Skip to content

We changed Prime Ministers during both World Wars – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,902
edited 7:13PM in General
We changed Prime Ministers during both World Wars – politicalbetting.com

This story from Politics Home is interesting simply because the desperation of Sir Keir Starmer and his allies. They really do fear being ousted if Andy Burnham becomes an MP as evidenced by hyperbole in the final line in the third Tweet.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 57,077
    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,744
    If he's excluded, if local Labour goes on holiday in sympathy, and if someone else wins... game over, man!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,584
    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,460
    Burnham will stand, Burnham will lose :lol:
  • scampi25scampi25 Posts: 370
    The idea that Starter somehow stands between us and the Trumpian apocalypse is so funny.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,584
    I’d remind everybody that Andy Burnham has run for the Labour leadership twice and lost both times, first time he finished behind both Miliband brothers which does imply a brilliant leader in waiting.

    Sarcasm or missing word?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 54,020
    Are we going for the ‘most threads in a day’ award?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,812
    kle4 said:

    I’d remind everybody that Andy Burnham has run for the Labour leadership twice and lost both times, first time he finished behind both Miliband brothers which does imply a brilliant leader in waiting.

    Sarcasm or missing word?

    Yes, not is missing
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,812
    IanB2 said:

    Are we going for the ‘most threads in a day’ award?

    Nah, it's only the third thread today, outside of elections, I think I once published six in one day.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,815
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Burnham will stand, Burnham will lose :lol:

    That would be hilarious . I just find him really annoying and whiny and he swans around like he’s the best thing since sliced bread. I’d much rather Angela Rayner made a return to the cabinet and took over if Starmer goes .
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,333
    kle4 said:

    I’d remind everybody that Andy Burnham has run for the Labour leadership twice and lost both times, first time he finished behind both Miliband brothers which does imply a brilliant leader in waiting.

    Sarcasm or missing word?

    Burnham is brilliant at waiting to become leader.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,174
    Starmer is clearly terrified of Burnham given the Labour members polls showing him far preferred to Sir Keir and the poll at the time of the Labour conference putting a Burnham led Labour narrowly ahead of Reform.

    Hence he will try and use the NEC to block him being on the shortlist for the Gorton by election. As Burnham is a white male team Starmer putting forward an all BME shortlist for the Labour nomination is a convenient way for Starmer to kick the King of the North into touch
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,925
    Evening all :)

    It sounds like we're all going to have fun with a Gorton and Denton by-election - well, the constituents won't I suppose.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,174
    edited 7:29PM
    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 39,080
    edited 7:29PM
    Reading the header, it seems like Labour want to go even lower than the 14% they were on in a poll today.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,333
    nico67 said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Burnham will stand, Burnham will lose :lol:

    That would be hilarious . I just find him really annoying and whiny and he swans around like he’s the best thing since sliced bread. I’d much rather Angela Rayner made a return to the cabinet and took over if Starmer goes .
    When the going got tough for Labour MPs, he buggered off up the M6. The idea that he can just sashay back in and become PM by acclamation feels a bit like that other PM we had a while back. You remember. London mayor. Scruffy hair. Bit of a shagger. Something about parties.

    I don't remember that ending well. What became of him?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 41,880
    Who's gonna tell him...

    Vance on the economy:

    "You don't turn the Titanic around overnight"
  • trukattrukat Posts: 113
    edited 7:33PM
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    Or it could be like Caerphilly where the left unite, just not around Labour
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,201
    We changed PM twice in WW2.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,868
    Scott_xP said:

    Who's gonna tell him...

    Vance on the economy:

    "You don't turn the Titanic around overnight"

    Is that why Trumps ratings are underwater?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,614
    nico67 said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Burnham will stand, Burnham will lose :lol:

    That would be hilarious . I just find him really annoying and whiny and he swans around like he’s the best thing since sliced bread. I’d much rather Angela Rayner made a return to the cabinet and took over if Starmer goes .
    On the grounds that you want someone who isn't "annoying and whiny and swans around like the best thing since sliced bread" - you want Rayner?!
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,315
    EPG said:

    If he's excluded, if local Labour goes on holiday in sympathy, and if someone else wins... game over, man!

    There's also the chance that some of the ~20% of the population of Pakistani origin defect to a local, more culturally friendly candidate.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,201
    Scott_xP said:

    Who's gonna tell him...

    Vance on the economy:

    "You don't turn the Titanic around overnight"

    People who want Greenland because reasons are ICE berks.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,410
    Scott_xP said:

    Who's gonna tell him...

    Vance on the economy:

    "You don't turn the Titanic around overnight"

    There's no need to turn it around because Trump says it's the bestest best economy there's ever been, surely.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,469
    edited 7:34PM
    Has the existing MP given his reasons for taking the Chiltern Hundreds?

    Doing it as a stitchup up for Burnham (who won a four-year term as MoM less than two years ago), but without clearing all of the party’s obstacles in the way to his standing, might be considered to be a little careless.

