreign Office on Tuesday, and passed on to No 10.
Yet again, never crossed my desk and I didn't think to ask.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
Completely useless and out of touch with reality will sum up many Labour politicians.
Trouble is, it's even more true of the alternatives.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
Senior Labour party figures revealed that an existing Manchester MP who is in ill health is ready to stand down [for Burngham], causing a byelection – the party leadership is likely to do everything it can to block it.
Guardian
I’m not sure you can in practice? Wouldn’t blocking the Mayor of Manchester from running for a Manchester seat just invite that open warfare.
They put him back in his box. 'The people of Gtr Manchester elected you to do a job which the Labour Party put you forward for. Get on with it'
It’s the internal politics that’s the issue not the public messaging - it could seriously undermine Starmer and create a king over the water
Nightmare or dream scenario depending on your point of view......
Burnham resigns as Mayor after winning a by election and SKS is ousted in a coup/resigns Burnham loses leadership contest/doesn't get the noms and is not put in cabinet Labour lose Gtr Manchester mayor by election to Reform as its still being run on FPTP Burnham becomes the turd that lost Labour Manchester for nothing
The most likely outcomes are:
1. Burnham is elected MP and put in the Cabinet and is seen as parking his tanks on Starmer’s lawn 2. Burnham is elected MP and not put in the Cabinet - Starmer looks like a complete scared idiot and is fatally undermined 3. Burnham is blocked as candidate - Starmer looks like a complete scared idiot and there is turmoil created in the party with Burnham becoming the “king over the water”
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
The Powell support is mostly a deliberate rebuke to Starmer, who sacked her last week. It is a negative, wrecking vote not enthusiasm for her.
I think Powell and Phillipson are both very similar politically, and both to the left of Starmer (not hard!).
I think Phillipson will win comfortably, but how they perform at conference will be key.
Officials at No 10 and the Foreign Office were aware of supportive emails between Lord Mandelson and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when the prime minister initially defended the former ambassador on Wednesday, the BBC understands.
Sources stressed Sir Keir was not aware of the contents of the emails when he stood by Lord Mandelson at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.
The BBC understands that a media enquiry outlining details of the messages between the pair was sent to the Foreign Office on Tuesday, and passed on to No 10.
Yet again, never crossed my desk and I didn't think to ask.
It also means there is no one in his team with any political nous.
It went from the foreign office press officer to the Downing Street press office. They “started looking into it”.
No one thought to show it to the Director of Communications*? Really? Either Starmer is lying or the DoC should be sacked for being crap.
* no idea if that is the right title but assuming there is a political appointee with that responsibility.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
I can’t explain it as she’s very underwhelming and done nothing . She’s no saviour but might end up winning as Phillipson might be seen as too much of a Starmer loyalist .
It does highlight though what a huge loss Rayner is for the party .
Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't she feel like a number 10 plant? I don't see Powell ever really making any impact on Labour policy or the government. She's the definition of mediocre. Labour members may get a choice between Phillipson who we know is a Number 10 plant and Powell who may also turn out to be one.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 51m The primary focus has obviously been on the Mandelson saga this week. But people are overlooking the significance of Lucy Powell securing over 100 nominations for Deputy Leader when No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest. Labour MPs see it as a watershed moment.
Where's his evidence that No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest? A contest was inevitable. and even Starmer wouldn't have been bonkers enough to seek to prevent it. I would imagine that No.10 is quite content that the contest is between two pretty loyal MPs.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 51m The primary focus has obviously been on the Mandelson saga this week. But people are overlooking the significance of Lucy Powell securing over 100 nominations for Deputy Leader when No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest. Labour MPs see it as a watershed moment.
Where's his evidence that No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest? A contest was inevitable. and even Starmer wouldn't have been bonkers enough to seek to prevent it. I would imagine that No.10 is quite content that the contest is between two pretty loyal MPs.
Indeed, far from being concerned surely they're relieved that no rabble rousers made it to the members vote. Both candidates can be relied to be invisible.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
Officials at No 10 and the Foreign Office were aware of supportive emails between Lord Mandelson and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when the prime minister initially defended the former ambassador on Wednesday, the BBC understands.
Sources stressed Sir Keir was not aware of the contents of the emails when he stood by Lord Mandelson at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.
The BBC understands that a media enquiry outlining details of the messages between the pair was sent to the Foreign Office on Tuesday, and passed on to No 10.
Yet again, never crossed my desk and I didn't think to ask.
It also means there is no one in his team with any political nous.
It went from the foreign office press officer to the Downing Street press office. They “started looking into it”.
No one thought to show it to the Director of Communications*? Really? Either Starmer is lying or the DoC should be sacked for being crap.
* no idea if that is the right title but assuming there is a political appointee with that responsibility.
They are obviously lying or it was ordered to ensure key people aren't sent things so they can claim ignorance. In today's WhatsApp age, no way when there is red lights flashing on the control panel at the nuclear power station that people don't have ability to contact management instantly.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 51m The primary focus has obviously been on the Mandelson saga this week. But people are overlooking the significance of Lucy Powell securing over 100 nominations for Deputy Leader when No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest. Labour MPs see it as a watershed moment.
Where's his evidence that No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest? A contest was inevitable. and even Starmer wouldn't have been bonkers enough to seek to prevent it. I would imagine that No.10 is quite content that the contest is between two pretty loyal MPs.
Yes, both have been core loyal members of the team. I dont know why Powell was evicted in the reshuffle, but it might have been as simple as needing to promote fresh faces.
I think Phillipson has the harder edge. There were briefings against her about her being removed by Starmer earlier in the year, but she held on to her post and looks secure. I think Starmer is afraid of her.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 51m The primary focus has obviously been on the Mandelson saga this week. But people are overlooking the significance of Lucy Powell securing over 100 nominations for Deputy Leader when No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest. Labour MPs see it as a watershed moment.
Where's his evidence that No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest? A contest was inevitable. and even Starmer wouldn't have been bonkers enough to seek to prevent it. I would imagine that No.10 is quite content that the contest is between two pretty loyal MPs.
I would be highly surprised if Starmer falls despite the frotting from the PB faithful and the right wing media.
There have to be better operatives than Burnham in the HoC. Burnham by the way seems to be a PB faithful favourite. There is no accounting for taste.
There are two giant USPs up for grabs and only Starmer can realistically grab both. One is Rejoin the second is showing decisive action in putting a stop to Israel. Both would be massively popular.
The Party Conference would be the time. it would require a massive reset but it's there for the taking
And neither would address the fundamental challenges this country faces (although I would support both).
However, where I agree with you is that it might give Starmer the boost in popularity he needs to be able to deliver some of the difficult medicine @Stuartinromford prescribed at the end of the last thread.
I increasingly think Starmer doesn't have the competence to deliver real solutions unfortunately.
I dont think a change of policy on the EU or Israel would do, and Starmers endless reshuffles in the back office are a joke.
The problem is that Starmer has been tested and found wanting. The wooden, directionless waffling Starmer is the real thing.
He needs to be replaced, the question is when, how and by whom. Rayner going has created a vacuum.
He's only been "tested and found wanting" in the same way Sunak was.
I think that's the main disappointment for those of us who haven't developed a vitriolic dislike for the Prime Minister - the thought he might have been able to move the country forward and tackle the huge issues but, like his immediate predecessors, it's not as though he's tried something and it hasn't worked but he's simply not tried.
These issues are complex and multi-layered and evolving whether immigration, economic growth or our political and economic relationships with the world but I sense (and the Sky Immigration debate convinced me further) no one in any party has any coherent, practical and affordable (and legal) solutions so we muddle on and we end up with Continuity Sunak.
The Truss Experience has clearly left its mark, not so much on the country or even the Conservative Party but on the willingness of the political class to be "bold" or "radical" or "courageous" (you can choose your own word). At a time when the right to offend and the right to be offended is being tested as never before, political leadership seems terrified of giving if not offence then of putting forward ideas and policies which might well benefit the greater good but which would undoubtedly alienate a section of society whether they be pensioners, other welfare recipients, high tax payers, property owners, car drivers, racists, non-racists etc. etc.
The ability of social media to mobilise and vocalise discontent has had a huge impact on the political process.
Someone here remarked the other day that the downfall of a PM is down to the same thing that had been considered their strength.
That is true of Starmer. After the turmoil of the Brexit fiasco, covid, partygate, the brief Truss farce, Starmer looked the part of the dull technocrat, but it's that dull technocrat style that has brought him to the point of defenestration just a year after a landslide.
We always over react when replacing leaders, so expect another vacuous showman.
Interesting. I was quite a fan of the PM and liked the dull technocratiness. There was also a dull competence that infuriated Conservatives who had to sit and watch the feeble slightly malign Kemi making no progress at all.
I didn't care about Rayner. I didn't think she was particularly good and he did the right things and handled it with despatch and no one ever voted for a Party because they liked the No2.
......Then came Mandy. I wasn't a fan and didn't like the appointment. The idea of putting someone in Trump's inner circle to massage his ego (or anything else he wanted massaging) was faintly repellent.
I'd no interest in Epstein or his friendship with Mandy so had no problem with the revelations when they came out.
