One would have thought Burnham would have had the phone numbers or access to phone numbers of the NEC and he would have done a little bit of research as to how the land lay. Instead both he and his party have been soiled.
Way out of his depth for PM.
I suspect Burnham and Rayner were both expecting the result.
Reality is this was a seat that Burnham could have won which Labour will now lose and that will feed into a general malaise as we roll into the Local elections where Labour does very badly.
Remember that it is impossible for Labour members to remove a sitting Labour PM so you need to push him to the point of resigning first.
Impossible and unlikely and unprecedented all mean different things. It is not impossible.
Its worth remembering that only a few years ago there was a leadership challenge against a Labour leader that failed only because that leader was popular enough with members to win re-election.
Starmer is probably not that popular. If there is a challenge, it could succeed.
One would have thought Burnham would have had the phone numbers or access to phone numbers of the NEC and he would have done a little bit of research as to how the land lay. Instead both he and his party have been soiled.
Way out of his depth for PM.
Are you surprised?
No. He was a very ineffective Minister in the Brown Government.
PB Tories and far lefties (BJO) seem to like him, so what do I know?
As leader, he would free @bigjohnowls from the need to support a fascist party.
Ed Balls has a cushy number interviewing Z listers about their upcoming reality show or tame interviews with lobbyists advancing their cause on breakfast TV
Why would he move away from that.
I was just trying to work a pun on free owls in there...
Ive cashed out at a small loss the 2026 keir exit market. Really didn't see it unravelling so quickly for him.
It hasn't.
The "hot take" is obv that he looks weaker yada yada - and that's true. It's also true this was a foolish move and the ballsier thing to do would have been to let Burnham burn himself out.
But it also shows Starmer isn't going without a fight and fundamentally his opponents are not (in my judgement) in anything like a position to force the matter and nor are they likely to be in May.
There'll be plenty of hot air though and the market may shorten yet.
One would have thought Burnham would have had the phone numbers or access to phone numbers of the NEC and he would have done a little bit of research as to how the land lay. Instead both he and his party have been soiled.
Way out of his depth for PM.
Are you surprised?
No. He was a very ineffective Minister in the Brown Government.
PB Tories and far lefties (BJO) seem to like him, so what do I know?
He was not remembered with great fondness in Mid Staffordshire. Can't think why.
Fun fact:
Burnham has entered leadership contests twice. In both contests, he was the lowest ranked man.
The other reason this is a rubbish decision is that the big problem for Labour right now is less where they sit on the political spectrum but more a lack of ideas, vision, personality, dynamism.
They need more figures like Burnham inside the tent, to drive engagement and get their voters more enthused. Starmer and Reeves aren’t going to fire up the base.
Burnham was far more useful to Starmer inside the tent. Now he’s outside it just reinforces their problems.
Just over 240 years ago the perfect comments on the fears of Sir Keir:
Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beastie, O, what a panic’s in thy breastie! Thou need na start awa sae hasty, Wi’ bickering brattle! I wad be laith to rin an’ chase thee, Wi’ murdering pattle!
But Mousie, thou art no thy lane, In proving foresight may be vain: The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men Gang aft agley, An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain, For promis’d joy!
I see this decision as profoundly risk-averse and thus characteristic of Starmer and the Labour Party he leads.
Let's imagine Burnham had been allowed to stand and lost the by-election - he would be finished as a potential leadership rival and it's not as though Labour can't afford to lose the odd seat while retaining a large majority.
The risk of course was Burnham stands and wins but for all the talk he would simply be another Labour backbencher who would have to go out and defend Government policy and get his hands dirty doing so in a way he can avoid as Mayor of Greater Manchester (and as Sadiq Khan can as Mayor of London). He would have ended up more as a Jenrick or a Heseltine (and neither got the leadership) as enunciating an alternative strategy would have looked disloyal within the party.
Off topic, but timely: One pleasant consequence of the Seahawks game today: less TV time spent on the Loser, for which I am grateful. (I assume that fans in LA, Denver, and New England, are also benefitting, at least for today.)
(It is at 3:30 PM, Pacific time, so a bit late for many of you.)
According to the Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, there is major split in both the Trump Administration and among U.S. allies in the Middle East regarding a potential attack against Iran. Those in favor of strikes against Iran are said to include:
- Vice President JD Vance - Secretary of State Marco Rubio - Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth - Britain - Israel - United Arab Emirates
Those opposed:
- Special Envoy Jared Kushner - Special Envoy Steve Witkoff - Turkey - Saudi Arabia - Qatar
Seems hard to believe. Weird to see Vance on the side of good for once, rather than lined up with the Axis of Evil.
A bit weird to see Britain on that list - as if our opinion would count for anything. Otherwise, I wouldn't really need any inside information to guess who'd be on which side.
According to the Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, there is major split in both the Trump Administration and among U.S. allies in the Middle East regarding a potential attack against Iran. Those in favor of strikes against Iran are said to include:
- Vice President JD Vance - Secretary of State Marco Rubio - Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth - Britain - Israel - United Arab Emirates
Those opposed:
- Special Envoy Jared Kushner - Special Envoy Steve Witkoff - Turkey - Saudi Arabia - Qatar
Seems hard to believe. Weird to see Vance on the side of good for once, rather than lined up with the Axis of Evil.
If I had to choose over this I look at those sides and, not for the first time recently, say 'Zugzwang.'