    Is this contest actually between Reform and Green, with Labour losing a seat?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,174
    trukat said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    Or it could be like Caerphilly where the left unite, just not around Labour
    Polanski and the Greens are now far left even of Plaid. They could win in inner city Manchester but not largely white working class Gorton
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,168
    Andy_JS said:

    Reading the header, it seems like Labour want to go even lower than the 14% they were on in a poll today.

    SKS faction really don't care to them it's about their faction being in control of the ship even though it's already sunk
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,812
    Sandpit said:

    Has the existing MP given his reasons for taking the Chiltern Hundreds?

    Doing it as a stitchup up for Burnham (who won a four-year term as MoM less than two years ago), but without clearing all of the party’s obstacles in the way to his standing, might be considered to be a little careless.

    Is this contest actually between Reform and Green, with Labour losing a seat?

    Long term health conditions.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,812
    ydoethur said:

    We changed PM twice in WW2.

    I know.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,328
    HYUFD said:

    Starmer is clearly terrified of Burnham given the Labour members polls showing him far preferred to Sir Keir and the poll at the time of the Labour conference putting a Burnham led Labour narrowly ahead of Reform.

    Hence he will try and use the NEC to block him being on the shortlist for the Gorton by election. As Burnham is a white male team Starmer putting forward an all BME shortlist for the Labour nomination is a convenient way for Starmer to kick the King of the North into touch

    Your analysis of Labour politics isn't nearly as good as your analysis of Tory politics. It would be absolutely disastrous for Starmer / the NEC to block Burnham on the grounds of gender/BME characteristics, so they won't do it. More likely, they'll try to persuade him not to put his name forward, as he'd be letting down his promises to the people of Greater Manchester if he did. But if he does go for it, Starmer will just ride it out and see what happens.

    I suspect Starmer's ruthlessness is underestimated by many, and he'll see off Burnham if he has to. But I don't think he'll need to.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,333
    Scott_xP said:

    Who's gonna tell him...

    Vance on the economy:

    "You don't turn the Titanic around overnight"

    How is America like the Titanic?

    They're both ruined by ICE.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 54,020
    Northern_Al said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer is clearly terrified of Burnham given the Labour members polls showing him far preferred to Sir Keir and the poll at the time of the Labour conference putting a Burnham led Labour narrowly ahead of Reform.

    Hence he will try and use the NEC to block him being on the shortlist for the Gorton by election. As Burnham is a white male team Starmer putting forward an all BME shortlist for the Labour nomination is a convenient way for Starmer to kick the King of the North into touch

    Your analysis of Labour politics isn't nearly as good as your analysis of Tory politics. It would be absolutely disastrous for Starmer / the NEC to block Burnham on the grounds of gender/BME characteristics, so they won't do it. More likely, they'll try to persuade him not to put his name forward, as he'd be letting down his promises to the people of Greater Manchester if he did. But if he does go for it, Starmer will just ride it out and see what happens.

    I suspect Starmer's ruthlessness is underestimated by many, and he'll see off Burnham if he has to. But I don't think he'll need to.
    That’s not, however, what Labour insiders are saying about what the leadership/NEC is planning to do
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,614
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    I don't think Burnham wins easily. Gorton and Denton is one of the 30-odd seats nationally he might win at all in a by-election, but it won't be easy. On today's poll, G&D goes green. He will attract a personal vote, but just at the margins - and I'd say there'd be quite a few voters keen to express their disgruntlement at him leaving his job in Manchester.
    I'd say the Greens start as the stop-Reform party.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,201
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    We changed PM twice in WW2.

    I know.
    We also had 7 PMs during the Napoleonic wars - Pitt, Addington, Pitt, Grenville, Portland, Perceval and Liverpool. Also 2 in the Crimean war - Aberdeen and Palmerston.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 54,020
    edited 7:40PM
    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    We changed PM twice in WW2.

    I know.
    We also had 7 PMs during the Napoleonic wars - Pitt, Addington, Pitt, Grenville, Portland, Perceval and Liverpool. Also 2 in the Crimean war - Aberdeen and Palmerston.

    The Hundred Years War surely takes the prize? ;). If we’d had PMs back then
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,460
    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    We changed PM twice in WW2.

    I know.
    We also had 7 PMs during the Napoleonic wars - Pitt, Addington, Pitt, Grenville, Portland, Perceval and Liverpool. Also 2 in the Crimean war - Aberdeen and Palmerston.
    But only about 10 people had the franchise back then :lol:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,201
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    We changed PM twice in WW2.

    I know.
    We also had 7 PMs during the Napoleonic wars - Pitt, Addington, Pitt, Grenville, Portland, Perceval and Liverpool. Also 2 in the Crimean war - Aberdeen and Palmerston.
    The Hundred Years War surely takes the prize?
    We had 0 PMs in the Hundred Years' War.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,328
    IanB2 said:

    Northern_Al said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer is clearly terrified of Burnham given the Labour members polls showing him far preferred to Sir Keir and the poll at the time of the Labour conference putting a Burnham led Labour narrowly ahead of Reform.

