Skip to content

The sum of all Keir’s support – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,932
edited 8:09AM in General
The sum of all Keir’s support – politicalbetting.com

Keir Starmer would lose a head-to-head leadership contest against Angela Rayner, but win against Wes Streeting and Ed Miliband, polling for LabourList has revealed.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • TazTaz Posts: 24,617
    edited 8:11AM
    Boing - first again !
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 42,320
    Gordon Brown studs up on Mandy but says Keith should stay
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,710
    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.

    The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,518
    Some classic BBC equivocation on Vance getting booed at the Olympic opening ceremony:

    ‘Some of the audience applauded the vice president’
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 60,590

    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.

    The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
    With high level security jobs - which Ambassador to the US would be - financial vetting is part of what should happen.

    This goes back decades.

    You’d be asked about those minor $75k that just happened to fall into your account.

    Was this done? Was the email trawl (security service database) done? If not, why not?
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 127

    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.

    The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
    Spot on Roger

    They have been attacking him since day 1 at 10am!

    He CAN help himself though by immediately removing McSweeney, informed sources believe he was moving back to Election Planning Role anyway in March. Move that forwards it takes a lot of heat out of the situation.

    He needs individual Ministers too the FRONT UP ALL NEXT WEEK a day at a time to REFUTE the utter lies of the Tories that the Government is not doing or delivering anything because of this. THEY ARE and the only ones doing nothing and fixating on it are TORIES and LD. To be fair to Farage on this he is moving on with POLICY!

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,499
    I think it's fairer to say he's in Clear and Present Danger.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 127
    Taz said:

    Boing - first again !

    Boing, feckin boing?

    Are you a closet Baggie?
  • TazTaz Posts: 24,617
    Scott_xP said:

    Gordon Brown studs up on Mandy but says Keith should stay

    Deflecting from his own failed judgement when he brought him back into govt.

    He knew what Mandelson was like.

    Brown is just wise after the even and being a party loyalist.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,518

    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.

    The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
    The worst thing that could happen is that Starmer gets landed with the blame, resigns and then everyone moves on. This is about decades of lobbying, pressure and external funding from individuals, groups and even countries.
  • TazTaz Posts: 24,617
    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Boing - first again !

    Boing, feckin boing?

    Are you a closet Baggie?
    The best thing about the Hawthorns is the smell from the bread factory just over the road. I wonder if it is still there,

    The worst think about it is the walk through the slums from the station.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,710
    edited 8:51AM

    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.

    The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
    The worst thing that could happen is that Starmer gets landed with the blame, resigns and then everyone moves on. This is about decades of lobbying, pressure and external funding from individuals, groups and even countries.
    I would agree with that. It doesn’t start or end with Starmer (or even Mandelson or Andrew MW for that matter) as much as he is so badly wounded by it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,858
    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Gordon Brown studs up on Mandy but says Keith should stay

    Deflecting from his own failed judgement when he brought him back into govt.

    He knew what Mandelson was like.

    Brown is just wise after the even and being a party loyalist.
    Who is that again, Peter...Mannnyson, Madddelsen, Mandeelsot...no hardly knew the guy.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 6,049
    edited 8:54AM
    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    Actually Starmer's career has been one long litany of mistakes, which, like the good slippery lawyer-turned-politician that he is, he turns out never to have been quite present at, or responsible for.

    This happens to be one that can't be excused or ducked, relatively trivial though it is in comparison with some of the other disasters he's inflicted on us.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 42,320
    @pickardje.bsky.social‬

    New on FT website:

    Downing Street has refused to say whether Sir Keir Starmer knew Palantir was a client of Peter Mandelson’s lobbying firm when they both visited the company in Washington last February — ahead of it winning a £240mn UK government contract.

    https://bsky.app/profile/pickardje.bsky.social/post/3meaydjv5fs2u
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 69,432
    Good morning

    Irrespective of Starmer going or staying this is a slow burning fuse that has the potential to cause huge embarrassement for labour and who knows who else may get caught up in it

    There can be no denial from anyone that this haa damaged Starmer and if there was an obvious successor it would be over for him

    I have no idea what comes next but the Gorton and Denton by election followed by the May elections, especially Wales where goodness only kniws what will happen are critical points

    I do agree that Starmer's resignation is more likely than a leadership challenge at this moment in time
  • TazTaz Posts: 24,617
    Fishing said:

    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    Actually Starmer's career has been one long litany of mistakes, which, like the good slippery lawyer-turned-politician that he is, he turns out never to have been quite present at, or responsible for.