One would have thought Burnham would have had the phone numbers or access to phone numbers of the NEC and he would have done a little bit of research as to how the land lay. Instead both he and his party have been soiled.
Way out of his depth for PM.
I suspect Burnham and Rayner were both expecting the result.
Reality is this was a seat that Burnham could have won which Labour will now lose and that will feed into a general malaise as we roll into the Local elections where Labour does very badly.
Remember that it is impossible for Labour members to remove a sitting Labour PM so you need to push him to the point of resigning first.
Surely that is undemocratic..
Well this is the party that is happily postponing local elections, again, mainly where they’d lose.
One would have thought Burnham would have had the phone numbers or access to phone numbers of the NEC and he would have done a little bit of research as to how the land lay. Instead both he and his party have been soiled.
Way out of his depth for PM.
I suspect Burnham and Rayner were both expecting the result.
Reality is this was a seat that Burnham could have won which Labour will now lose and that will feed into a general malaise as we roll into the Local elections where Labour does very badly.
Remember that it is impossible for Labour members to remove a sitting Labour PM so you need to push him to the point of resigning first.
Impossible and unlikely and unprecedented all mean different things. It is not impossible.
Its worth remembering that only a few years ago there was a leadership challenge against a Labour leader that failed only because that leader was popular enough with members to win re-election.
Starmer is probably not that popular. If there is a challenge, it could succeed.
Labour has different rules for when in power and when in opposition.
The huge own goal here is that Labour supporters who want Starmer to go might think they should vote Green in the by election - which will empower people to say “Andy would have won!” and/or make the leadership look even weaker, because if they can’t win this seat they are set for a cataclysmic 2029
They have to get through a catyclismic 2026 first..
One would have thought Burnham would have had the phone numbers or access to phone numbers of the NEC and he would have done a little bit of research as to how the land lay. Instead both he and his party have been soiled.
Way out of his depth for PM.
I suspect Burnham and Rayner were both expecting the result.
Reality is this was a seat that Burnham could have won which Labour will now lose and that will feed into a general malaise as we roll into the Local elections where Labour does very badly.
Remember that it is impossible for Labour members to remove a sitting Labour PM so you need to push him to the point of resigning first.
Impossible and unlikely and unprecedented all mean different things. It is not impossible.
Its worth remembering that only a few years ago there was a leadership challenge against a Labour leader that failed only because that leader was popular enough with members to win re-election.
Starmer is probably not that popular. If there is a challenge, it could succeed.
Labour has different rules for when in power and when in opposition.
Still does not reach the threshold of impossible though.
As leader, he would free @bigjohnowls from the need to support a fascist party.
Moronic comment.
Greens all the way for me.
With Burnham I would still vote Green unless it was a Ref/Lab only battle iwith Greens out of it i3rd n which case I would have voted tactically to stop Reform.
I will vote Green even if not competitive with SKS/Streeting/Mahmood in charge.
Your voting record should be more of a concern as you are the Fascist enabler
OK, I am surprised but probably shouldn't have been. NEC allies blocking rivals supported by the many is exactly the kind of Corbynite shite that Starmer stood up against.
I absolutely guarantee you that they are coming for Starmer the weekend after Labour get demolished in May.
So, this byelection. Labour will not just lose but will come at least 3rd if not 4th. They will select a drone who will spend the entire campaign being asked by Burnham wasn't allowed to stand - and then likely be pulled from the public eye completely. Reform will challenge - perhaps with a high profile Tory turncoat candidate. Gorgeous is running for the Workers Communist Islamist Party. Hopefully Zack for the Greens.
One would have thought Burnham would have had the phone numbers or access to phone numbers of the NEC and he would have done a little bit of research as to how the land lay. Instead both he and his party have been soiled.
Way out of his depth for PM.
I'd love to know what Burnham is meant to bring to Labour that gets them out of their current predicament, never mind how he'll improve the government of the country in this perilous time.
"Sean Thomas To survive Starmer’s Britain, look to the small joys of Soviet life We should maintain what the Russians called mat – the dark, obscene humour that made everything bearable" (£)
According to the Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, there is major split in both the Trump Administration and among U.S. allies in the Middle East regarding a potential attack against Iran. Those in favor of strikes against Iran are said to include:
- Vice President JD Vance - Secretary of State Marco Rubio - Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth - Britain - Israel - United Arab Emirates
Those opposed:
- Special Envoy Jared Kushner - Special Envoy Steve Witkoff - Turkey - Saudi Arabia - Qatar
Seems hard to believe. Weird to see Vance on the side of good for once, rather than lined up with the Axis of Evil.
A bit weird to see Britain on that list - as if our opinion would count for anything. Otherwise, I wouldn't really need any inside information to guess who'd be on which side.
Presumably the decision makers are able to make use of far greater intelligence (not their own, obviously) as to what is happening on the ground in Iran. Has the crackdown been effective or are protests continuing?
What then is the point of proposed action? The theocrats will no doubt continue to kill their own people as long as they have the means so to do and can air atrikes alone denude the capability of the Islamic Revolutionary Forces to mete out their form of justice on the streets? Is there a belief decapitating the theocratic leadership would bring down the whole regime? I'd be surprised if it did so it's a form of "punishment" which Iran has faced before and will swallow.
Are we perhaps looking at a genuine attempt to instigate regime change with Reza Pahlavi landing at a liberated Tehran Airport escorted by American airborne troops through cheering crowds to the Parliament building where he is sworn in as interim leader pending elections etc, etc? We can all dream....