.........but then came the sacking and the unwind.....and the whole creepiness of how Starmer does his business hit me like a giant kipper in the face......
As Jimmy Carr put it, Starmer, there is an Asda in the Midlands missing a store manager.
Or Whitbury New Town Leisure Centre is missing its emperor...
We tried to tell you he was Gordon Brittas. But so much faith had been put in him as Not Corbyn that no criticism could be tolerated. We Tories know a duff 'un when we elect them. You should have listened.
Heh.
I remember i got a lot of criticism when I said he reminded me of Gordon Brittas in his mannerisms. I didn't expect he would be copying his management style. Unlike Brittas, don’t think Starmer will be a local hero after burning down the leisure centre / government.
"Since I have been manager, I am proud to say there have only been twenty-three deaths. And not one of them was a staff member."
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
There are two giant USPs up for grabs and only Starmer can realistically grab both. One is Rejoin the second is showing decisive action in putting a stop to Israel. Both would be massively popular.
The Party Conference would be the time. it would require a massive reset but it's there for the taking
And neither would address the fundamental challenges this country faces (although I would support both).
However, where I agree with you is that it might give Starmer the boost in popularity he needs to be able to deliver some of the difficult medicine @Stuartinromford prescribed at the end of the last thread.
I increasingly think Starmer doesn't have the competence to deliver real solutions unfortunately.
I dont think a change of policy on the EU or Israel would do, and Starmers endless reshuffles in the back office are a joke.
The problem is that Starmer has been tested and found wanting. The wooden, directionless waffling Starmer is the real thing.
He needs to be replaced, the question is when, how and by whom. Rayner going has created a vacuum.
He's only been "tested and found wanting" in the same way Sunak was.
I think that's the main disappointment for those of us who haven't developed a vitriolic dislike for the Prime Minister - the thought he might have been able to move the country forward and tackle the huge issues but, like his immediate predecessors, it's not as though he's tried something and it hasn't worked but he's simply not tried.
These issues are complex and multi-layered and evolving whether immigration, economic growth or our political and economic relationships with the world but I sense (and the Sky Immigration debate convinced me further) no one in any party has any coherent, practical and affordable (and legal) solutions so we muddle on and we end up with Continuity Sunak.
The Truss Experience has clearly left its mark, not so much on the country or even the Conservative Party but on the willingness of the political class to be "bold" or "radical" or "courageous" (you can choose your own word). At a time when the right to offend and the right to be offended is being tested as never before, political leadership seems terrified of giving if not offence then of putting forward ideas and policies which might well benefit the greater good but which would undoubtedly alienate a section of society whether they be pensioners, other welfare recipients, high tax payers, property owners, car drivers, racists, non-racists etc. etc.
The ability of social media to mobilise and vocalise discontent has had a huge impact on the political process.
Someone here remarked the other day that the downfall of a PM is down to the same thing that had been considered their strength.
That is true of Starmer. After the turmoil of the Brexit fiasco, covid, partygate, the brief Truss farce, Starmer looked the part of the dull technocrat, but it's that dull technocrat style that has brought him to the point of defenestration just a year after a landslide.
We always over react when replacing leaders, so expect another vacuous showman.
Interesting. I was quite a fan of the PM and liked the dull technocratiness. There was also a dull competence that infuriated Conservatives who had to sit and watch the feeble slightly malign Kemi making no progress at all.
I didn't care about Rayner. I didn't think she was any good and he did all the right things and handled it with despatch and no one ever voted for a Party because they liked the No2.
......Then came Mandy. I wasn't a fan and didn't like the appointment. The idea of putting someone in Trump's inner circle to massage his ego (or anything else he wanted massaging) was faintly repellent.
I'd no interest in Epstein or his friendship with Mandy so had no problem with the revelations when they came out.
.........but then came the sacking and the unwind.....and the whole creepiness of how Starmer does his business hit me like a giant kipper in the face......
Fixed for you....
dull competence -> dull incompetence...
The only time he isn't is weirdly dealing with Trump. Not a pretty sight though kissing Trump arse to get a 5% discount.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
I dont think Labour party members want a civil war. They are mostly centrists and soft left now, since the exodus to Greens and Your Party.
It's not like the Tory party, which has a long repeating history of regicide.
Officials at No 10 and the Foreign Office were aware of supportive emails between Lord Mandelson and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when the prime minister initially defended the former ambassador on Wednesday, the BBC understands.
Sources stressed Sir Keir was not aware of the contents of the emails when he stood by Lord Mandelson at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.
The BBC understands that a media enquiry outlining details of the messages between the pair was sent to the Foreign Office on Tuesday, and passed on to No 10.
Yet again, never crossed my desk and I didn't think to ask.
It also means there is no one in his team with any political nous.
It went from the foreign office press officer to the Downing Street press office. They “started looking into it”.
No one thought to show it to the Director of Communications*? Really? Either Starmer is lying or the DoC should be sacked for being crap.
* no idea if that is the right title but assuming there is a political appointee with that responsibility.
No-one was shown anything. Officially.
There is no greater offence, in many organisations than officiously telling senior management things that they would want to deny knowing
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 51m The primary focus has obviously been on the Mandelson saga this week. But people are overlooking the significance of Lucy Powell securing over 100 nominations for Deputy Leader when No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest. Labour MPs see it as a watershed moment.
Where's his evidence that No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest? A contest was inevitable. and even Starmer wouldn't have been bonkers enough to seek to prevent it. I would imagine that No.10 is quite content that the contest is between two pretty loyal MPs.
Where's his evidence that No. 10 has any capabilites whatsoever to mount a "major operation".
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
Your certainty that Powell will win is misplaced, I think. Phillipson is quite formidable, and is a much better speaker. There will be hustings and so on. I'd put the odds around 60:40 in Phillipson's favour at the moment.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
No, I'm sorry but whoever wins will have no bearing on whether Starmer stays or goes. That will fundamentally depend on how likely it is Labour will win the next election with him vs with someone else. It's also incredibly difficult for Labour to forcibly remove a sitting PM in a way that it isn't for the Tories. It took Brown 5 years of scheming and plotting to bring Blair down, it took the Tories a few weeks to bring Mrs Thatcher down.
Like it or not I think Starmer is here to stay at least until 2028 when the parties will be gearing up for a 2029 election and MPs start looking at wh is best placed to preserve their majority. Rayner may make a comeback around then.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
I dont think Labour party members want a civil war. They are mostly centrists and soft left now, since the exodus to Greens and Your Party.
It's not like the Tory party, which has a long repeating history of regicide.
Officials at No 10 and the Foreign Office were aware of supportive emails between Lord Mandelson and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when the prime minister initially defended the former ambassador on Wednesday, the BBC understands.
Sources stressed Sir Keir was not aware of the contents of the emails when he stood by Lord Mandelson at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.
The BBC understands that a media enquiry outlining details of the messages between the pair was sent to the Foreign Office on Tuesday, and passed on to No 10.
Yet again, never crossed my desk and I didn't think to ask.
It also means there is no one in his team with any political nous.
It went from the foreign office press officer to the Downing Street press office. They “started looking into it”.
No one thought to show it to the Director of Communications*? Really? Either Starmer is lying or the DoC should be sacked for being crap.
* no idea if that is the right title but assuming there is a political appointee with that responsibility.
No-one was shown anything. Officially.
There is no greater offence, in many organisations than officiously telling senior management things that they would want to deny knowing
The defence by the muppet they sent out on R5 last night, was it was in the Telegraph, so nobody takes any notice. Which even fatty mcfatty face said erhhh Rayner stories were in the Telegraph as well...and of course its lies as it was Bloomberg had the emails.
If Powell becomes Labour Deputy Leader of Labour that would be good news for Burnham but less so for Starmer. Though the post is largely symbolic, Lammy would remain Deputy PM
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 51m The primary focus has obviously been on the Mandelson saga this week. But people are overlooking the significance of Lucy Powell securing over 100 nominations for Deputy Leader when No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest. Labour MPs see it as a watershed moment.
Where's his evidence that No.10 mounted a major operation to prevent a contest? A contest was inevitable. and even Starmer wouldn't have been bonkers enough to seek to prevent it. I would imagine that No.10 is quite content that the contest is between two pretty loyal MPs.
Where's his evidence that No. 10 has any capabilites whatsoever to mount a "major operation".
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
Your certainty that Powell will win is misplaced, I think. Phillipson is quite formidable, and is a much better speaker. There will be hustings and so on. I'd put the odds around 60:40 in Phillipson's favour at the moment.
He's not a Labour member so I don't know why he's so certain about how Labour members such as yourself will vote. Iirc 2024 was his first time voting for Labour and he's very much an outsider to the Labour party.
My read of the race is that the PM is probably pretty comfortable with either of these two winning the membership vote. Neither will offer substantial opposition nor build independent power bases, they are both middle of the road centre left, not that hard left rabble rouser who I think he actually feared making the ballot.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
Your certainty that Powell will win is misplaced, I think. Phillipson is quite formidable, and is a much better speaker. There will be hustings and so on. I'd put the odds around 60:40 in Phillipson's favour at the moment.