    Hence he will try and use the NEC to block him being on the shortlist for the Gorton by election. As Burnham is a white male team Starmer putting forward an all BME shortlist for the Labour nomination is a convenient way for Starmer to kick the King of the North into touch

    Your analysis of Labour politics isn't nearly as good as your analysis of Tory politics. It would be absolutely disastrous for Starmer / the NEC to block Burnham on the grounds of gender/BME characteristics, so they won't do it. More likely, they'll try to persuade him not to put his name forward, as he'd be letting down his promises to the people of Greater Manchester if he did. But if he does go for it, Starmer will just ride it out and see what happens.

    I suspect Starmer's ruthlessness is underestimated by many, and he'll see off Burnham if he has to. But I don't think he'll need to.
    That’s not, however, what Labour insiders are saying about what the leadership/NEC is planning to do
    Maybe, but the main 'Labour insider' being quoted is Sienna Rodgers, a (Labour sympathetic) journalist.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,201
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    We changed PM twice in WW2.

    I know.
    We also had 7 PMs during the Napoleonic wars - Pitt, Addington, Pitt, Grenville, Portland, Perceval and Liverpool. Also 2 in the Crimean war - Aberdeen and Palmerston.

    The Hundred Years War surely takes the prize? ;). If we’d had PMs back then
    Strangely, not that many kings - Edward III, Richard II and Henrys IV, V and VI.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,168
    Cookie said:

    rottenborough said:

    Sienna Rodgers
    @siennamarla

    NEW: Allies of Keir Starmer say Andy Burnham will not be allowed to stand – and one well-placed source suggests an all-BAME shortlist could be used:

    https://x.com/siennamarla/status/2014405010604302553

    Labour: We have a by-election coming up in our Reform-vulnerable Red Wall. How can we make voters there understand and love us?
    As I say they don't care as long as the right wing faction retains total control over the Party.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,339
    edited 7:44PM
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    It will demonstrate how organised a not Reform candidate can be - especially when it's a none of the above option.

    If Burnham doesn't stand it will be essential that the Green Party get a poll demonstrating that it's only them that can beat Reform... As that poll is usually the catalyst for the rest of the vote to swing in the correct direction.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,812
    nico67 said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Burnham will stand, Burnham will lose :lol:

    That would be hilarious . I just find him really annoying and whiny and he swans around like he’s the best thing since sliced bread. I’d much rather Angela Rayner made a return to the cabinet and took over if Starmer goes .
    He's really got this arrogance and self belief you don't normally associate with somebody who attended the University of Cambridge.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 3,456
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    I don't think Burnham wins easily. Gorton and Denton is one of the 30-odd seats nationally he might win at all in a by-election, but it won't be easy. On today's poll, G&D goes green. He will attract a personal vote, but just at the margins - and I'd say there'd be quite a few voters keen to express their disgruntlement at him leaving his job in Manchester.
    I'd say the Greens start as the stop-Reform party.
    If Burnham stands it will rapidly become a two-horse race between him and Reform. He'll love that and will handily win.
    That will give Northern Labour MPs hope that they can hang on - if they ditch Starmer and bring in the victorious King of the North. So, quite high stakes.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,328
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    I don't think Burnham wins easily. Gorton and Denton is one of the 30-odd seats nationally he might win at all in a by-election, but it won't be easy. On today's poll, G&D goes green. He will attract a personal vote, but just at the margins - and I'd say there'd be quite a few voters keen to express their disgruntlement at him leaving his job in Manchester.
    I'd say the Greens start as the stop-Reform party.
    Agree with the Manchester bit; I could imagine quite a few Labour-type voters thinking: "you're our Mayor - why are you going off carpet-bagging - isn't Manchester good enough for you?".
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,638
    Northern_Al said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer is clearly terrified of Burnham given the Labour members polls showing him far preferred to Sir Keir and the poll at the time of the Labour conference putting a Burnham led Labour narrowly ahead of Reform.

    Hence he will try and use the NEC to block him being on the shortlist for the Gorton by election. As Burnham is a white male team Starmer putting forward an all BME shortlist for the Labour nomination is a convenient way for Starmer to kick the King of the North into touch

    Your analysis of Labour politics isn't nearly as good as your analysis of Tory politics. It would be absolutely disastrous for Starmer / the NEC to block Burnham on the grounds of gender/BME characteristics, so they won't do it. More likely, they'll try to persuade him not to put his name forward, as he'd be letting down his promises to the people of Greater Manchester if he did. But if he does go for it, Starmer will just ride it out and see what happens.