American troops on the borders of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Russia ? I'm sure that won't increase tension.
I'm a bit baffled - I expected the NEC to read the room and let Burnham go forward to the next stage, knowing that not to do so would unleash the flak that they're seeing on here and elsewhere. But the 8-1 NEC vote rather suggests that there were compelling reasons not to let Burnham be shortlisted. My best guess is the view that Burnham has committed to be Mayor of Manchester and has a duty to carry out his full term.
Whatever the reasoning, I think it would be helpful if the NEC put out a statement explaining their decision.
One would have thought Burnham would have had the phone numbers or access to phone numbers of the NEC and he would have done a little bit of research as to how the land lay. Instead both he and his party have been soiled.
Way out of his depth for PM.
Are you surprised?
No. He was a very ineffective Minister in the Brown Government.
PB Tories and far lefties (BJO) seem to like him, so what do I know?
I think you will find every poll has him as more popular with Lab voters than SKS.
The fact you told him to f**k off tells us all we need to know about your politics
OK, I am surprised but probably shouldn't have been. NEC allies blocking rivals supported by the many is exactly the kind of Corbynite shite that Starmer stood up against.
Give over. You were perfectly happy when they were blocking the likes of Jamie Driscoll, in his case for the crime of sharing a stage with Ken Loach to talk about films.
I read in the Sunday Times today that Ed Miliband had struck a deal with Burnham, and was angling to be Chancellor.
I wonder how long they would last attempting to borrow hundreds of billions for a public spending splurge to reward the unions. Maybe a few days before bond investors went on strike?
One would have thought Burnham would have had the phone numbers or access to phone numbers of the NEC and he would have done a little bit of research as to how the land lay. Instead both he and his party have been soiled.
Way out of his depth for PM.
I'd love to know what Burnham is meant to bring to Labour that gets them out of their current predicament, never mind how he'll improve the government of the country in this perilous time.
There are parallels between Burnham now and Boris in 2012-16. I appreciate they are very different characters so this only goes so far, but what Burnham has, rightly or wrongly, is a popular profile and alternate power base within his party that differs from the party leadership - and is broadly seen to have enjoyed some successes.
You can debate how much this is down to Burnham, or is just the continuing result of investment in a northern “success story” by successive governments keen to burnish their levelling up creds, but Manchester is popularly held up as bucking the national trend somewhat and having growth, dynamism and energy lacking in many other urban authorities in the UK. At a time when Labour are finding it very difficult to tell a compelling story, successes in Manchester are understandably attractive. In a similar vein, Boris was seen to be a visible and successful mayor (again, very debateable how much this was down to Boris - but he certainly played the game well), and this boosted his creds with his party and the country.
According to the Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, there is major split in both the Trump Administration and among U.S. allies in the Middle East regarding a potential attack against Iran. Those in favor of strikes against Iran are said to include:
- Vice President JD Vance - Secretary of State Marco Rubio - Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth - Britain - Israel - United Arab Emirates
Those opposed:
- Special Envoy Jared Kushner - Special Envoy Steve Witkoff - Turkey - Saudi Arabia - Qatar
Interesting. Can understand Türkiye, their defence mates Saudi, and Qatar being against it but Kushner and Witkoff? Perhaps VP has had a word and threatened to withdraw their investments in Ukraine if the supply of Iranian arms is compromised.
OK, I am surprised but probably shouldn't have been. NEC allies blocking rivals supported by the many is exactly the kind of Corbynite shite that Starmer stood up against.
I absolutely guarantee you that they are coming for Starmer the weekend after Labour get demolished in May.
So, this byelection. Labour will not just lose but will come at least 3rd if not 4th. They will select a drone who will spend the entire campaign being asked by Burnham wasn't allowed to stand - and then likely be pulled from the public eye completely. Reform will challenge - perhaps with a high profile Tory turncoat candidate. Gorgeous is running for the Workers Communist Islamist Party. Hopefully Zack for the Greens.
Fun fun fun
You can't have been following the partisan, deselections and reorganisation of the Labour Party over the last few years. Bureaucratic cowardice is well within Starmer’s wheelhouse.
"Sean Thomas To survive Starmer’s Britain, look to the small joys of Soviet life We should maintain what the Russians called mat – the dark, obscene humour that made everything bearable" (£)
"Sean Thomas To survive Starmer’s Britain, look to the small joys of Soviet life We should maintain what the Russians called mat – the dark, obscene humour that made everything bearable" (£)
According to the Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, there is major split in both the Trump Administration and among U.S. allies in the Middle East regarding a potential attack against Iran. Those in favor of strikes against Iran are said to include:
- Vice President JD Vance - Secretary of State Marco Rubio - Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth - Britain - Israel - United Arab Emirates
Those opposed:
- Special Envoy Jared Kushner - Special Envoy Steve Witkoff - Turkey - Saudi Arabia - Qatar
Seems hard to believe. Weird to see Vance on the side of good for once, rather than lined up with the Axis of Evil.
A bit weird to see Britain on that list - as if our opinion would count for anything. Otherwise, I wouldn't really need any inside information to guess who'd be on which side.
RAF Akrotiri as a base for flights into the region?
According to the Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, there is major split in both the Trump Administration and among U.S. allies in the Middle East regarding a potential attack against Iran. Those in favor of strikes against Iran are said to include:
- Vice President JD Vance - Secretary of State Marco Rubio - Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth - Britain - Israel - United Arab Emirates
Those opposed:
- Special Envoy Jared Kushner - Special Envoy Steve Witkoff - Turkey - Saudi Arabia - Qatar
Seems hard to believe. Weird to see Vance on the side of good for once, rather than lined up with the Axis of Evil.