I think that the nominations for Powell came mostly because she is personable and sociable. She has been leader of the house for a year and networked well.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
Your certainty that Powell will win is misplaced, I think. Phillipson is quite formidable, and is a much better speaker. There will be hustings and so on. I'd put the odds around 60:40 in Phillipson's favour at the moment.
The problem is that she is Starmer’s candidate. Starmer is not the most popular chap with the Labour Party or the members at the moment.
It’s a perfect opportunity for a Loyal Shot Across the Bows.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
I dont think Labour party members want a civil war. They are mostly centrists and soft left now, since the exodus to Greens and Your Party.
It's not like the Tory party, which has a long repeating history of regicide.
Unlike the Tories now Labour leadersip rules also do not allow MPs to have a vote of no confidence in the party leader.
A challenger has to challenge direct and Burnham is not eligible as he is not an MP and Streeting and Cooper won't and a leftwinger on the backbenches would be just a stalking horse for Burnham
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
Your certainty that Powell will win is misplaced, I think. Phillipson is quite formidable, and is a much better speaker. There will be hustings and so on. I'd put the odds around 60:40 in Phillipson's favour at the moment.
He's not a Labour member so I don't know why he's so certain about how Labour members such as yourself will vote. Iirc 2024 was his first time voting for Labour and he's very much an outsider to the Labour party.
My read of the race is that the PM is probably pretty comfortable with either of these two winning the membership vote. Neither will offer substantial opposition nor build independent power bases, they are both middle of the road centre left, not that hard left rabble rouser who I think he actually feared making the ballot.
Spot on. The "hard left" candidate only won 24 MP nominations - they are weak in the PLP and offer little threat to Starmer.
There are two giant USPs up for grabs and only Starmer can realistically grab both. One is Rejoin the second is showing decisive action in putting a stop to Israel. Both would be massively popular.
The Party Conference would be the time. it would require a massive reset but it's there for the taking
And neither would address the fundamental challenges this country faces (although I would support both).
However, where I agree with you is that it might give Starmer the boost in popularity he needs to be able to deliver some of the difficult medicine @Stuartinromford prescribed at the end of the last thread.
I increasingly think Starmer doesn't have the competence to deliver real solutions unfortunately.
I dont think a change of policy on the EU or Israel would do, and Starmers endless reshuffles in the back office are a joke.
The problem is that Starmer has been tested and found wanting. The wooden, directionless waffling Starmer is the real thing.
He needs to be replaced, the question is when, how and by whom. Rayner going has created a vacuum.
He's only been "tested and found wanting" in the same way Sunak was.
I think that's the main disappointment for those of us who haven't developed a vitriolic dislike for the Prime Minister - the thought he might have been able to move the country forward and tackle the huge issues but, like his immediate predecessors, it's not as though he's tried something and it hasn't worked but he's simply not tried.
These issues are complex and multi-layered and evolving whether immigration, economic growth or our political and economic relationships with the world but I sense (and the Sky Immigration debate convinced me further) no one in any party has any coherent, practical and affordable (and legal) solutions so we muddle on and we end up with Continuity Sunak.
The Truss Experience has clearly left its mark, not so much on the country or even the Conservative Party but on the willingness of the political class to be "bold" or "radical" or "courageous" (you can choose your own word). At a time when the right to offend and the right to be offended is being tested as never before, political leadership seems terrified of giving if not offence then of putting forward ideas and policies which might well benefit the greater good but which would undoubtedly alienate a section of society whether they be pensioners, other welfare recipients, high tax payers, property owners, car drivers, racists, non-racists etc. etc.
The ability of social media to mobilise and vocalise discontent has had a huge impact on the political process.
Yup. We don't really know what we want (beyond fantasies about pure upside with zero downside) but we know what we don't want (anything on offer). And social media means we don't want it more loudly than ever. If Burnham somehow becomes PM, I'm confident that he will become as unpopular as the others have as rapidly as the others did.
Sacking the manager of a struggling football club rarely leads to a sustained improvement. The problems are usually much deeper than that.
Interesting analogy - the fans of a club want their team to win every match but no team does that. Both England's football and cricket teams regularly go from being the greatest that has ever stepped on a pitch to being the worst in the history of the sport over a period of a few days (and then back again).
Farage will discover all this if and when he becomes Prime Minister (as would Badenoch or Davey in that more unlikely event). To be fair, even some of the apparently staunch supporters of Reform on here have conceded the party in Government would become very unpopular very quickly.
There is a truth radical Governments trying to do radical things get very unpopular - Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all discovered that - but it's worse when you have a Government apparently doing nothing. A radical Government will in time see the benefits of its legislation and can show these to the public (whether the public like them or not is another question).
If you do nothing, you have nothing to show for it - arguably, that's where Starmer's administration is going to end up.
I now believe Starmer never actually wanted to do much, anyway. He’s not an especially political man. He’s not driven by “politics”
He’s a public sector lawyer
He wanted to come in and enjoy the perks of being PM and do some high profile left wing or progressive things (Chagos, assisted dying) then reap the applause and that’s it. He certainly didn’t want to massively change the country because the country, as it is, really works for people like him. Highly paid public sector wonks
I would put it differently but I think that's quite insightful.
I think he saw the platform of PM as a place to solve what he saw as the 'big problems of the world'. I suspect the actual big problems for this country: crumbling schools, creaking NHS, cost of living don't move him that much.
Or, perhaps, they do move him but he just has no idea what to do about them. I think he could have been an excellent PM in about 2001, when there was more money around.
If Powell becomes Labour Deputy Leader of Labour that would be good news for Burnham but less so for Starmer. Though the post is largely symbolic, Lammy would remain Deputy PM
It's not just symbolic, and symbols certainly matter in politics. If the Leader resigns then the Deputy Leader gets the job, albeit possibly temporarily.
This isn't just a Deputy Leadership contest, it is a proxy leadership contest in order to be the heir apparent.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
Your certainty that Powell will win is misplaced, I think. Phillipson is quite formidable, and is a much better speaker. There will be hustings and so on. I'd put the odds around 60:40 in Phillipson's favour at the moment.
I think that the nominations for Powell came mostly because she is personable and sociable. She has been leader of the house for a year and networked well.
I've had some minor interaction with Lucy Powell in the past, and on that limited basis I've been quite impressed with her. She struck me as intelligent and with a good grasp of detail and understanding of cause and effect.
Good job there isn't a horror budget ahead. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, where own side won't accept cuts, the public won't accept tax rises and the markets won't accept a can kicking no action approach.
cf...France....
Though in France Macron's government have proposed cuts it is the opposition who have blocked them in a hung Assembly
There are two giant USPs up for grabs and only Starmer can realistically grab both. One is Rejoin the second is showing decisive action in putting a stop to Israel. Both would be massively popular.
The Party Conference would be the time. it would require a massive reset but it's there for the taking
And neither would address the fundamental challenges this country faces (although I would support both).
However, where I agree with you is that it might give Starmer the boost in popularity he needs to be able to deliver some of the difficult medicine @Stuartinromford prescribed at the end of the last thread.
I increasingly think Starmer doesn't have the competence to deliver real solutions unfortunately.
I dont think a change of policy on the EU or Israel would do, and Starmers endless reshuffles in the back office are a joke.
The problem is that Starmer has been tested and found wanting. The wooden, directionless waffling Starmer is the real thing.
He needs to be replaced, the question is when, how and by whom. Rayner going has created a vacuum.
He's only been "tested and found wanting" in the same way Sunak was.
I think that's the main disappointment for those of us who haven't developed a vitriolic dislike for the Prime Minister - the thought he might have been able to move the country forward and tackle the huge issues but, like his immediate predecessors, it's not as though he's tried something and it hasn't worked but he's simply not tried.
These issues are complex and multi-layered and evolving whether immigration, economic growth or our political and economic relationships with the world but I sense (and the Sky Immigration debate convinced me further) no one in any party has any coherent, practical and affordable (and legal) solutions so we muddle on and we end up with Continuity Sunak.
The Truss Experience has clearly left its mark, not so much on the country or even the Conservative Party but on the willingness of the political class to be "bold" or "radical" or "courageous" (you can choose your own word). At a time when the right to offend and the right to be offended is being tested as never before, political leadership seems terrified of giving if not offence then of putting forward ideas and policies which might well benefit the greater good but which would undoubtedly alienate a section of society whether they be pensioners, other welfare recipients, high tax payers, property owners, car drivers, racists, non-racists etc. etc.
The ability of social media to mobilise and vocalise discontent has had a huge impact on the political process.
Yup. We don't really know what we want (beyond fantasies about pure upside with zero downside) but we know what we don't want (anything on offer). And social media means we don't want it more loudly than ever. If Burnham somehow becomes PM, I'm confident that he will become as unpopular as the others have as rapidly as the others did.
Sacking the manager of a struggling football club rarely leads to a sustained improvement. The problems are usually much deeper than that.
Interesting analogy - the fans of a club want their team to win every match but no team does that. Both England's football and cricket teams regularly go from being the greatest that has ever stepped on a pitch to being the worst in the history of the sport over a period of a few days (and then back again).