    I suspect Starmer's ruthlessness is underestimated by many, and he'll see off Burnham if he has to. But I don't think he'll need to.
    A pity, perhaps, that he reserves his ruthlessness for his party rather than deploying it to the UK's advantage.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,614
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Has the existing MP given his reasons for taking the Chiltern Hundreds?

    Doing it as a stitchup up for Burnham (who won a four-year term as MoM less than two years ago), but without clearing all of the party’s obstacles in the way to his standing, might be considered to be a little careless.

    Is this contest actually between Reform and Green, with Labour losing a seat?

    Long term health conditions.
    He's also, I think, not technically a Labour MP.
    Though the scandal which brought him down was pretty small beer, really.
  • trukattrukat Posts: 113
    Who stands for Reform. If it is Zia vs Zack it could be popcorn time. Or will they go local?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,484
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    We changed PM twice in WW2.

    I know.
    We also had 7 PMs during the Napoleonic wars - Pitt, Addington, Pitt, Grenville, Portland, Perceval and Liverpool. Also 2 in the Crimean war - Aberdeen and Palmerston.

    The Hundred Years War surely takes the prize? ;). If we’d had PMs back then
    Strangely, not that many kings - Edward III, Richard II and Henrys IV, V and VI.
    Bolingbroke the Andy Burnham to Richard's Starmer?
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 3,456
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    It will demonstrate how organised a not Reform candidate can be - especially when it's a none of the above option.

    If Burnham doesn't stand it will be essential that the Green Party get a poll demonstrating that it's only them that can beat Reform... As that poll is usually the catalyst for the rest of the vote to swing in the correct direction.
    A danger for Starmer is that egregiously blocking Burnham turns this into a Reform/Green contest, with Labour squeezed out and him getting the blame. Not ideal. Probably better off letting Burnham get on with it.
  • AramintaMoonbeamQCAramintaMoonbeamQC Posts: 4,024
    Comedy outcome* in Gorton and Denton is that King Andy takes the seat, then Labour lose the mayoralty to Reform.

    Collapse of WWC vote in the northern/eastern boroughs such as Rochdale/Oldham to Reform, Labour vote splits between Greens and Independent nut job candidates. Galloway will probably annoy everyone by giving it a shot.

    *As a GM resident, I wouldn't find a Reformer as Mayor amusing though, we could probably kiss goodbye to the tram extensions.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,484
    Burgessian said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    I don't think Burnham wins easily. Gorton and Denton is one of the 30-odd seats nationally he might win at all in a by-election, but it won't be easy. On today's poll, G&D goes green. He will attract a personal vote, but just at the margins - and I'd say there'd be quite a few voters keen to express their disgruntlement at him leaving his job in Manchester.
    I'd say the Greens start as the stop-Reform party.
    If Burnham stands it will rapidly become a two-horse race between him and Reform. He'll love that and will handily win.
    That will give Northern Labour MPs hope that they can hang on - if they ditch Starmer and bring in the victorious King of the North. So, quite high stakes.
    Burnham will hope to mascara Reform.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,603
    They should let Burnham stand. Allowing a popular rival to get closer to you shows an ability to try and reach out and unify. Trying to block or prevent them makes them far more powerful and a focus for popular support.

    If Burnham stands and wins, I don’t think it’s by any means certain that he ends up winning any leadership contest. He does appear to be a little too nakedly ambitious, and that could backfire (see Bobby J).

    If he’s blocked, it will only have the effect of making him even more influential and destabilise the parliamentary party.
  • isamisam Posts: 43,406
    It will be great to see Kemi slaughtering Labour if they do insist on an all BAME (I thought it was Global Majority now?) shortlist
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,174
    'A man suffered fatal head injuries after falling from a ladder intoxicated, while tying a Union flag to a lamppost, an inquest heard.'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74ww90v9gyo
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,975
    How about this...

    Labour blocks Burnham, he stands as an Independent, and wins.

    Then he announces he will take the Labour whip.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,174
    'The government is to radically reduce the number of police forces in England and Wales as part of what sources have called the largest reform of policing in decades.

    Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will announce plans for police reform next week.

    She will pledge to "significantly" cut the number of forces from its current level of 43, and tell them to focus on serious and organised crime. Police chiefs have been calling, external for the creation of 12 "mega forces" to save money and boost crime-fighting efforts.'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwnn10rgk4o
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,174
    'Donald Trump's youngest son contacted UK police saying he witnessed a friend in London being "beat up" during a video call, a court has heard.

    Barron Trump, 19, told police he had friends call 999 from the US so that he could report the alleged attack in January 2025.

    Matvei Rumiantsev, 22, is on trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court accused of assault and two counts of rape, among other charges, against the alleged victim.

    He denies assault, actual bodily harm, two counts of rape, intentional strangulation and perverting the course of justice by pressuring the woman to withdraw her complaints.

    Trump called the alleged victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, on 18 January last year, the court heard.

    Shortly after placing the call, the US president's fifth child contacted the police and said she was being assaulted.'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5gg05y0mlo
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,866
    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    That would be quite a dilemma.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,252
    Weak defeated by Reek?