A bit weird to see Britain on that list - as if our opinion would count for anything. Otherwise, I wouldn't really need any inside information to guess who'd be on which side.
Presumably the decision makers are able to make use of far greater intelligence (not their own, obviously) as to what is happening on the ground in Iran. Has the crackdown been effective or are protests continuing?
What then is the point of proposed action? The theocrats will no doubt continue to kill their own people as long as they have the means so to do and can air atrikes alone denude the capability of the Islamic Revolutionary Forces to mete out their form of justice on the streets? Is there a belief decapitating the theocratic leadership would bring down the whole regime? I'd be surprised if it did so it's a form of "punishment" which Iran has faced before and will swallow.
Are we perhaps looking at a genuine attempt to instigate regime change with Reza Pahlavi landing at a liberated Tehran Airport escorted by American airborne troops through cheering crowds to the Parliament building where he is sworn in as interim leader pending elections etc, etc? We can all dream....
American troops on the borders of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Russia ? I'm sure that won't increase tension.
We should sit this one out.
Trump helped get people murdered by encouraging them to keep protesting with his "we have your back" schtick.
We have zero influence on (and previous little ability to contribute militarily to) the outcome, so what are we doing here ?
Polish finance minister Andrzej Domański (@Domanski_Andrz) in the Financial Times today on why Poland is not planning to adopt the euro:
“Our economy is now doing clearly better than most of those that have the euro.”
“Public opinion favours the zloty, but the main reasons we’re not working on euro adoption right now are economic and not about Polish politics.”
“Two years ago I was a bit worried that Poland could be left behind in a two-tier EU and outside the Eurozone, but today Poland is clearly in the top economic tier, and I see no strong reason to abandon our own currency.” https://x.com/StuartDowell_/status/2015359285124059399
According to the Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, there is major split in both the Trump Administration and among U.S. allies in the Middle East regarding a potential attack against Iran. Those in favor of strikes against Iran are said to include:
- Vice President JD Vance - Secretary of State Marco Rubio - Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth - Britain - Israel - United Arab Emirates
Those opposed:
- Special Envoy Jared Kushner - Special Envoy Steve Witkoff - Turkey - Saudi Arabia - Qatar
Interesting. Can understand Türkiye, their defence mates Saudi, and Qatar being against it but Kushner and Witkoff? Perhaps VP has had a word and threatened to withdraw their investments in Ukraine if the supply of Iranian arms is compromised.
It could be something that is leaked in order to let Iran know that currently there are people for and against attacking them so it’s not too late to do the right thing whereas if Iran thinks they are doomed anyway then they have nothing to lose by digging in.
It could also just be made-up speculation in the media - I know the media has never previously just guessed at things but maybe it’s a first.
I read in the Sunday Times today that Ed Miliband had struck a deal with Burnham, and was angling to be Chancellor.
I wonder how long they would last attempting to borrow hundreds of billions for a public spending splurge to reward the unions. Maybe a few days before bond investors went on strike?
They wouldn't even make it into office if they were as open about their intentions as Truss was.
The bond markets have surely learnt that British politicians will do the bonkers things they promise to do in leadership elections and you want to be the first to sell, not the last, in such a situation.
One would have thought Burnham would have had the phone numbers or access to phone numbers of the NEC and he would have done a little bit of research as to how the land lay. Instead both he and his party have been soiled.
Way out of his depth for PM.
There's the problem then
With such a tight timescale, Burnham didn't have time to have phone lines installed.
Burnham must now surely be secretly hoping Reform or the Greens win the Gorton by election and Starmer and the NEC are humiliated
You might see him out canvassing. There's such a thing as swallowing disappointment and coming to the aid of the party.
If (doing a lot of work) he’s smart then he will do a couple of high profile interventions so he looks like he’s trying but the minimum amount of actual work.
If I was to game this from Andy’s perspective the best outcome is:
- Andy tries to stand - SKS blocks candidacy (looks frit) - Andy is studiously loyal (hah!) - Labour loses (“but Andy would have won”) - Labour outperforms in Manchester in the locals
I'm a bit baffled - I expected the NEC to read the room and let Burnham go forward to the next stage, knowing that not to do so would unleash the flak that they're seeing on here and elsewhere. But the 8-1 NEC vote rather suggests that there were compelling reasons not to let Burnham be shortlisted. My best guess is the view that Burnham has committed to be Mayor of Manchester and has a duty to carry out his full term.
Whatever the reasoning, I think it would be helpful if the NEC put out a statement explaining their decision.
The most likely non-factional reason is that they've been given polling advice which tells them the obvious - Labour are likely to lose the by-election and would lose an election for Mayor of Greater Manchester.
So having Burnham resign as Mayor to stand for Parliament would simply result in Labour losing two elections rather than one. Not hard to say a hard no to that one.
But they can hardly come out in public and say that can they?
Tricky for AB to carry on with his 'this is the role I want - not interested iin Westminster politics ' line now.
It just requires a speech that goes along the lines of
As mayor I've discovered that I'm very restricted in things I can do unlike other countries so the underground metro we so desperately need is utterly blocked by the Treasury. I had hoped by returning to Westminster to solve these issues but as I'm blocked from doing so I will continue to do the best I can for Manchester while the Treasury blocks us at every turn...