Farage will discover all this if and when he becomes Prime Minister (as would Badenoch or Davey in that more unlikely event). To be fair, even some of the apparently staunch supporters of Reform on here have conceded the party in Government would become very unpopular very quickly.
There is a truth radical Governments trying to do radical things get very unpopular - Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all discovered that - but it's worse when you have a Government apparently doing nothing. A radical Government will in time see the benefits of its legislation and can show these to the public (whether the public like them or not is another question).
If you do nothing, you have nothing to show for it - arguably, that's where Starmer's administration is going to end up.
I now believe Starmer never actually wanted to do much, anyway. He’s not an especially political man. He’s not driven by “politics”
He’s a public sector lawyer
He wanted to come in and enjoy the perks of being PM and do some high profile left wing or progressive things (Chagos, assisted dying) then reap the applause and that’s it. He certainly didn’t want to massively change the country because the country, as it is, really works for people like him. Highly paid public sector wonks
I would put it differently but I think that's quite insightful.
I think he saw the platform of PM as a place to solve what he saw as the 'big problems of the world'. I suspect the actual big problems for this country: crumbling schools, creaking NHS, cost of living don't move him that much.
Or, perhaps, they do move him but he just has no idea what to do about them. I think he could have been an excellent PM in about 2001, when there was more money around.
I think it was more that he actually believed that it was Bad Government that was holding the country back. Just follow the Proper Departmental Policies, and everything would be awesome.
The idea that he would have to change things never occurred to him.
Backbench Labour MP Olivia Blake said it feels like Keir Starmer’s operation has “gone into the bunker”.
Discussing last week’s reshuffle, she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
It does feel like they’ve gone into the bunker, but they’ve actually thrown half the people out of the bunker at the moment, and we need to get back to a much more inclusive parliamentary Labour party (PLP), inclusive discussions happening with ministers and better representation around the cabinet table.
After a disastrous week in which Angela Rayner resigned and Peter Mandelson was sacked as ambassador to Washington, Labour MPs have begun to ask whether Starmer could be challenged as prime minister.
A number of MPs said a challenge was likely if local and Welsh elections went badly next May. Some said the one thing now protecting Starmer was the lack of an agreed replacement.
People just felt that it was such a large reshuffle and, you know, people who were actually delivering in their posts were moved. And it just kind of felt like there was a real narrowing in who was sat around the table, and that can’t be positive, because I think there’s a sense that the leadership don’t like to be challenged.
Asked about the No 10 operation, she said it was “really embarrassing” if Starmer was not told about Lord Mandelson’s emails to Jeffrey Epstein soon enough, amid suggestions Downing Street was aware of the messages before the prime minister defended the ex-ambassador on Wednesday.
Blake said:
We saw through the welfare reforms that they did the same again. They didn’t tell Keir, they didn’t tell the prime minister how bad it was on the back benches. So, you know, he was putting statements out saying, ‘oh, some people can sound off’. Well, the strength of feeling in the PLP was much, much deeper than that. And again, I just think that whoever’s gatekeeping the information to the prime minister needs to stop. They need to be getting stuff to him much earlier.
She also said backbenchers are frustrated after a number of “own goals” for the government. Blake, the MP for Sheffield Hallam, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme it is “frustrating” that the good work the government has done is “not cutting through” and added:
Instead, we’ve had a number of kind of own goals, and that has meant that we’ve slipped heavily in the polls, and that we seem to be more interested in focusing on each other rather than what’s in the best interest of the country at the moment.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
We didn't change our names. Couldn't be bothered with it. Writing to dozens and dozens of organizations etc to get the new name set up!
Backbench Labour MP Olivia Blake said it feels like Keir Starmer’s operation has “gone into the bunker”.
Discussing last week’s reshuffle, she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
It does feel like they’ve gone into the bunker, but they’ve actually thrown half the people out of the bunker at the moment, and we need to get back to a much more inclusive parliamentary Labour party (PLP), inclusive discussions happening with ministers and better representation around the cabinet table.
After a disastrous week in which Angela Rayner resigned and Peter Mandelson was sacked as ambassador to Washington, Labour MPs have begun to ask whether Starmer could be challenged as prime minister.
A number of MPs said a challenge was likely if local and Welsh elections went badly next May. Some said the one thing now protecting Starmer was the lack of an agreed replacement.
After a disastrous week in which Angela Rayner resigned and Peter Mandelson was sacked as ambassador to Washington, Labour MPs have begun to ask whether Starmer could be challenged as prime minister.
People just felt that it was such a large reshuffle and, you know, people who were actually delivering in their posts were moved. And it just kind of felt like there was a real narrowing in who was sat around the table, and that can’t be positive, because I think there’s a sense that the leadership don’t like to be challenged.
Asked about the No 10 operation, she said it was “really embarrassing” if Starmer was not told about Lord Mandelson’s emails to Jeffrey Epstein soon enough, amid suggestions Downing Street was aware of the messages before the prime minister defended the ex-ambassador on Wednesday.
Blake said:
We saw through the welfare reforms that they did the same again. They didn’t tell Keir, they didn’t tell the prime minister how bad it was on the back benches. So, you know, he was putting statements out saying, ‘oh, some people can sound off’. Well, the strength of feeling in the PLP was much, much deeper than that. And again, I just think that whoever’s gatekeeping the information to the prime minister needs to stop. They need to be getting stuff to him much earlier.
She also said backbenchers are frustrated after a number of “own goals” for the government. Blake, the MP for Sheffield Hallam, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme it is “frustrating” that the good work the government has done is “not cutting through” and added:
Instead, we’ve had a number of kind of own goals, and that has meant that we’ve slipped heavily in the polls, and that we seem to be more interested in focusing on each other rather than what’s in the best interest of the country at the moment.
We’ve got to call it as is, not be a spinning top. So I’ll do that, you tell me where I’m wrong. No one’s pushing all this was known when Mandy was appointed, which would be very damaging, media chatter now just focussing in events this week, Tuesday to Thursday, saying it was slow - that’s letting Starmer and Labour off a bit.
What is good, Kemi is pushing for a vote on release of the records of original decision making, but even if that passes, it’s pages of redacted info for some reason or another. A dead end.
Was it really that slow? How many PBers posting on Wednesday it has to wait till after the State visit? I felt in minority saying it has to be immediate, can’t drag on any more days. He was sacked 12 hours after I posted that. Just sacked a senior official for committing what crime? It goes into a tribunal now you have to justify the wrongdoing for a sacking, removal of their job and money etc.
I think it was Leon who posted the other day, chatter and murmur of discontent is just normal politics he’s known all his life. Lady Thatcher, the greatest most successful leader of all, had all this pressure and discontent in her first years as PM.
Truth is, What underpins this situation - like in Lady Thatchers first years - is the economy - it starts turning good, murmurings are whackamoled and the polling flips round. Boring, naff, even controversial and marmite PM and governments can turn things round and win elections, based on the economy. Their shitness gets forgiven.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
Your certainty that Powell will win is misplaced, I think. Phillipson is quite formidable, and is a much better speaker. There will be hustings and so on. I'd put the odds around 60:40 in Phillipson's favour at the moment.
I think that the nominations for Powell came mostly because she is personable and sociable. She has been leader of the house for a year and networked well.
I've had some minor interaction with Lucy Powell in the past, and on that limited basis I've been quite impressed with her. She struck me as intelligent and with a good grasp of detail and understanding of cause and effect.
All other evidence points to incompetence....including getting sacked the other week from what should be a fairly easy job when you have a massive majority.
There are many cases where her lack of detail has led to absolute car crash media rounds.
There are two giant USPs up for grabs and only Starmer can realistically grab both. One is Rejoin the second is showing decisive action in putting a stop to Israel. Both would be massively popular.
The Party Conference would be the time. it would require a massive reset but it's there for the taking
And neither would address the fundamental challenges this country faces (although I would support both).
However, where I agree with you is that it might give Starmer the boost in popularity he needs to be able to deliver some of the difficult medicine @Stuartinromford prescribed at the end of the last thread.
I increasingly think Starmer doesn't have the competence to deliver real solutions unfortunately.
I dont think a change of policy on the EU or Israel would do, and Starmers endless reshuffles in the back office are a joke.
The problem is that Starmer has been tested and found wanting. The wooden, directionless waffling Starmer is the real thing.
He needs to be replaced, the question is when, how and by whom. Rayner going has created a vacuum.
He's only been "tested and found wanting" in the same way Sunak was.
I think that's the main disappointment for those of us who haven't developed a vitriolic dislike for the Prime Minister - the thought he might have been able to move the country forward and tackle the huge issues but, like his immediate predecessors, it's not as though he's tried something and it hasn't worked but he's simply not tried.
These issues are complex and multi-layered and evolving whether immigration, economic growth or our political and economic relationships with the world but I sense (and the Sky Immigration debate convinced me further) no one in any party has any coherent, practical and affordable (and legal) solutions so we muddle on and we end up with Continuity Sunak.
The Truss Experience has clearly left its mark, not so much on the country or even the Conservative Party but on the willingness of the political class to be "bold" or "radical" or "courageous" (you can choose your own word). At a time when the right to offend and the right to be offended is being tested as never before, political leadership seems terrified of giving if not offence then of putting forward ideas and policies which might well benefit the greater good but which would undoubtedly alienate a section of society whether they be pensioners, other welfare recipients, high tax payers, property owners, car drivers, racists, non-racists etc. etc.