    We'll see.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,174
    numbertwelve said:

    They should let Burnham stand. Allowing a popular rival to get closer to you shows an ability to try and reach out and unify. Trying to block or prevent them makes them far more powerful and a focus for popular support.

    If Burnham stands and wins, I don’t think it’s by any means certain that he ends up winning any leadership contest. He does appear to be a little too nakedly ambitious, and that could backfire (see Bobby J).

    If he’s blocked, it will only have the effect of making him even more influential and destabilise the parliamentary party.

    Indeed, if Starmer had any sense he would let Burnham win the seat and then make him Deputy PM, like Major did with Heseltine to keep his more charismatic rival firmly in the tent
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,252
    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    I could easily see the Greens taking it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,174
    Northern_Al said:

    On Burnham, I was wondering if there was anybody else who was a popular and reasonably competent Mayor who turned out to be a fucking disaster as Prime Minister?

    No, can't think of one, we did have one ex Mayor who beat Corbyn, won a landslide general election and got Brexit and the Covid vaccines done though
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,174
    AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

    Comedy outcome* in Gorton and Denton is that King Andy takes the seat, then Labour lose the mayoralty to Reform.

    Collapse of WWC vote in the northern/eastern boroughs such as Rochdale/Oldham to Reform, Labour vote splits between Greens and Independent nut job candidates. Galloway will probably annoy everyone by giving it a shot.

    *As a GM resident, I wouldn't find a Reformer as Mayor amusing though, we could probably kiss goodbye to the tram extensions.

    The next Mayoral vote will likely be STV not FPTP so a Green winner more likely in Manchester
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,866
    edited 8:17PM
    Excellent interview with Starmer on Ch4 News.

    Starmer is definitely improving.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,174
    edited 8:17PM
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    nico67 said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Burnham will stand, Burnham will lose :lol:

    That would be hilarious . I just find him really annoying and whiny and he swans around like he’s the best thing since sliced bread. I’d much rather Angela Rayner made a return to the cabinet and took over if Starmer goes .
    He's really got this arrogance and self belief you don't normally associate with somebody who attended the University of Cambridge.
    I don't think so really. Burnham does empathy quite well whatever his other faults, he is not as haughty as say ex Cambridge PMs in waiting Portillo or Streeting or Clarke. Though Burnham did only get into Cambridge on his second attempt and to read English in which he did not get a first unlike historians Miguel and Wes and nor was he a lawyer like Ken
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,868
    #competition @Benpointer

    1) Dem HoR Gains +18

    2) Senate net gains +3

    3) SNP seats 57

    4) PC AM's 43

    5) UK party with biggest poll lead Ref +16

    6) Lab NEV 14

    7) Reform MPs 11

    8) UK PM Angela Rayner

    9) Burnham MP No

    10 UK Borrowing £138 billion

    11) UK GDP Growth 1.3%

    12) World Cup Winner Spain

    Fingers crossed....

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 57,077
    Burgessian said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    It will demonstrate how organised a not Reform candidate can be - especially when it's a none of the above option.

    If Burnham doesn't stand it will be essential that the Green Party get a poll demonstrating that it's only them that can beat Reform... As that poll is usually the catalyst for the rest of the vote to swing in the correct direction.
    A danger for Starmer is that egregiously blocking Burnham turns this into a Reform/Green contest, with Labour squeezed out and him getting the blame. Not ideal. Probably better off letting Burnham get on with it.
    The Greens winning would probably be worse for Labour than Reform winning because it would set the tone for other big city seats.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,462
    edited 8:19PM
    Andy Burnham, the Zak Crawley of politics.

    Its amazing that its only a few months since he rolled the pitch for his leadership run at the Labour Party Conference and managed to miss the pitch and crash like Jay from the Inbetweeners riding a motorbike.....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,174
    edited 8:19PM
    Northern_Al said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer is clearly terrified of Burnham given the Labour members polls showing him far preferred to Sir Keir and the poll at the time of the Labour conference putting a Burnham led Labour narrowly ahead of Reform.

    Hence he will try and use the NEC to block him being on the shortlist for the Gorton by election. As Burnham is a white male team Starmer putting forward an all BME shortlist for the Labour nomination is a convenient way for Starmer to kick the King of the North into touch

    Your analysis of Labour politics isn't nearly as good as your analysis of Tory politics. It would be absolutely disastrous for Starmer / the NEC to block Burnham on the grounds of gender/BME characteristics, so they won't do it. More likely, they'll try to persuade him not to put his name forward, as he'd be letting down his promises to the people of Greater Manchester if he did. But if he does go for it, Starmer will just ride it out and see what happens.