According to the Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, there is major split in both the Trump Administration and among U.S. allies in the Middle East regarding a potential attack against Iran. Those in favor of strikes against Iran are said to include:
- Vice President JD Vance - Secretary of State Marco Rubio - Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth - Britain - Israel - United Arab Emirates
Those opposed:
- Special Envoy Jared Kushner - Special Envoy Steve Witkoff - Turkey - Saudi Arabia - Qatar
Interesting. Can understand Türkiye, their defence mates Saudi, and Qatar being against it but Kushner and Witkoff? Perhaps VP has had a word and threatened to withdraw their investments in Ukraine if the supply of Iranian arms is compromised.
WTAF is Starmer trying to do promoting this idea. Surely Labour, of all parties, should know that invading or attacking Middle Eastern countries for no clear reasons is a very, very bad idea.
One can only conclude he still hasn't taken the Carney message to heart and wants to remain "best buds" with the loon in the White House. If this pathetic stitch up with Burnham is not enough going to war with Iran will surely see his end this year.
One would have thought Burnham would have had the phone numbers or access to phone numbers of the NEC and he would have done a little bit of research as to how the land lay. Instead both he and his party have been soiled.
Way out of his depth for PM.
There's the problem then
With such a tight timescale, Burnham didn't have time to have phone lines installed.
I read in the Sunday Times today that Ed Miliband had struck a deal with Burnham, and was angling to be Chancellor.
I wonder how long they would last attempting to borrow hundreds of billions for a public spending splurge to reward the unions. Maybe a few days before bond investors went on strike?
They wouldn't even make it into office if they were as open about their intentions as Truss was.
The bond markets have surely learnt that British politicians will do the bonkers things they promise to do in leadership elections and you want to be the first to sell, not the last, in such a situation.
Why wouldn't they? I don't think Labour activists or MPs have a great handle on reality. In fact I think they'd revel in the idea that voting for Burnham would be a way of saying "fuck you" to the world of international finance. I expect that's what Burnham would campaign on and Laboir activists would lap it up, freed from the shackles of bond markets - Burnham the great liberator.
I read in the Sunday Times today that Ed Miliband had struck a deal with Burnham, and was angling to be Chancellor.
I wonder how long they would last attempting to borrow hundreds of billions for a public spending splurge to reward the unions. Maybe a few days before bond investors went on strike?
They wouldn't even make it into office if they were as open about their intentions as Truss was.
The bond markets have surely learnt that British politicians will do the bonkers things they promise to do in leadership elections and you want to be the first to sell, not the last, in such a situation.
Why wouldn't they? I don't think Labour activists or MPs have a great handle on reality. In fact I think they'd revel in the idea that voting for Burnham would be a way of saying "fuck you" to the world of international finance. I expect that's what Burnham would campaign on and Laboir activists would lap it up, freed from the shackles of bond markets - Burnham the great liberator.
There is a very realistic way to free your country from bond markets:
Run a budget surplus.
The problem is not bond markets, it is spending too much.
I read in the Sunday Times today that Ed Miliband had struck a deal with Burnham, and was angling to be Chancellor.
I wonder how long they would last attempting to borrow hundreds of billions for a public spending splurge to reward the unions. Maybe a few days before bond investors went on strike?
They wouldn't even make it into office if they were as open about their intentions as Truss was.
The bond markets have surely learnt that British politicians will do the bonkers things they promise to do in leadership elections and you want to be the first to sell, not the last, in such a situation.
Why wouldn't they? I don't think Labour activists or MPs have a great handle on reality. In fact I think they'd revel in the idea that voting for Burnham would be a way of saying "fuck you" to the world of international finance. I expect that's what Burnham would campaign on and Laboir activists would lap it up, freed from the shackles of bond markets - Burnham the great liberator.
They are going to be really, really angry though when the world of internationl finance says "No, fuck YOU."
According to the Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, there is major split in both the Trump Administration and among U.S. allies in the Middle East regarding a potential attack against Iran. Those in favor of strikes against Iran are said to include:
- Vice President JD Vance - Secretary of State Marco Rubio - Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth - Britain - Israel - United Arab Emirates
Those opposed:
- Special Envoy Jared Kushner - Special Envoy Steve Witkoff - Turkey - Saudi Arabia - Qatar
Interesting. Can understand Türkiye, their defence mates Saudi, and Qatar being against it but Kushner and Witkoff? Perhaps VP has had a word and threatened to withdraw their investments in Ukraine if the supply of Iranian arms is compromised.
WTAF is Starmer trying to do promoting this idea. Surely Labour, of all parties, should know that invading or attacking Middle Eastern countries for no clear reasons is a very, very bad idea.
One can only conclude he still hasn't taken the Carney message to heart and wants to remain "best buds" with the loon in the White House. If this pathetic stitch up with Burnham is not enough going to war with Iran will surely see his end this year.
I read in the Sunday Times today that Ed Miliband had struck a deal with Burnham, and was angling to be Chancellor.
I wonder how long they would last attempting to borrow hundreds of billions for a public spending splurge to reward the unions. Maybe a few days before bond investors went on strike?
They wouldn't even make it into office if they were as open about their intentions as Truss was.
The bond markets have surely learnt that British politicians will do the bonkers things they promise to do in leadership elections and you want to be the first to sell, not the last, in such a situation.