    This happens to be one that can't be excused or ducked, relatively trivial though it is in comparison with some of the other disasters he's inflicted on us.
    Classic case of falling upwards.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,586
    Brixian59 said:

    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.

    The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
    Spot on Roger

    They have been attacking him since day 1 at 10am!

    He CAN help himself though by immediately removing McSweeney, informed sources believe he was moving back to Election Planning Role anyway in March. Move that forwards it takes a lot of heat out of the situation.

    He needs individual Ministers too the FRONT UP ALL NEXT WEEK a day at a time to REFUTE the utter lies of the Tories that the Government is not doing or delivering anything because of this. THEY ARE and the only ones doing nothing and fixating on it are TORIES and LD. To be fair to Farage on this he is moving on with POLICY!

    To the voting public characters like McSweeney mean nothing. It's simple. others advise, PMs decide. As to defending Labour's record, the voting public have almost no interest in Tory attacks, which anyway are just the routine stuff of opposition. The voting public, I think, pay attention to three things: the accumulated story over time the government tells in explaining where we are, how we got here, where we are going, and how we are going to get there. Labour gets 2/10 for this. They pay attention to our own immediate situation and how good it is. They pay attention to the media, and we live in a free press country. Government has almost unlimited opportunity to use the media to convey its message. Good government is a master of this art.

  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 1,258
    One of the good things that could come out of this whole Mandleson saga is an overhaul of how major public appointments are vetted and approved. Contrary to this idea that the Civil Service and other parts of the state are constantly frustrating the will of the government, it is in fact almost impossible to say no to an appointment once a PM or Minister has made the decision.

    I remember being involved with a Select Committee who was scrutinising the appointment of someone to be CEO of a fairly important arms length body. The Committee unanimously thought they were useless and totally the wrong choice but it would have been so explosive to actually deem them unfit to be appointed that it begrudgingly approved the appointment with some pointed caveats.

    I'd be willing to bet that when we see the vetting documents for Mandleson, there'll be a few 'concerns raised' amongst a load of neutral waffle that clears the way for the PM to appoint him.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 2,233
    edited 9:05AM
    Reform in trouble for anonymous election leaflets in Gorton. The old lady who lent her name to the letter wasn't shoen what they'd written. Reform campaign run by people who take advantage of old people, huge shock.
    I hope someone's checked that she hasn't put all her savings in Farage gold bonds or agreed to a new roof after they cleared her gutters for her.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,173
    ydoethur said:

    I think it's fairer to say he's in Clear and Present Danger.

    Yay!

    Somebody spotted the subtle Jack Ryan/Tom Clancy reference.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,979
    Roger said:



    Starmer made one mistake and one only.

    All the other u turns were purely recreational

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 42,320
    @patrickwintour
    Striking that it is from outside government in the shape of Gordon Brown that a plan is laid out to end the systematic abuse of power revealed by Mandelson scandal.
    Much of it derived from Transparency International and Brown’s own report A New Britain.
    Current anti-corruption Tsar Margaret Hodge upgraded to independent parliament appointed anti corruption commission with power to seize assets; controls on political lobbying including 91 peers currently paid to give political advice; existing Ethics and Integrity Commission to be given statutory powers to investigate bank accounts and initiate investigations; public select committee hearings to vet appointment of senior diplomats; end to MPs second jobs (with professional training exceptions) & controls on ministerial private external communications.
    Brown says Starmer could introduce a comprehensive bill within 3 months.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,649

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Gordon Brown studs up on Mandy but says Keith should stay

    Deflecting from his own failed judgement when he brought him back into govt.

    He knew what Mandelson was like.

    Brown is just wise after the even and being a party loyalist.
    Who is that again, Peter...Mannnyson, Madddelsen, Mandeelsot...no hardly knew the guy.
    Isn't that more or less what Trump said, when asked about him?
  • TazTaz Posts: 24,617
    Dopermean said:

    Reform in trouble for anonymous election leaflets in Gorton. The old lady who lent her name to the letter never saw what they'd written in her name. Reform campaign run by people who take advantage of old people, huge shock.
    I hope someone's checked that she hasn't put all her savings in Farage gold bonds or agreed to a new roof after they cleared her gutters for her.

    They’re claiming not. We will see. It’s irrelevant as the Greens will win anyway, and quite well.