    I suspect Starmer's ruthlessness is underestimated by many, and he'll see off Burnham if he has to. But I don't think he'll need to.
    From the thread header tweets Starmer allies are already preparing an all BAME shortlist for the Labour nomination in Gorton, with the bonus for Sir Keir of excluding white male Burnham
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,174
    edited 8:22PM
    williamglenn said:

    Burgessian said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    It will demonstrate how organised a not Reform candidate can be - especially when it's a none of the above option.

    If Burnham doesn't stand it will be essential that the Green Party get a poll demonstrating that it's only them that can beat Reform... As that poll is usually the catalyst for the rest of the vote to swing in the correct direction.
    A danger for Starmer is that egregiously blocking Burnham turns this into a Reform/Green contest, with Labour squeezed out and him getting the blame. Not ideal. Probably better off letting Burnham get on with it.
    The Greens winning would probably be worse for Labour than Reform winning because it would set the tone for other big city seats.
    Gorton was also 50% Leave and is only 41% ABC1 middle class, if the Greens can win in a suburban working class seat like there Labour MPs in any urban seat would be fearful of Polanski
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,868
    isam said:

    It will be great to see Kemi slaughtering Labour if they do insist on an all BAME (I thought it was Global Majority now?) shortlist

    I was doing some interviews for a management post last week. One of the candidates described herself as BAME spontaneously in the interview.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,462
    HYUFD said:

    'The government is to radically reduce the number of police forces in England and Wales as part of what sources have called the largest reform of policing in decades.

    Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will announce plans for police reform next week.

    She will pledge to "significantly" cut the number of forces from its current level of 43, and tell them to focus on serious and organised crime. Police chiefs have been calling, external for the creation of 12 "mega forces" to save money and boost crime-fighting efforts.'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwnn10rgk4o

    Of all the government, Mahmood is one that can't be accused of not being active trying to change things. If those chnages are good or not is another matter. I have to say 43 different police forces for the size of countries of England and Wales does seem excessive.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 18,286
    Sandpit said:

    Has the existing MP given his reasons for taking the Chiltern Hundreds?

    Doing it as a stitchup up for Burnham (who won a four-year term as MoM less than two years ago), but without clearing all of the party’s obstacles in the way to his standing, might be considered to be a little careless.

    Is this contest actually between Reform and Green, with Labour losing a seat?

    He's been ill for some time, hasn't he?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,201
    HYUFD said:

    'The government is to radically reduce the number of police forces in England and Wales as part of what sources have called the largest reform of policing in decades.

    Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will announce plans for police reform next week.

    She will pledge to "significantly" cut the number of forces from its current level of 43, and tell them to focus on serious and organised crime. Police chiefs have been calling, external for the creation of 12 "mega forces" to save money and boost crime-fighting efforts.'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwnn10rgk4o

    Because when they tried that in Scotland it was a truly dazzling success. We really need forces that are more remote, less responsive and more tightly managed by chief constables who appear to be all fucking idiots.

    What would be more sensible is more local policing - I.e. within one local authority area - with a national police force organised on regional lines above it, and clear demarcation between the two.

    Will never happen though.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,868
    HYUFD said:

    Northern_Al said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer is clearly terrified of Burnham given the Labour members polls showing him far preferred to Sir Keir and the poll at the time of the Labour conference putting a Burnham led Labour narrowly ahead of Reform.

    Hence he will try and use the NEC to block him being on the shortlist for the Gorton by election. As Burnham is a white male team Starmer putting forward an all BME shortlist for the Labour nomination is a convenient way for Starmer to kick the King of the North into touch

    Your analysis of Labour politics isn't nearly as good as your analysis of Tory politics. It would be absolutely disastrous for Starmer / the NEC to block Burnham on the grounds of gender/BME characteristics, so they won't do it. More likely, they'll try to persuade him not to put his name forward, as he'd be letting down his promises to the people of Greater Manchester if he did. But if he does go for it, Starmer will just ride it out and see what happens.

    I suspect Starmer's ruthlessness is underestimated by many, and he'll see off Burnham if he has to. But I don't think he'll need to.
    From the thread header tweets Starmer allies are already preparing an all BAME shortlist for the Labour nomination in Gorton, with the bonus for Sir Keir of excluding white male Burnham
    I don't think that or an all women shortlist will be imposed, but Burnham won't stand.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,584
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    It will be great to see Kemi slaughtering Labour if they do insist on an all BAME (I thought it was Global Majority now?) shortlist

    I was doing some interviews for a management post last week. One of the candidates described herself as BAME spontaneously in the interview.

    It's not a great descriptor, but it is a damn sight better than 'Global majority' which is just plain dumb.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,252
    Burgessian said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    It will demonstrate how organised a not Reform candidate can be - especially when it's a none of the above option.

    If Burnham doesn't stand it will be essential that the Green Party get a poll demonstrating that it's only them that can beat Reform... As that poll is usually the catalyst for the rest of the vote to swing in the correct direction.
    A danger for Starmer is that egregiously blocking Burnham turns this into a Reform/Green contest, with Labour squeezed out and him getting the blame. Not ideal. Probably better off letting Burnham get on with it.
    Why would Starmer care about the Greens gaining one more seat if he survives?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 60,113
    If you are afraid of a contest, you have already lost.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,252
    bigjohnowls said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Reading the header, it seems like Labour want to go even lower than the 14% they were on in a poll today.