Why wouldn't they? I don't think Labour activists or MPs have a great handle on reality. In fact I think they'd revel in the idea that voting for Burnham would be a way of saying "fuck you" to the world of international finance. I expect that's what Burnham would campaign on and Laboir activists would lap it up, freed from the shackles of bond markets - Burnham the great liberator.
They are going to be really, really angry though when the world of internationl finance says "No, fuck YOU."
I don't doubt it but the these are the same people who say good riddance when HNWIs leave in droves due to Labour's tax and inheritance changes. They're not particularly smart or rational.
One would have thought Burnham would have had the phone numbers or access to phone numbers of the NEC and he would have done a little bit of research as to how the land lay. Instead both he and his party have been soiled.
Way out of his depth for PM.
There's the problem then
With such a tight timescale, Burnham didn't have time to have phone lines installed.
WTF is a "phone line"?
Attaches to a device that enables you speak to the past...
PB Tories are loving Burnham and the embarrassment he has heaped on Starmer. A plague on both their houses, but an even bigger one on Reform and the Tories.
According to the Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, there is major split in both the Trump Administration and among U.S. allies in the Middle East regarding a potential attack against Iran. Those in favor of strikes against Iran are said to include:
- Vice President JD Vance - Secretary of State Marco Rubio - Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth - Britain - Israel - United Arab Emirates
Those opposed:
- Special Envoy Jared Kushner - Special Envoy Steve Witkoff - Turkey - Saudi Arabia - Qatar
Interesting. Can understand Türkiye, their defence mates Saudi, and Qatar being against it but Kushner and Witkoff? Perhaps VP has had a word and threatened to withdraw their investments in Ukraine if the supply of Iranian arms is compromised.
kushner is bought and paid for by the Saudis (they provided over 90% of the money for his PE fund). Believe that Witkoff is close to them as well - he was slinking around in Saudi before being hand picked as Trump’s Russia envoy
As Foxy said - the charts are a year old and explained by Easter being in March in 2024 and April in 2025
Another factor is the US is eye wateringly expensive now. Gone are the days of cheap hotels and massive meals for a few quid. And don't get started on tickets for attractions. I posted the other day about the Sphere in Vegas, its average price of $250 to watch the Wizard of Oz....concerts in particular are off the charts expensive.
According to the Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, there is major split in both the Trump Administration and among U.S. allies in the Middle East regarding a potential attack against Iran. Those in favor of strikes against Iran are said to include:
- Vice President JD Vance - Secretary of State Marco Rubio - Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth - Britain - Israel - United Arab Emirates
Those opposed:
- Special Envoy Jared Kushner - Special Envoy Steve Witkoff - Turkey - Saudi Arabia - Qatar
Interesting. Can understand Türkiye, their defence mates Saudi, and Qatar being against it but Kushner and Witkoff? Perhaps VP has had a word and threatened to withdraw their investments in Ukraine if the supply of Iranian arms is compromised.
Thought the Saudis would love the idea of sending Iran back to the Stone Age - the price of oil will only go one way.
Annoyingly, that would benefit Russia on the oil price (although not so much if their chums in Tehran get blasted to smithereens.)
Just looking at the photo of the latest ICE victim. Difficult to imagine someone who looks less threatening. Just contrast with the appearance of the head ICE goon
So that's a prize-winning poet and an ICU nurse gunned down. Wonder who's next.
I read in the Sunday Times today that Ed Miliband had struck a deal with Burnham, and was angling to be Chancellor.
I wonder how long they would last attempting to borrow hundreds of billions for a public spending splurge to reward the unions. Maybe a few days before bond investors went on strike?
They wouldn't even make it into office if they were as open about their intentions as Truss was.
The bond markets have surely learnt that British politicians will do the bonkers things they promise to do in leadership elections and you want to be the first to sell, not the last, in such a situation.
Why wouldn't they? I don't think Labour activists or MPs have a great handle on reality. In fact I think they'd revel in the idea that voting for Burnham would be a way of saying "fuck you" to the world of international finance. I expect that's what Burnham would campaign on and Laboir activists would lap it up, freed from the shackles of bond markets - Burnham the great liberator.
Because a collapse of market confidence would lead to a run on the pound and associated market chaos. Fear would overcome irrational hope.
I’ve formed the impression that a lot of Pb-ers are getting wildly over-excited over goings-on around Gorton. I’m expecting a Labour hold, with Green second. I’m also expecting Reform’s support to tumble, due to association with Trump. We’ve not seen the end of insults to our Armed Forces yet.
I read in the Sunday Times today that Ed Miliband had struck a deal with Burnham, and was angling to be Chancellor.
I wonder how long they would last attempting to borrow hundreds of billions for a public spending splurge to reward the unions. Maybe a few days before bond investors went on strike?
They wouldn't even make it into office if they were as open about their intentions as Truss was.
The bond markets have surely learnt that British politicians will do the bonkers things they promise to do in leadership elections and you want to be the first to sell, not the last, in such a situation.
Why wouldn't they? I don't think Labour activists or MPs have a great handle on reality. In fact I think they'd revel in the idea that voting for Burnham would be a way of saying "fuck you" to the world of international finance. I expect that's what Burnham would campaign on and Laboir activists would lap it up, freed from the shackles of bond markets - Burnham the great liberator.
I read in the Sunday Times today that Ed Miliband had struck a deal with Burnham, and was angling to be Chancellor.
I wonder how long they would last attempting to borrow hundreds of billions for a public spending splurge to reward the unions. Maybe a few days before bond investors went on strike?