    Hardly mitigates the absolute shambles we’ve seen this week from the govt and its awful judgement on Mandelson.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,979
    Scott_xP said:

    @patrickwintour
    Striking that it is from outside government in the shape of Gordon Brown that a plan is laid out to end the systematic abuse of power revealed by Mandelson scandal.
    Much of it derived from Transparency International and Brown’s own report A New Britain.
    Current anti-corruption Tsar Margaret Hodge upgraded to independent parliament appointed anti corruption commission with power to seize assets; controls on political lobbying including 91 peers currently paid to give political advice; existing Ethics and Integrity Commission to be given statutory powers to investigate bank accounts and initiate investigations; public select committee hearings to vet appointment of senior diplomats; end to MPs second jobs (with professional training exceptions) & controls on ministerial private external communications.
    Brown says Starmer could introduce a comprehensive bill within 3 months.

    Margaret Hodge. Lol.
    Just let Mandy run it
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,649
    Dopermean said:

    Reform in trouble for anonymous election leaflets in Gorton. The old lady who lent her name to the letter wasn't shoen what they'd written. Reform campaign run by people who take advantage of old people, huge shock.
    I hope someone's checked that she hasn't put all her savings in Farage gold bonds or agreed to a new roof after they cleared her gutters for her.


    I wonder whether they've picked up on this as a tactic and are, or maybe were, planning to, send out a selection of these, purporting to come from 'someone' nearby.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 57,707

    Some classic BBC equivocation on Vance getting booed at the Olympic opening ceremony:

    ‘Some of the audience applauded the vice president’

    His ICE security detail?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,858
    Roger said:


    Starmer made one mistake and one only

    What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,858
    I remember when that bloke George Osborne got booed at the Olymipics. Whatever happened to him?
  • TazTaz Posts: 24,617
    Scott_xP said:

    @patrickwintour
    Striking that it is from outside government in the shape of Gordon Brown that a plan is laid out to end the systematic abuse of power revealed by Mandelson scandal.
    Much of it derived from Transparency International and Brown’s own report A New Britain.
    Current anti-corruption Tsar Margaret Hodge upgraded to independent parliament appointed anti corruption commission with power to seize assets; controls on political lobbying including 91 peers currently paid to give political advice; existing Ethics and Integrity Commission to be given statutory powers to investigate bank accounts and initiate investigations; public select committee hearings to vet appointment of senior diplomats; end to MPs second jobs (with professional training exceptions) & controls on ministerial private external communications.
    Brown says Starmer could introduce a comprehensive bill within 3 months.

    Gordon Brown ‘outside govt’. Yeah, rlght.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,649

    Some classic BBC equivocation on Vance getting booed at the Olympic opening ceremony:

    ‘Some of the audience applauded the vice president’

    His ICE security detail?
    Didn't Osborne get booed at the London Olympics? Seems to be fair enough when a politician is out and about.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 57,707
    edited 9:11AM
    Scott_xP said:

    @patrickwintour
    Striking that it is from outside government in the shape of Gordon Brown that a plan is laid out to end the systematic abuse of power revealed by Mandelson scandal.
    Much of it derived from Transparency International and Brown’s own report A New Britain.
    Current anti-corruption Tsar Margaret Hodge upgraded to independent parliament appointed anti corruption commission with power to seize assets; controls on political lobbying including 91 peers currently paid to give political advice; existing Ethics and Integrity Commission to be given statutory powers to investigate bank accounts and initiate investigations; public select committee hearings to vet appointment of senior diplomats; end to MPs second jobs (with professional training exceptions) & controls on ministerial private external communications.
    Brown says Starmer could introduce a comprehensive bill within 3 months.

    That requires Starmer to still be in place in 3 months.

    He has to survive the nexrt 7 days first. Challenging.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,076
    rkrkrk said:

    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    The Telegraph and Mail will always be anti Labour, I dont think they will face any backlash for being so, it's who they are, it's what they were bought to be.
    The backlash will come if there's a deep dive into the behaviour of various politicians, As the expenses scandal taught us these witch hunts can move in unexpected directions. Moving to Reform isn't a mikvah bath.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,514
    I presume Brown was asked to write his report to keep him busy and stop his meddling. Surely nobody would be foolish enough to look at the crayon daubs as anything else?
  • TresTres Posts: 3,471

    Dopermean said:

    Reform in trouble for anonymous election leaflets in Gorton. The old lady who lent her name to the letter wasn't shoen what they'd written. Reform campaign run by people who take advantage of old people, huge shock.
    I hope someone's checked that she hasn't put all her savings in Farage gold bonds or agreed to a new roof after they cleared her gutters for her.