    SKS faction really don't care to them it's about their faction being in control of the ship even though it's already sunk
    SKS fans need to please explain this.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,252
    nico67 said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Burnham will stand, Burnham will lose :lol:

    That would be hilarious . I just find him really annoying and whiny and he swans around like he’s the best thing since sliced bread. I’d much rather Angela Rayner made a return to the cabinet and took over if Starmer goes .
    Be careful what you wish for.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,201
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Northern_Al said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer is clearly terrified of Burnham given the Labour members polls showing him far preferred to Sir Keir and the poll at the time of the Labour conference putting a Burnham led Labour narrowly ahead of Reform.

    Hence he will try and use the NEC to block him being on the shortlist for the Gorton by election. As Burnham is a white male team Starmer putting forward an all BME shortlist for the Labour nomination is a convenient way for Starmer to kick the King of the North into touch

    Your analysis of Labour politics isn't nearly as good as your analysis of Tory politics. It would be absolutely disastrous for Starmer / the NEC to block Burnham on the grounds of gender/BME characteristics, so they won't do it. More likely, they'll try to persuade him not to put his name forward, as he'd be letting down his promises to the people of Greater Manchester if he did. But if he does go for it, Starmer will just ride it out and see what happens.

    I suspect Starmer's ruthlessness is underestimated by many, and he'll see off Burnham if he has to. But I don't think he'll need to.
    From the thread header tweets Starmer allies are already preparing an all BAME shortlist for the Labour nomination in Gorton, with the bonus for Sir Keir of excluding white male Burnham
    I don't think that or an all women shortlist will be imposed, but Burnham won't stand.
    I stand by my statement from August:

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5287330/#Comment_5287330

    So @Northern_Al should remortgage his house and put everything on Burnham to be PM be Easter.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,868
    edited 8:30PM
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    It will be great to see Kemi slaughtering Labour if they do insist on an all BAME (I thought it was Global Majority now?) shortlist

    I was doing some interviews for a management post last week. One of the candidates described herself as BAME spontaneously in the interview.

    It's not a great descriptor, but it is a damn sight better than 'Global majority' which is just plain dumb.
    The individual concerned was an immigrant from a third world country, albeit with over a decade in the UK.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,460
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    It will be great to see Kemi slaughtering Labour if they do insist on an all BAME (I thought it was Global Majority now?) shortlist

    I was doing some interviews for a management post last week. One of the candidates described herself as BAME spontaneously in the interview.

    Meaningless acronym.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,460
    Roger said:

    Excellent interview with Starmer on Ch4 News.

    Starmer is definitely improving.

    SKS fans please explain.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 60,113
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Who's gonna tell him...

    Vance on the economy:

    "You don't turn the Titanic around overnight"

    Is that why Trumps ratings are underwater?
    More that the economy is creaking nastily. Like the hull of the Ocean Gate sub.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,201
    Casino_Royale said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Reading the header, it seems like Labour want to go even lower than the 14% they were on in a poll today.

    SKS faction really don't care to them it's about their faction being in control of the ship even though it's already sunk
    SKS fans need to please explain this.
    He hates him with a passion through drinking Corbynite Koolaid.

    Oh, sorry, you meant Starmer?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,462
    Roger said:

    Excellent interview with Starmer on Ch4 News.

    Starmer is definitely improving.

    Jim Cramer of politics speaks...sticks another £100 on him being gone this year....
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,815
    Casino_Royale said:

    nico67 said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Burnham will stand, Burnham will lose :lol:

    That would be hilarious . I just find him really annoying and whiny and he swans around like he’s the best thing since sliced bread. I’d much rather Angela Rayner made a return to the cabinet and took over if Starmer goes .
    Be careful what you wish for.
    I get your point . I just really like Rayner and find her a breath of fresh air .
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 3,456
    Casino_Royale said:

    Burgessian said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    It will demonstrate how organised a not Reform candidate can be - especially when it's a none of the above option.

    If Burnham doesn't stand it will be essential that the Green Party get a poll demonstrating that it's only them that can beat Reform... As that poll is usually the catalyst for the rest of the vote to swing in the correct direction.
    A danger for Starmer is that egregiously blocking Burnham turns this into a Reform/Green contest, with Labour squeezed out and him getting the blame. Not ideal. Probably better off letting Burnham get on with it.
    Why would Starmer care about the Greens gaining one more seat if he survives?
    Greens winning likely more terminal than Burnham winning.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,201
    Burgessian said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Burgessian said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    It will demonstrate how organised a not Reform candidate can be - especially when it's a none of the above option.