They wouldn't even make it into office if they were as open about their intentions as Truss was.
The bond markets have surely learnt that British politicians will do the bonkers things they promise to do in leadership elections and you want to be the first to sell, not the last, in such a situation.
Why wouldn't they? I don't think Labour activists or MPs have a great handle on reality. In fact I think they'd revel in the idea that voting for Burnham would be a way of saying "fuck you" to the world of international finance. I expect that's what Burnham would campaign on and Laboir activists would lap it up, freed from the shackles of bond markets - Burnham the great liberator.
I read in the Sunday Times today that Ed Miliband had struck a deal with Burnham, and was angling to be Chancellor.
I wonder how long they would last attempting to borrow hundreds of billions for a public spending splurge to reward the unions. Maybe a few days before bond investors went on strike?
They wouldn't even make it into office if they were as open about their intentions as Truss was.
The bond markets have surely learnt that British politicians will do the bonkers things they promise to do in leadership elections and you want to be the first to sell, not the last, in such a situation.
Why wouldn't they? I don't think Labour activists or MPs have a great handle on reality. In fact I think they'd revel in the idea that voting for Burnham would be a way of saying "fuck you" to the world of international finance. I expect that's what Burnham would campaign on and Laboir activists would lap it up, freed from the shackles of bond markets - Burnham the great liberator.
Tell me you don't know many Labour supporters, without saying you don't know many Labour supporters. Only one party tried saying Fuck You to the bond markets recently. We saw how that panned out, and Labour has no desire to emulate it.
PB Tories are loving Burnham and the embarrassment he has heaped on Starmer. A plague on both their houses, but an even bigger one on Reform and the Tories.
Its Labour on Labour. PB Tories are watching from the sides and enjoying the slow hari-kiri
As leader, he would free @bigjohnowls from the need to support a fascist party.
Moronic comment.
Greens all the way for me.
With Burnham I would still vote Green unless it was a Ref/Lab only battle iwith Greens out of it i3rd n which case I would have voted tactically to stop Reform.
I will vote Green even if not competitive with SKS/Streeting/Mahmood in charge.
Your voting record should be more of a concern as you are the Fascist enabler
Typical. Not only epic projection and lack of self awareness but not able to spot a genuinely awesome pun.
That complicates Green odds somewhat, but perhaps it is a tactical play to contrast strongly with Labour.
I presume that Polanski already has a seat in mind to stand for at the next election, and chooses to work that seat rather than to be seen flitting about to every promising by-election.
I think it's probably a mistake - he'd be more likely to win than any other candidate, and the benefit of winning a by-election in terms of publicity, etc, are worth the risk of losing. But I can see why he would have decided otherwise.
Comments
Resigns as Mayor and stands as an Independent
Its worth remembering that only a few years ago there was a leadership challenge against a Labour leader that failed only because that leader was popular enough with members to win re-election.
Starmer is probably not that popular. If there is a challenge, it could succeed.
PB Tories and far lefties (BJO) seem to like him, so what do I know?
The "hot take" is obv that he looks weaker yada yada - and that's true. It's also true this was a foolish move and the ballsier thing to do would have been to let Burnham burn himself out.
But it also shows Starmer isn't going without a fight and fundamentally his opponents are not (in my judgement) in anything like a position to force the matter and nor are they likely to be in May.
There'll be plenty of hot air though and the market may shorten yet.
Fun fact:
Burnham has entered leadership contests twice. In both contests, he was the lowest ranked man.
They need more figures like Burnham inside the tent, to drive engagement and get their voters more enthused. Starmer and Reeves aren’t going to fire up the base.
Burnham was far more useful to Starmer inside the tent. Now he’s outside it just reinforces their problems.
Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beastie,
O, what a panic’s in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
Wi’ bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to rin an’ chase thee,
Wi’ murdering pattle!
But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
I see this decision as profoundly risk-averse and thus characteristic of Starmer and the Labour Party he leads.
Let's imagine Burnham had been allowed to stand and lost the by-election - he would be finished as a potential leadership rival and it's not as though Labour can't afford to lose the odd seat while retaining a large majority.
The risk of course was Burnham stands and wins but for all the talk he would simply be another Labour backbencher who would have to go out and defend Government policy and get his hands dirty doing so in a way he can avoid as Mayor of Greater Manchester (and as Sadiq Khan can as Mayor of London). He would have ended up more as a Jenrick or a Heseltine (and neither got the leadership) as enunciating an alternative strategy would have looked disloyal within the party.
It's all to do with urination and tents.
it looks a weak decision however dressed up.
(It is at 3:30 PM, Pacific time, so a bit late for many of you.)
This decision will weaken Starmer further and provoke a civil war
Starmer should have backed him and drawn him closer
Starmer did this from weakness not strength
If Burnham is planning on the sort of treason you are expecting, the NEC* made the right decision.
*I would have let him stand. But then I have had no connection with the Labour Party since not long after the 2010 GE.
Greens all the way for me.
With Burnham I would still vote Green unless it was a Ref/Lab only battle iwith Greens out of it i3rd n which case I would have voted tactically to stop Reform.
I will vote Green even if not competitive with SKS/Streeting/Mahmood in charge.
Your voting record should be more of a concern as you are the Fascist enabler
I absolutely guarantee you that they are coming for Starmer the weekend after Labour get demolished in May.