The ability of social media to mobilise and vocalise discontent has had a huge impact on the political process.
Yup. We don't really know what we want (beyond fantasies about pure upside with zero downside) but we know what we don't want (anything on offer). And social media means we don't want it more loudly than ever. If Burnham somehow becomes PM, I'm confident that he will become as unpopular as the others have as rapidly as the others did.
Sacking the manager of a struggling football club rarely leads to a sustained improvement. The problems are usually much deeper than that.
Interesting analogy - the fans of a club want their team to win every match but no team does that. Both England's football and cricket teams regularly go from being the greatest that has ever stepped on a pitch to being the worst in the history of the sport over a period of a few days (and then back again).
Farage will discover all this if and when he becomes Prime Minister (as would Badenoch or Davey in that more unlikely event). To be fair, even some of the apparently staunch supporters of Reform on here have conceded the party in Government would become very unpopular very quickly.
There is a truth radical Governments trying to do radical things get very unpopular - Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all discovered that - but it's worse when you have a Government apparently doing nothing. A radical Government will in time see the benefits of its legislation and can show these to the public (whether the public like them or not is another question).
If you do nothing, you have nothing to show for it - arguably, that's where Starmer's administration is going to end up.
I now believe Starmer never actually wanted to do much, anyway. He’s not an especially political man. He’s not driven by “politics”
He’s a public sector lawyer
He wanted to come in and enjoy the perks of being PM and do some high profile left wing or progressive things (Chagos, assisted dying) then reap the applause and that’s it. He certainly didn’t want to massively change the country because the country, as it is, really works for people like him. Highly paid public sector wonks
I would put it differently but I think that's quite insightful.
I think he saw the platform of PM as a place to solve what he saw as the 'big problems of the world'. I suspect the actual big problems for this country: crumbling schools, creaking NHS, cost of living don't move him that much.
Or, perhaps, they do move him but he just has no idea what to do about them. I think he could have been an excellent PM in about 2001, when there was more money around.
What makes for an excellent PM? Is it their personal qualities, or is it just being in the right place at the right time? Probably a bit of both, but which is the bigger factor?
Part of my theory of British politics is that the climate doesn't let anyone really thrive in the job. And partly due to that, we get party leaders who certainly shouldn't have taken the job on when they did, if at all.
Starmer got the Labour leadership by being the least implausible man standing in 2020 and 2024. (Go on, try and name the truly adequate alternative that he overcame. A shiny sixpence says you can't.)
Sunak was much the same. Maybe he would have been good with a few more years under his belt. Truss should have not got anywhere near the top. Johnson forced his way into Downing Street by force of will, but was a disaster. May was kind of the post-2016 version of Starmer. And then we're back to Cameron.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
We didn't change our names. Couldn't be bothered with it. Writing to dozens and dozens of organizations etc to get the new name set up!
I think if you have already built a reputation it doesn't make much sense e.g in academia, you already known / have a body of work all listed under your maiden name. I see some double barrel it with their married name then maiden name.
However I have always suspected in politics/ government / civil service it is used at least in part to cloud the nepotism and if the fact your partner might be an well known public figure that leads to awkward questions and interactions.
There are two giant USPs up for grabs and only Starmer can realistically grab both. One is Rejoin the second is showing decisive action in putting a stop to Israel. Both would be massively popular.
The Party Conference would be the time. it would require a massive reset but it's there for the taking
Starmers replacement will not be pro-Brexit or bound by Starmer's policies.
Burnham would be more pro Brexit than Starmer if anything, he was never part of the second referendum campaign like Sir Keir, even if Burnham is left of Starmer economically.
The only way that Labour shift closer to the EU and rejoin the customs union and maybe the EEA is if the LDs hold the balance of power in a hung parliament
Backbench Labour MP Olivia Blake said it feels like Keir Starmer’s operation has “gone into the bunker”.
Discussing last week’s reshuffle, she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
It does feel like they’ve gone into the bunker, but they’ve actually thrown half the people out of the bunker at the moment, and we need to get back to a much more inclusive parliamentary Labour party (PLP), inclusive discussions happening with ministers and better representation around the cabinet table.
After a disastrous week in which Angela Rayner resigned and Peter Mandelson was sacked as ambassador to Washington, Labour MPs have begun to ask whether Starmer could be challenged as prime minister.
A number of MPs said a challenge was likely if local and Welsh elections went badly next May. Some said the one thing now protecting Starmer was the lack of an agreed replacement.
After a disastrous week in which Angela Rayner resigned and Peter Mandelson was sacked as ambassador to Washington, Labour MPs have begun to ask whether Starmer could be challenged as prime minister.
People just felt that it was such a large reshuffle and, you know, people who were actually delivering in their posts were moved. And it just kind of felt like there was a real narrowing in who was sat around the table, and that can’t be positive, because I think there’s a sense that the leadership don’t like to be challenged.
Asked about the No 10 operation, she said it was “really embarrassing” if Starmer was not told about Lord Mandelson’s emails to Jeffrey Epstein soon enough, amid suggestions Downing Street was aware of the messages before the prime minister defended the ex-ambassador on Wednesday.
Blake said:
We saw through the welfare reforms that they did the same again. They didn’t tell Keir, they didn’t tell the prime minister how bad it was on the back benches. So, you know, he was putting statements out saying, ‘oh, some people can sound off’. Well, the strength of feeling in the PLP was much, much deeper than that. And again, I just think that whoever’s gatekeeping the information to the prime minister needs to stop. They need to be getting stuff to him much earlier.
She also said backbenchers are frustrated after a number of “own goals” for the government. Blake, the MP for Sheffield Hallam, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme it is “frustrating” that the good work the government has done is “not cutting through” and added:
Instead, we’ve had a number of kind of own goals, and that has meant that we’ve slipped heavily in the polls, and that we seem to be more interested in focusing on each other rather than what’s in the best interest of the country at the moment.
We’ve got to call it as is, not be a spinning top. So I’ll do that, you tell me where I’m wrong. No one’s pushing all this was known when Mandy was appointed, which would be very damaging, media chatter now just focussing in events this week, Tuesday to Thursday, saying it was slow - that’s letting Starmer and Labour off a bit.
What is good, Kemi is pushing for a vote on release of the records of original decision making, but even if that passes, it’s pages of redacted info for some reason or another. A dead end.
Was it really that slow? How many PBers posting on Wednesday it has to wait till after the State visit? I felt in minority saying it has to be immediate, can’t drag on any more days. He was sacked 12 hours after I posted that. Just sacked a senior official for committing what crime? It goes into a tribunal now you have to justify the wrongdoing for a sacking, removal of their job and money etc.
I think it was Leon who posted the other day, chatter and murmur of discontent is just normal politics he’s known all his life. Lady Thatcher, the greatest most successful leader of all, had all this pressure and discontent in her first years as PM.
Truth is, What underpins this situation - like in Lady Thatchers first years - is the economy - it starts turning good, murmurings are whackamoled and the polling flips round. Boring, naff, even controversial and marmite PM and governments can turn things round and win elections, based on the economy. Their shitness gets forgiven.
Thatcher had principle and plans. Starmer has neither.
Thatcher had a power base in the grass roots membership and, via them, the back bencher's. She was so strong in her position that she appointed opponents to the cabinet. Just so she could pound on them. The whining about “the loss of Cabinet Government” was really “Margaret gets her own way in the end”.
Starmer has none of that.
He spent all his considerable political capital for… nothing.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
We didn't change our names. Couldn't be bothered with it. Writing to dozens and dozens of organizations etc to get the new name set up!
I think if you have already built a reputation it doesn't make much sense e.g in academia, you already known / have a body of work all listed under your maiden name. I see some double barrel it with their married name then maiden name.
However I have always suspected in politics/ government / civil service it is used at least in part to cloud the nepotism.
You think? I don't know many women who changed their name on marriage. I think keeping your surname is the norm among professional women at least, Gen x and younger. My wife kept her surname. I doubt there is anything more sinister going on.
Good morning all. Although the sky doesn't look as though it's going to be 'good' for much longer. Shame as it's the last day of the town's cricket season. However, 'twas ever thus!
I have long thought Starmer wasn't party leader or PM material, and have said so on several occasions. It was pretty obvious that he himself didn't think so pretty well from when he came into politics. He only got the party leader job because he was seen as someone who'd done a big job reasonably well, and he wasn't Corbyn, and he got the PM's job because the country was sick and tired of the Tories, none of whose recent leaders had been half-competent, and one case at least, flagrantly dishonest and cowardly. However I'm not sure who else there is on the horizon. Ms Badenoch doesn't impress me, nor do any of the other Tory top brass. Philip in particular comes across, to me anyway, as a nasty piece of work. Davey doesn't seem to do much wrong; his problem is that the media appears to have, collectively, resolved to ignore him and the LibDems generally. I don't know anyone whose opinions I respect who has a high, or even good, opinion of Farage and he comes across as someone who snaps an answer to a problem without thinking about it.