    I wonder whether they've picked up on this as a tactic and are, or maybe were, planning to, send out a selection of these, purporting to come from 'someone' nearby.
    story says they had the legal imprint but then the printer screwed up tbf
    still if any other party did this farage wouldn't just shrug his shoulders
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,858
    edited 9:13AM

    Scott_xP said:

    @patrickwintour
    Striking that it is from outside government in the shape of Gordon Brown that a plan is laid out to end the systematic abuse of power revealed by Mandelson scandal.
    Much of it derived from Transparency International and Brown’s own report A New Britain.
    Current anti-corruption Tsar Margaret Hodge upgraded to independent parliament appointed anti corruption commission with power to seize assets; controls on political lobbying including 91 peers currently paid to give political advice; existing Ethics and Integrity Commission to be given statutory powers to investigate bank accounts and initiate investigations; public select committee hearings to vet appointment of senior diplomats; end to MPs second jobs (with professional training exceptions) & controls on ministerial private external communications.
    Brown says Starmer could introduce a comprehensive bill within 3 months.

    That requires Starmer to still be in place in 3 months.

    He has to survive the nexrt 7 days first. Challenging.
    The story has to develop more, otherwise he will stick it out and McSweeney won't go anywhere either. If its all process about the policing investigating, well Team Starmer just hide behind can't talk about anything because criminial investigation etc.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,979

    Scott_xP said:

    @patrickwintour
    Striking that it is from outside government in the shape of Gordon Brown that a plan is laid out to end the systematic abuse of power revealed by Mandelson scandal.
    Much of it derived from Transparency International and Brown’s own report A New Britain.
    Current anti-corruption Tsar Margaret Hodge upgraded to independent parliament appointed anti corruption commission with power to seize assets; controls on political lobbying including 91 peers currently paid to give political advice; existing Ethics and Integrity Commission to be given statutory powers to investigate bank accounts and initiate investigations; public select committee hearings to vet appointment of senior diplomats; end to MPs second jobs (with professional training exceptions) & controls on ministerial private external communications.
    Brown says Starmer could introduce a comprehensive bill within 3 months.

    That requires Starmer to still be in place in 3 months.

    He has to survive the nexrt 7 days first. Challenging.
    Nice of Gorgon to propose a New Labour sewer dweller to head up the New Labour sewage cleansing commission.
    Very Brown
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,442
    edited 9:14AM
    Dopermean said:

    Reform in trouble for anonymous election leaflets in Gorton. The old lady who lent her name to the letter wasn't shoen what they'd written. Reform campaign run by people who take advantage of old people, huge shock.
    I hope someone's checked that she hasn't put all her savings in Farage gold bonds or agreed to a new roof after they cleared her gutters for her.

    When do the postal votes go out? These letters are usually timed for then. May be another shot in the foot for Reform.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 57,707
    Scott_xP said:

    @pickardje.bsky.social‬

    New on FT website:

    Downing Street has refused to say whether Sir Keir Starmer knew Palantir was a client of Peter Mandelson’s lobbying firm when they both visited the company in Washington last February — ahead of it winning a £240mn UK government contract.

    https://bsky.app/profile/pickardje.bsky.social/post/3meaydjv5fs2u

    Drip, drip, drip....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,858

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Gordon Brown studs up on Mandy but says Keith should stay

    Deflecting from his own failed judgement when he brought him back into govt.

    He knew what Mandelson was like.

    Brown is just wise after the even and being a party loyalist.
    Who is that again, Peter...Mannnyson, Madddelsen, Mandeelsot...no hardly knew the guy.
    Isn't that more or less what Trump said, when asked about him?
    Does Trump say that about everybody, Jeffrey who.....
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,076

    Roger said:



    Starmer made one mistake and one only.

    All the other u turns were purely recreational

    You pillory a politician for doing a u-turn?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,858
    Sports coverage is going to start to get wild,

    Arcturus is building 4D gaussian splatting tech that can capture every angle of a sporting event and pushes the bar for volumetric video.

    https://x.com/bilawalsidhu/status/2019831831110258883?s=20
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 2,233

    Dopermean said:

    Reform in trouble for anonymous election leaflets in Gorton. The old lady who lent her name to the letter wasn't shoen what they'd written. Reform campaign run by people who take advantage of old people, huge shock.
    I hope someone's checked that she hasn't put all her savings in Farage gold bonds or agreed to a new roof after they cleared her gutters for her.


    I wonder whether they've picked up on this as a tactic and are, or maybe were, planning to, send out a selection of these, purporting to come from 'someone' nearby.
    I've something similar in the past, concerned neighbour worried about crime, turned out to be pushing the nextdoor app, not sure if the concerned neighbour was an actual person.
    Highly recommended if you want to find out which of your neighbours is racist or most likely to have almost knocked you off your bike.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 57,707
    edited 9:17AM

    I remember when that bloke George Osborne got booed at the Olymipics. Whatever happened to him?