    If Burnham doesn't stand it will be essential that the Green Party get a poll demonstrating that it's only them that can beat Reform... As that poll is usually the catalyst for the rest of the vote to swing in the correct direction.
    A danger for Starmer is that egregiously blocking Burnham turns this into a Reform/Green contest, with Labour squeezed out and him getting the blame. Not ideal. Probably better off letting Burnham get on with it.
    Why would Starmer care about the Greens gaining one more seat if he survives?
    Greens winning likely more terminal than Burnham winning.
    A reminder that for Starmer to be forcibly ejected there has to be a leadership contest, and for that, there needs to be a vaguely credible challenger. It is not like the Tories where you can eviscerate the leader first and then worry about the successor.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 22,130
    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    We changed PM twice in WW2.

    I know.
    We also had 7 PMs during the Napoleonic wars - Pitt, Addington, Pitt, Grenville, Portland, Perceval and Liverpool. Also 2 in the Crimean war - Aberdeen and Palmerston.
    What's the longest war Britain didn't change PMs for the duration?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,462
    edited 8:41PM
    Malmesbury said:

    I foresee the following

    1) Burnham is blocked from standing with a shortlist.
    2) Labour manages to find a truly useless candidate.
    3) Green and Reform go for it full on
    4) Starmer & Co try to blame Burnham for polls showing they will lose the by election.
    5) Burnham will do lots of campaigning there
    6) Labour loses.
    7) Starmer comes out if this more damaged, while elevating Burnham even more.

    Somewhere in that timeline Starmer also manages to agree to pay a stupid amount of money to a foreign government or terrorist for no reason.....then claims the full details never crossed his desk.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 69,702
    LostPassword said:

    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    We changed PM twice in WW2.

    I know.
    We also had 7 PMs during the Napoleonic wars - Pitt, Addington, Pitt, Grenville, Portland, Perceval and Liverpool. Also 2 in the Crimean war - Aberdeen and Palmerston.
    What's the longest war Britain didn't change PMs for the duration?
    Boer war?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 69,702
    Malmesbury said:

    I foresee the following

    1) Burnham is blocked from standing with a shortlist.
    2) Labour manages to find a truly useless candidate.
    3) Green and Reform go for it full on
    4) Starmer & Co try to blame Burnham for polls showing they will lose the by election.
    5) Burnham will do lots of campaigning there
    6) Labour loses.
    7) Starmer comes out if this more damaged, while elevating Burnham even more.

    Looks distinctly possible.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,868
    Casino_Royale said:

    Burgessian said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2014378798343499918

    Speculation already mounting that Zack Polanski could stand in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton.

    Would make sense if Burnham is barred from running. Greens are polling on 24% there currently, behind Labour on 29% and Reform on 27%. Considering national polling, wouldn’t be surprised if some progressive voters who would have backed Burnham, back Polanski when the time comes.

    Would be worth doing even if Burnham does not run? Maybe he loses, but still a good profile and there's not really an expectation Greens would win in such a situation so no harm to his reputation (which is doing pretty well right now), and if Burnham did run and he still beat the great Labour hope, think of the blow to Labour morale?
    Burnham would win it easily but
    if Polanski stands and Burnham is not allowed to could split the left of centre vote and let Reform win instead
    It will demonstrate how organised a not Reform candidate can be - especially when it's a none of the above option.

    If Burnham doesn't stand it will be essential that the Green Party get a poll demonstrating that it's only them that can beat Reform... As that poll is usually the catalyst for the rest of the vote to swing in the correct direction.
    A danger for Starmer is that egregiously blocking Burnham turns this into a Reform/Green contest, with Labour squeezed out and him getting the blame. Not ideal. Probably better off letting Burnham get on with it.
    Why would Starmer care about the Greens gaining one more seat if he survives?
    Zack (Who is from Manchester) just put out this PPB.

    https://bsky.app/profile/greenparty.org.uk/post/3mczv2ixlhq2i

    If I were Starmer, I would be worried about him more than Burnham.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,813
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    HYUFD said:

    'The government is to radically reduce the number of police forces in England and Wales as part of what sources have called the largest reform of policing in decades.

    Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will announce plans for police reform next week.

    She will pledge to "significantly" cut the number of forces from its current level of 43, and tell them to focus on serious and organised crime. Police chiefs have been calling, external for the creation of 12 "mega forces" to save money and boost crime-fighting efforts.'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwnn10rgk4o

    Of all the government, Mahmood is one that can't be accused of not being active trying to change things. If those chnages are good or not is another matter. I have to say 43 different police forces for the size of countries of England and Wales does seem excessive.
    I doubt much money will be saved and there will be a lot of friction around choice of police cars. A focus on serious and organised crime is all well and good but what about shoplifting or phone thefts and other visible crime that people are concerned about. Localism matters.

    Is Shabana Mahmood the Robert Peel of our time or merely another Rachel Reeves pushing through a decades-old civil service wishlist?
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2026