If I didn't care about how my children and grandchildren will be able to manage their lives I'd be content to shuffle off and leave everyone to it.
But I do care, and I'm fearful. Some of my 'descendant' are looking to Australia, and I suspect that that's wise.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
There’s the slightly nouv double barrelling thing. I imagine there are tiffs over which comes first.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
We didn't change our names. Couldn't be bothered with it. Writing to dozens and dozens of organizations etc to get the new name set up!
I'm the same age (and geography!) as Lucy Powell - and I know far more wives who did take their husbands' names than who didn't. But I can see for those whose name is already well known and for whom that is professionally important reasons why they might not. I know some women who maintain two separate names: one for work, and one for their home life. (I also knoe one woman who maintained a separate first name at work for her entire career. But that was just due to an early misunderstanding which was too embarrassing to correct.)
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
We didn't change our names. Couldn't be bothered with it. Writing to dozens and dozens of organizations etc to get the new name set up!
I think if you have already built a reputation it doesn't make much sense e.g in academia, you already known / have a body of work all listed under your maiden name. I see some double barrel it with their married name then maiden name.
However I have always suspected in politics/ government / civil service it is used at least in part to cloud the nepotism.
You think? I don't know many women who changed their name on marriage. I think keeping your surname is the norm among professional women at least, Gen x and younger. My wife kept her surname. I doubt there is anything more sinister going on.
It appears to have been much more common in politics for a lot longer 25-30 years ago with Blair government i remember a number of scandals and they had to keep explaining such and such are actually married.
Harriet Harman and her husband, Adam Boulton (now ex) wife who was Blairs gatekeeper, Mr and Mrs Bad Al.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
Your certainty that Powell will win is misplaced, I think. Phillipson is quite formidable, and is a much better speaker. There will be hustings and so on. I'd put the odds around 60:40 in Phillipson's favour at the moment.
I think that the nominations for Powell came mostly because she is personable and sociable. She has been leader of the house for a year and networked well.
I've had some minor interaction with Lucy Powell in the past, and on that limited basis I've been quite impressed with her. She struck me as intelligent and with a good grasp of detail and understanding of cause and effect.
Powell’s understanding of cause & effect seems to have temporarily deserted her when she stated that not cutting the WFA would crash the economy.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
There’s the slightly nouv double barrelling thing. I imagine there are tiffs over which comes first.
Of course, the man could always take his wife's name...
My wife kept her surname (mainly for professional reasons), but we gave our son her surname as his last middle name. Hence not double-barrelled, but preserving her surname in his.
IMV there's no right answer to this, and if a couple cannot agree even this basic thing, their marriage is probably on rocky ground as it is. And it's no-one else's business to judge what they decide.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
No, I'm sorry but whoever wins will have no bearing on whether Starmer stays or goes. That will fundamentally depend on how likely it is Labour will win the next election with him vs with someone else. It's also incredibly difficult for Labour to forcibly remove a sitting PM in a way that it isn't for the Tories. It took Brown 5 years of scheming and plotting to bring Blair down, it took the Tories a few weeks to bring Mrs Thatcher down.
Like it or not I think Starmer is here to stay at least until 2028 when the parties will be gearing up for a 2029 election and MPs start looking at wh is best placed to preserve their majority. Rayner may make a comeback around then.
Starmer is trading at 2.7 to exit next year. That's good value to lay imo although I'm not as convinced as I used to be that it won't happen.
Steve Bannon is apparently going to speak at today's far right mob event.
Guardian says Hope not Hate expecting 40,000 to turn out.
I'm hoping they will have all crawled back under their rocks by later this afternoon as I'm going to a wedding in the centre of town. If they kick off at the sight of me and my brown missus I guess I can always pretend to be JD Vance.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
We didn't change our names. Couldn't be bothered with it. Writing to dozens and dozens of organizations etc to get the new name set up!
I think if you have already built a reputation it doesn't make much sense e.g in academia, you already known / have a body of work all listed under your maiden name. I see some double barrel it with their married name then maiden name.
However I have always suspected in politics/ government / civil service it is used at least in part to cloud the nepotism.
You think? I don't know many women who changed their name on marriage. I think keeping your surname is the norm among professional women at least, Gen x and younger. My wife kept her surname. I doubt there is anything more sinister going on.
I'd say at my very lefty urban public sector workplace, women (younger than me, natch - of the marrying generation) changing the name they are known by at work when they marry is still far more common than not.
It would be interesting to see some polling on this (paging @HYUFD ) - maybe there are regional variations.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
There’s the slightly nouv double barrelling thing. I imagine there are tiffs over which comes first.
We thought about doing that with our daughter (No we're not married) but two two syllable words akin to bungle boulder n a row is a bit of a mouthful
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
We didn't change our names. Couldn't be bothered with it. Writing to dozens and dozens of organizations etc to get the new name set up!
I think if you have already built a reputation it doesn't make much sense e.g in academia, you already known / have a body of work all listed under your maiden name. I see some double barrel it with their married name then maiden name.
However I have always suspected in politics/ government / civil service it is used at least in part to cloud the nepotism.
You think? I don't know many women who changed their name on marriage. I think keeping your surname is the norm among professional women at least, Gen x and younger. My wife kept her surname. I doubt there is anything more sinister going on.
It appears to have been much more common in politics for a lot longer 25-30 years ago with Blair government i remember a number of scandals and they had to keep explaining such and such are actually married.
Harriet Harman and her husband, Adam Boulton (now ex) wife who was Blairs gatekeeper, Mr and Mrs Bad Al.
Yes I would imagine political lefty types would be early adopters. They are often at the forefront of social changes (in some ways being left wing just means being early to things, being right wing means being late). Nowadays a woman keeping her surname is pretty mainstream.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
We didn't change our names. Couldn't be bothered with it. Writing to dozens and dozens of organizations etc to get the new name set up!
I think if you have already built a reputation it doesn't make much sense e.g in academia, you already known / have a body of work all listed under your maiden name. I see some double barrel it with their married name then maiden name.
However I have always suspected in politics/ government / civil service it is used at least in part to cloud the nepotism.
You think? I don't know many women who changed their name on marriage. I think keeping your surname is the norm among professional women at least, Gen x and younger. My wife kept her surname. I doubt there is anything more sinister going on.
My ex fiancé went by her first husband’s surname as she had built up a high level career known by that name and we were both fine with her keeping it had we got married. I think if I had been younger and insecure it would have been less cool but ultimately it was not the most important issue in the world.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 35m The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
Steve Bannon is apparently going to speak at today's far right mob event.
Guardian says Hope not Hate expecting 40,000 to turn out.
I'm hoping they will have all crawled back under their rocks by later this afternoon as I'm going to a wedding in the centre of town. If they kick off at the sight of me and my brown missus I guess I can always pretend to be JD Vance.
And I’m going into the centre for our daughter’s birthday as she wants sushi from a conveyor belt, and the Yo Sushi in Selfridges is bizarrely the closest to where our son’s working at the V&A. I hadn’t banked on coming across a far right demo when we made our plans.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
No, I'm sorry but whoever wins will have no bearing on whether Starmer stays or goes. That will fundamentally depend on how likely it is Labour will win the next election with him vs with someone else. It's also incredibly difficult for Labour to forcibly remove a sitting PM in a way that it isn't for the Tories. It took Brown 5 years of scheming and plotting to bring Blair down, it took the Tories a few weeks to bring Mrs Thatcher down.
Like it or not I think Starmer is here to stay at least until 2028 when the parties will be gearing up for a 2029 election and MPs start looking at wh is best placed to preserve their majority. Rayner may make a comeback around then.
Starmer is trading at 2.7 to exit next year. That's good value to lay imo although I'm not as convinced as I used to be that it won't happen.
If a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence in the house he is out on his arse, end of. Will Starmer ? He seems much less secure than any previous Labour leader since the war - as he should be.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 35m The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
Going on previous experience when the media get excited by these kind of possibilities in relation to Starmer, you have to remember he was a lawyer, so depending on the circumstances it will either definitely been written down or definitely not written down anywhere. He has so far dodged all the bullets by conveniently never having anything troublesome cross his desk.
The problem Starmer has that in the court of public opinion, people make their own judgements not rely on the hard evidence.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
There’s the slightly nouv double barrelling thing. I imagine there are tiffs over which comes first.
We thought about doing that with our daughter (No we're not married) but two two syllable words akin to bungle boulder n a row is a bit of a mouthful
We just gave our kids my name, which is a bit patriarchal I suppose (fuck the patriarchy as Taylor Swift would say). My wife was OK with it as she has two brothers who have passed on the name. I think there's still some logic in the idea of the surname indicating patrilineage, as matrilieage is always clearer through the act of childbirth.
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Steve Bannon is apparently going to speak at today's far right mob event.
Guardian says Hope not Hate expecting 40,000 to turn out.
I'm hoping they will have all crawled back under their rocks by later this afternoon as I'm going to a wedding in the centre of town. If they kick off at the sight of me and my brown missus I guess I can always pretend to be JD Vance.
And I’m going into the centre for our daughter’s birthday as she wants sushi from a conveyor belt, and the Yo Sushi in Selfridges is bizarrely the closest to where our son’s working at the V&A. I hadn’t banked on coming across a far right demo when we made our plans.