So, this byelection. Labour will not just lose but will come at least 3rd if not 4th. They will select a drone who will spend the entire campaign being asked by Burnham wasn't allowed to stand - and then likely be pulled from the public eye completely. Reform will challenge - perhaps with a high profile Tory turncoat candidate. Gorgeous is running for the Workers Communist Islamist Party. Hopefully Zack for the Greens.
Fun fun fun
To survive Starmer’s Britain, look to the small joys of Soviet life
We should maintain what the Russians called mat – the dark, obscene humour that made everything bearable" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/25/to-survive-in-starmers-britain-look-to-ussr
What then is the point of proposed action? The theocrats will no doubt continue to kill their own people as long as they have the means so to do and can air atrikes alone denude the capability of the Islamic Revolutionary Forces to mete out their form of justice on the streets? Is there a belief decapitating the theocratic leadership would bring down the whole regime? I'd be surprised if it did so it's a form of "punishment" which Iran has faced before and will swallow.
Are we perhaps looking at a genuine attempt to instigate regime change with Reza Pahlavi landing at a liberated Tehran Airport escorted by American airborne troops through cheering crowds to the Parliament building where he is sworn in as interim leader pending elections etc, etc? We can all dream....
American troops on the borders of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Russia ? I'm sure that won't increase tension.
Whatever the reasoning, I think it would be helpful if the NEC put out a statement explaining their decision.
I read in the Sunday Times today that Ed Miliband had struck a deal with Burnham, and was angling to be Chancellor.
The fact you told him to f**k off tells us all we need to know about your politics
Give over. You were perfectly happy when they were blocking the likes of Jamie Driscoll, in his case for the crime of sharing a stage with Ken Loach to talk about films.
You can debate how much this is down to Burnham, or is just the continuing result of investment in a northern “success story” by successive governments keen to burnish their levelling up creds, but Manchester is popularly held up as bucking the national trend somewhat and having growth, dynamism and energy lacking in many other urban authorities in the UK. At a time when Labour are finding it very difficult to tell a compelling story, successes in Manchester are understandably attractive. In a similar vein, Boris was seen to be a visible and successful mayor (again, very debateable how much this was down to Boris - but he certainly played the game well), and this boosted his creds with his party and the country.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/12/20/ed-miliband-is-33-1-to-be-the-next-chancellor/
https://x.com/bethanymrd/status/2015408910115418316?s=20
Trump helped get people murdered by encouraging them to keep protesting with his "we have your back" schtick.
We have zero influence on (and previous little ability to contribute militarily to) the outcome, so what are we doing here ?
“Our economy is now doing clearly better than most of those that have the euro.”
“Public opinion favours the zloty, but the main reasons we’re not working on euro adoption right now are economic and not about Polish politics.”
“Two years ago I was a bit worried that Poland could be left behind in a two-tier EU and outside the Eurozone, but today Poland is clearly in the top economic tier, and I see no strong reason to abandon our own currency.”
https://x.com/StuartDowell_/status/2015359285124059399
It could also just be made-up speculation in the media - I know the media has never previously just guessed at things but maybe it’s a first.
The bond markets have surely learnt that British politicians will do the bonkers things they promise to do in leadership elections and you want to be the first to sell, not the last, in such a situation.
With such a tight timescale, Burnham didn't have time to have phone lines installed.
If I was to game this from Andy’s perspective the best outcome is:
- Andy tries to stand
- SKS blocks candidacy (looks frit)
- Andy is studiously loyal (hah!)
- Labour loses (“but Andy would have won”)
- Labour outperforms in Manchester in the locals
So having Burnham resign as Mayor to stand for Parliament would simply result in Labour losing two elections rather than one. Not hard to say a hard no to that one.
But they can hardly come out in public and say that can they?
“Keir Starmer’s Treasury”
Europeans travelling to the US falling off a cliff.
https://x.com/ianbremmer/status/2015397168987697528?s=61
Why didn’t Burnham stand in 2024 when he would have easily won any election ?
Clearly he only wanted to stand because he saw an opening to become leader and PM . That’s politics !
Those beatifying Burnham shouldn’t clutch too many pearls.
Equally I still think he should have been allowed to stand .
I have been entirely consistent. I said Johnson was an entitled scheming twat when he undermined a struggling Mrs May. This is equally unedifying.
There are bigger concerns in the World than Andy Burnham.
One can only conclude he still hasn't taken the Carney message to heart and wants to remain "best buds" with the loon in the White House. If this pathetic stitch up with Burnham is not enough going to war with Iran will surely see his end this year.
Run a budget surplus.
The problem is not bond markets, it is spending too much.
Doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying.
I wouldn’t rush to go to the USA at the moment.
https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2015414803083260191?s=61
Add on the 30% tips people expect for just putting a plate of slop on a table,
Annoyingly, that would benefit Russia on the oil price (although not so much if their chums in Tehran get blasted to smithereens.)
So that's a prize-winning poet and an ICU nurse gunned down. Wonder who's next.
I’m also expecting Reform’s support to tumble, due to association with Trump. We’ve not seen the end of insults to our Armed Forces yet.
Only one party tried saying Fuck You to the bond markets recently. We saw how that panned out, and Labour has no desire to emulate it.
Absolutely nuts.
I didn’t fancy it but they twisted my arm
https://x.com/rega_ksa/status/2014697827733999907
I think it's probably a mistake - he'd be more likely to win than any other candidate, and the benefit of winning a by-election in terms of publicity, etc, are worth the risk of losing. But I can see why he would have decided otherwise.