Yikes. Being attacked by fascists while going for sushi is every middle class Metropolitan elitist's worse nightmare.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
We didn't change our names. Couldn't be bothered with it. Writing to dozens and dozens of organizations etc to get the new name set up!
I think if you have already built a reputation it doesn't make much sense e.g in academia, you already known / have a body of work all listed under your maiden name. I see some double barrel it with their married name then maiden name.
However I have always suspected in politics/ government / civil service it is used at least in part to cloud the nepotism.
You think? I don't know many women who changed their name on marriage. I think keeping your surname is the norm among professional women at least, Gen x and younger. My wife kept her surname. I doubt there is anything more sinister going on.
My ex fiancé went by her first husband’s surname as she had built up a high level career known by that name and we were both fine with her keeping it had we got married. I think if I had been younger and insecure it would have been less cool but ultimately it was not the most important issue in the world.
Way, way back in the '50's, when I was in what was then called the Sixth, we acquired, unusually for a boys school, a female Biology teacher.As far as we were concerned, she taught A level Botany. She was, we were told, Mrs (whatever it was). However it wasn't long before she could be seen in darker corners of the school premises, holding hands with the (youngish) chap who taught Greek and Latin. And after one half-term a note was sent round to the classes she taught. Mrs (as she had been) and Mr Greek and Latin had married over the half-term and she was now to be be known as Mrs Greek & Latin.
There was a good deal of whispering and muttering about it.
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Let’s hope Ms Rayner doesn’t hook up with a Mr Nob.
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Let’s hope Ms Rayner doesn’t hook up with a Mr Nob.
I’ve heard stuff in recent days that could end Starmer
Stop being pathetic and say what it is, instead of this feeble innuendo.
The ‘I know something you don’t’ tendency is utterly tedious. It’s not just Leon.
Either tell us or STFU.
I remember before the 92 election someone I worked with claimed that he knew people who had stuff on Neil Kinnock and if he was close in the election campaign it would come out and he’d be finished due to the scandal and so would Labour be.
Suffice to say it was total bollocks and there was nothing on him.
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
This may be an example of the phenomenon whereby friends and neighbours disavow knowledge of the criminal, leading to observations like "he was quiet and kept himself to himself".
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
There’s the slightly nouv double barrelling thing. I imagine there are tiffs over which comes first.
We thought about doing that with our daughter (No we're not married) but two two syllable words akin to bungle boulder n a row is a bit of a mouthful
We just gave our kids my name, which is a bit patriarchal I suppose (fuck the patriarchy as Taylor Swift would say). My wife was OK with it as she has two brothers who have passed on the name. I think there's still some logic in the idea of the surname indicating patrilineage, as matrilieage is always clearer through the act of childbirth.
My sister and I were both given our mother's maiden name as one of our Christian names. I later gathered that it was because my father believed in what I was told was a Welsh custom; that if that was done , the maternal grandparents would include them in their wills. I have never understood the sense of this as both my mother's parents died before we were born.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Makes it less obvious how many of their family members they get at the trough, they really are a bunch of grifters.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 35m The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
It's extaordinary that Dan Hodges gets quoted so often. He's the original opportunist and is invariably wrong. People used to quote from Guido until it started attracting the same opprobrium as Mein Kampf might have (deservedly) and posters gave it up
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
Standards have collapsed. Birds don't even promise to obey in marriage services anymore.whats the point in having to listen to the constant yap yap yap if you cant legally enforce steak and chips for tea?
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
We didn't change our names. Couldn't be bothered with it. Writing to dozens and dozens of organizations etc to get the new name set up!
Ditto, although I think it is common for Doctors to keep their maiden name, but primarily we couldn't be bothered. My Sister-In-law, did change her name, but kept her maiden name as her stage name. Utterly confusing. Although common for actors to have a different name (Equity and all of that) it wasn't necessary on marriage to change her name generating the confusion as her stage name was her maiden name, so all unnecessary.
Steve Bannon is apparently going to speak at today's far right mob event.
Guardian says Hope not Hate expecting 40,000 to turn out.
I'm hoping they will have all crawled back under their rocks by later this afternoon as I'm going to a wedding in the centre of town. If they kick off at the sight of me and my brown missus I guess I can always pretend to be JD Vance.
And I’m going into the centre for our daughter’s birthday as she wants sushi from a conveyor belt, and the Yo Sushi in Selfridges is bizarrely the closest to where our son’s working at the V&A. I hadn’t banked on coming across a far right demo when we made our plans.
Yikes. Being attacked by fascists while going for sushi is every middle class Metropolitan elitist's worse nightmare.
Sorry I can only like this one once , what a privilged bellend comment that was, totally detached from real life.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 35m The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
It's extaordinary that Dan Hodges gets quoted so often. He's the original opportunist and is invariably wrong. People used to quote from Guido until it started attracting the same opprobrium as Mein Kampf might have (deservedly) and posters gave it up
There are two giant USPs up for grabs and only Starmer can realistically grab both. One is Rejoin the second is showing decisive action in putting a stop to Israel. Both would be massively popular.
The Party Conference would be the time. it would require a massive reset but it's there for the taking
And neither would address the fundamental challenges this country faces (although I would support both).
However, where I agree with you is that it might give Starmer the boost in popularity he needs to be able to deliver some of the difficult medicine @Stuartinromford prescribed at the end of the last thread.
I increasingly think Starmer doesn't have the competence to deliver real solutions unfortunately.
I believe one of these - Starmer should Rejoin the EU - was the subject of a highly controversial Spectator article just this week
Controversial ? Seems entirely sensible.
Which is why this pathologically risk averse government would run a mile.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
There’s the slightly nouv double barrelling thing. I imagine there are tiffs over which comes first.
We thought about doing that with our daughter (No we're not married) but two two syllable words akin to bungle boulder n a row is a bit of a mouthful
We just gave our kids my name, which is a bit patriarchal I suppose (fuck the patriarchy as Taylor Swift would say). My wife was OK with it as she has two brothers who have passed on the name. I think there's still some logic in the idea of the surname indicating patrilineage, as matrilieage is always clearer through the act of childbirth.
An ultra-feminist friend of mine has had multiple names. She started life with her fathers name, switched to her husbands name on marriage, but after a few years decided that this was an endorsement of the patriarchy. Reverting to her maiden name seemed illogical, as this was simply her father's name. Similarly her mothers maiden name was her maternal grandfather's name, and so on. She therefore chose her own surname (which was a bit of a pun).
She has kept this name professionally as a university professor, but now uses her maiden name on social media, in large part to make her postings less visible to people searching under her professional name.
Comments
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/what-we-learned-from-keir-starmer-junior-minister-reshuffle
Burnham resigns as Mayor after winning a by election and SKS is ousted in a coup/resigns
Burnham loses leadership contest/doesn't get the noms and is not put in cabinet
Labour lose Gtr Manchester mayor by election to Reform as its still being run on FPTP
Burnham becomes the turd that lost Labour Manchester for nothing
It does highlight though what a huge loss Rayner is for the party .
Sources stressed Sir Keir was not aware of the contents of the emails when he stood by Lord Mandelson at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.
The BBC understands that a media enquiry outlining details of the messages between the pair was sent to the Foreign Office on Tuesday, and passed on to No 10.
Yet again, never crossed my desk and I didn't think to ask.
1. Burnham is elected MP and put in the Cabinet and is seen as parking his tanks on Starmer’s lawn
2. Burnham is elected MP and not put in the Cabinet - Starmer looks like a complete scared idiot and is fatally undermined
3. Burnham is blocked as candidate - Starmer looks like a complete scared idiot and there is turmoil created in the party with Burnham becoming the “king over the water”
I think Powell and Phillipson are both very similar politically, and both to the left of Starmer (not hard!).
I think Phillipson will win comfortably, but how they perform at conference will be key.
It went from the foreign office press officer to the Downing Street press office. They “started looking into it”.
No one thought to show it to the Director of Communications*? Really? Either Starmer is lying or the DoC should be sacked for being crap.
* no idea if that is the right title but assuming there is a political appointee with that responsibility.
I would imagine that No.10 is quite content that the contest is between two pretty loyal MPs.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
I think Phillipson has the harder edge. There were briefings against her about her being removed by Starmer earlier in the year, but she held on to her post and looks secure. I think Starmer is afraid of her.
There have to be better operatives than Burnham in the HoC. Burnham by the way seems to be a PB faithful favourite. There is no accounting for taste.
I didn't care about Rayner. I didn't think she was particularly good and he did the right things and handled it with despatch and no one ever voted for a Party because they liked the No2.
......Then came Mandy. I wasn't a fan and didn't like the appointment. The idea of putting someone in Trump's inner circle to massage his ego (or anything else he wanted massaging) was faintly repellent.
I'd no interest in Epstein or his friendship with Mandy so had no problem with the revelations when they came out.
.........but then came the sacking and the unwind.....and the whole creepiness of how Starmer does his business hit me like a giant kipper in the face......
No, we went out 6-0 to Kemi Utd on Wednesday
Shit.......
dull competence -> dull incompetence...
The only time he isn't is weirdly dealing with Trump. Not a pretty sight though kissing Trump arse to get a 5% discount.
It's not like the Tory party, which has a long repeating history of regicide.
There is no greater offence, in many organisations than officiously telling senior management things that they would want to deny knowing
Other than in the sense of a Cones Hotline.
Like it or not I think Starmer is here to stay at least until 2028 when the parties will be gearing up for a 2029 election and MPs start looking at wh is best placed to preserve their majority. Rayner may make a comeback around then.
My read of the race is that the PM is probably pretty comfortable with either of these two winning the membership vote. Neither will offer substantial opposition nor build independent power bases, they are both middle of the road centre left, not that hard left rabble rouser who I think he actually feared making the ballot.
It’s a perfect opportunity for a Loyal Shot Across the Bows.
A challenger has to challenge direct and Burnham is not eligible as he is not an MP and Streeting and Cooper won't and a leftwinger on the backbenches would be just a stalking horse for Burnham
I think he saw the platform of PM as a place to solve what he saw as the 'big problems of the world'. I suspect the actual big problems for this country: crumbling schools, creaking NHS, cost of living don't move him that much.
Or, perhaps, they do move him but he just has no idea what to do about them. I think he could have been an excellent PM in about 2001, when there was more money around.
This isn't just a Deputy Leadership contest, it is a proxy leadership contest in order to be the heir apparent.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
The idea that he would have to change things never occurred to him.
Twiddle a few knobs on the mixing desk, yes.
Backbench Labour MP Olivia Blake said it feels like Keir Starmer’s operation has “gone into the bunker”.
Discussing last week’s reshuffle, she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
It does feel like they’ve gone into the bunker, but they’ve actually thrown half the people out of the bunker at the moment, and we need to get back to a much more inclusive parliamentary Labour party (PLP), inclusive discussions happening with ministers and better representation around the cabinet table.
After a disastrous week in which Angela Rayner resigned and Peter Mandelson was sacked as ambassador to Washington, Labour MPs have begun to ask whether Starmer could be challenged as prime minister.
A number of MPs said a challenge was likely if local and Welsh elections went badly next May. Some said the one thing now protecting Starmer was the lack of an agreed replacement.
People just felt that it was such a large reshuffle and, you know, people who were actually delivering in their posts were moved. And it just kind of felt like there was a real narrowing in who was sat around the table, and that can’t be positive, because I think there’s a sense that the leadership don’t like to be challenged.
Asked about the No 10 operation, she said it was “really embarrassing” if Starmer was not told about Lord Mandelson’s emails to Jeffrey Epstein soon enough, amid suggestions Downing Street was aware of the messages before the prime minister defended the ex-ambassador on Wednesday.
Blake said:
We saw through the welfare reforms that they did the same again. They didn’t tell Keir, they didn’t tell the prime minister how bad it was on the back benches. So, you know, he was putting statements out saying, ‘oh, some people can sound off’. Well, the strength of feeling in the PLP was much, much deeper than that. And again, I just think that whoever’s gatekeeping the information to the prime minister needs to stop. They need to be getting stuff to him much earlier.
She also said backbenchers are frustrated after a number of “own goals” for the government. Blake, the MP for Sheffield Hallam, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme it is “frustrating” that the good work the government has done is “not cutting through” and added:
Instead, we’ve had a number of kind of own goals, and that has meant that we’ve slipped heavily in the polls, and that we seem to be more interested in focusing on each other rather than what’s in the best interest of the country at the moment.
No one’s pushing all this was known when Mandy was appointed, which would be very damaging, media chatter now just focussing in events this week, Tuesday to Thursday, saying it was slow - that’s letting Starmer and Labour off a bit.
What is good, Kemi is pushing for a vote on release of the records of original decision making, but even if that passes, it’s pages of redacted info for some reason or another. A dead end.
Was it really that slow? How many PBers posting on Wednesday it has to wait till after the State visit? I felt in minority saying it has to be immediate, can’t drag on any more days. He was sacked 12 hours after I posted that.
Just sacked a senior official for committing what crime? It goes into a tribunal now you have to justify the wrongdoing for a sacking, removal of their job and money etc.
I think it was Leon who posted the other day, chatter and murmur of discontent is just normal politics he’s known all his life. Lady Thatcher, the greatest most successful leader of all, had all this pressure and discontent in her first years as PM.
Truth is, What underpins this situation - like in Lady Thatchers first years - is the economy - it starts turning good, murmurings are whackamoled and the polling flips round. Boring, naff, even controversial and marmite PM and governments can turn things round and win elections, based on the economy. Their shitness gets forgiven.
There are many cases where her lack of detail has led to absolute car crash media rounds.
Presumably he gets more central support in Manchester if he looks to be staying in Manchester?
I’d expect a denial and a demand soon.
Part of my theory of British politics is that the climate doesn't let anyone really thrive in the job. And partly due to that, we get party leaders who certainly shouldn't have taken the job on when they did, if at all.
Starmer got the Labour leadership by being the least implausible man standing in 2020 and 2024. (Go on, try and name the truly adequate alternative that he overcame. A shiny sixpence says you can't.)
Sunak was much the same. Maybe he would have been good with a few more years under his belt. Truss should have not got anywhere near the top. Johnson forced his way into Downing Street by force of will, but was a disaster. May was kind of the post-2016 version of Starmer. And then we're back to Cameron.
However I have always suspected in politics/ government / civil service it is used at least in part to cloud the nepotism and if the fact your partner might be an well known public figure that leads to awkward questions and interactions.
The only way that Labour shift closer to the EU and rejoin the customs union and maybe the EEA is if the LDs hold the balance of power in a hung parliament
Thatcher had a power base in the grass roots membership and, via them, the back bencher's. She was so strong in her position that she appointed opponents to the cabinet. Just so she could pound on them. The whining about “the loss of Cabinet Government” was really “Margaret gets her own way in the end”.
Starmer has none of that.
He spent all his considerable political capital for… nothing.
However, 'twas ever thus!
I have long thought Starmer wasn't party leader or PM material, and have said so on several occasions. It was pretty obvious that he himself didn't think so pretty well from when he came into politics. He only got the party leader job because he was seen as someone who'd done a big job reasonably well, and he wasn't Corbyn, and he got the PM's job because the country was sick and tired of the Tories, none of whose recent leaders had been half-competent, and one case at least, flagrantly dishonest and cowardly.
However I'm not sure who else there is on the horizon. Ms Badenoch doesn't impress me, nor do any of the other Tory top brass. Philip in particular comes across, to me anyway, as a nasty piece of work. Davey doesn't seem to do much wrong; his problem is that the media appears to have, collectively, resolved to ignore him and the LibDems generally.
I don't know anyone whose opinions I respect who has a high, or even good, opinion of Farage and he comes across as someone who snaps an answer to a problem without thinking about it.
If I didn't care about how my children and grandchildren will be able to manage their lives I'd be content to shuffle off and leave everyone to it.
But I do care, and I'm fearful. Some of my 'descendant' are looking to Australia, and I suspect that that's wise.
But I can see for those whose name is already well known and for whom that is professionally important reasons why they might not.
I know some women who maintain two separate names: one for work, and one for their home life.
(I also knoe one woman who maintained a separate first name at work for her entire career. But that was just due to an early misunderstanding which was too embarrassing to correct.)
Harriet Harman and her husband, Adam Boulton (now ex) wife who was Blairs gatekeeper, Mr and Mrs Bad Al.
My wife kept her surname (mainly for professional reasons), but we gave our son her surname as his last middle name. Hence not double-barrelled, but preserving her surname in his.
IMV there's no right answer to this, and if a couple cannot agree even this basic thing, their marriage is probably on rocky ground as it is. And it's no-one else's business to judge what they decide.
It would be interesting to see some polling on this (paging @HYUFD ) - maybe there are regional variations.
@DPJHodges
·
35m
The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
The problem Starmer has that in the court of public opinion, people make their own judgements not rely on the hard evidence.
Seen as the lesser of an SKS fan presumably.
Pity we can't see a Democratic Socialist allowed to stand for the Deputy leadership of the 'Democratic Socialist' Party
And after one half-term a note was sent round to the classes she taught. Mrs (as she had been) and Mr Greek and Latin had married over the half-term and she was now to be be known as Mrs Greek & Latin.
There was a good deal of whispering and muttering about it.
Either tell us or STFU.
I remember before the 92 election someone I worked with claimed that he knew people who had stuff on Neil Kinnock and if he was close in the election campaign it would come out and he’d be finished due to the scandal and so would Labour be.
Suffice to say it was total bollocks and there was nothing on him.
Large pinch of salt needed.
What we got was an all-American christian white boy from a staunch Republican family so you are clinging on to the "he was a leftist" for dear life!
Seems entirely sensible.
Which is why this pathologically risk averse government would run a mile.
No prospect of UK rejoining EU in my lifetime, says Starmer’s reset negotiator
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/12/uk-rejoining-eu-european-union-membership-nick-thomas-symonds
She has kept this name professionally as a university professor, but now uses her maiden name on social media, in large part to make her postings less visible to people searching under her professional name.