    I'm told he lost out on the Washington gig to one Peter Mandelson.

    That's gotta sting.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,911
    On the Starmer v challenger polling, I disagree with the conclusion that only Rayner could beat Starmer in a members' poll. Once the party leader has a direct challenger in an actual contest, they would lose some of their authority and support would shift (a bit) accordingly.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 35,078

    I remember when that bloke George Osborne got booed at the Olymipics. Whatever happened to him?

    George Osborne was pictured adjacent to a lifetime's supply of icing sugar and was turned down for a job in Washington.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,979
    Roger said:

    Roger said:



    Starmer made one mistake and one only.

    All the other u turns were purely recreational

    You pillory a politician for doing a u-turn?
    Not at all, it's just they usually follow errors. The errors you suggested he hadn't made. Ergo his dozen plus u turns must have just been for shits and giggles
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 127

    Roger said:


    Starmer made one mistake and one only

    What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
    Starmer works 7 days a week

    Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,514
    Alistair Carns is slowly and steadily shortening in next PM market. Potentially quite interesting if its anything other than a couple of straw-in-the-wind backers. I can see him quite appealing to some on the backbenches that have had enough.

    (He's a good result for me, but far from my best, and I've not backed him directly)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 35,078

    ydoethur said:

    I think it's fairer to say he's in Clear and Present Danger.

    Yay!

    Somebody spotted the subtle Jack Ryan/Tom Clancy reference.
    He's no Tom Knox – acclaimed as a great British writer.
    https://www.bookseriesinorder.com/tom-knox/
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 69,432
    Roger said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    The Telegraph and Mail will always be anti Labour, I dont think they will face any backlash for being so, it's who they are, it's what they were bought to be.
    The backlash will come if there's a deep dive into the behaviour of various politicians, As the expenses scandal taught us these witch hunts can move in unexpected directions. Moving to Reform isn't a mikvah bath.
    This is not a witch hunt but an investigation into Mandelson's behaviour in public office and that will include his time in Washington

    Nobody knows just what will be revealed but there may well be other public figures drawn into this and that is an ongoing problem for Starmer and his government
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,858
    edited 9:23AM
    Brixian59 said:

    Roger said:


    Starmer made one mistake and one only

    What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
    Starmer works 7 days a week

    Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto

    You keep batting away champ.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 60,590
    ydoethur said:

    I think it's fairer to say he's in Clear and Present Danger.

    Starmer is not Without Remorse.

    A (Red) Storm is Rising.

    Mandelson’s behaviour seems to have been the Sum Of All The Fears about him.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,649

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Gordon Brown studs up on Mandy but says Keith should stay

    Deflecting from his own failed judgement when he brought him back into govt.

    He knew what Mandelson was like.

    Brown is just wise after the even and being a party loyalist.
    Who is that again, Peter...Mannnyson, Madddelsen, Mandeelsot...no hardly knew the guy.
    Isn't that more or less what Trump said, when asked about him?
    Does Trump say that about everybody, Jeffrey who.....
    Yes, true. He'll be saying that about Vance soon.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,710
    Omnium said:

    Alistair Carns is slowly and steadily shortening in next PM market. Potentially quite interesting if its anything other than a couple of straw-in-the-wind backers. I can see him quite appealing to some on the backbenches that have had enough.

    (He's a good result for me, but far from my best, and I've not backed him directly)

    It would be quite something for a governing party to parachute into the PM role someone elected in 2024 whose only government experience is being a junior minister. Weirder things have happened, but I can’t see it myself.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,911
    My comments on this poll, from previous thread:
    ________________________________

    https://labourlist.org/2026/02/keir-starmer-wes-streeting-leadership-survation-poll/

    Since Burnham isn't eligible to stand, and Labour leadership contests are nowadays never won on the first ballot, it is better to look at broader support including 2nd and probably 3rd preferences.

    Combined 1st or 2nd preferences:
    Burnham 53%
    Rayner 36%
    Streeting 34%
    Miliband 26%
    Mahmood 17%
    Cooper 17%

    Combined 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences:
    Burnham 62%
    Rayner 55%
    Miliband 48%
    Streeting 45%
    Cooper 31%
    Mahmood 24%

    Conclusions:

    1. Streeting is in a weaker position than the betting markets suggest. The fact that 2nd and 3rd preferences heavily favour Rayner and MIliband points to most Burnham supporters switching to those two. And this doesn't factor in the full effect of an explicit Burnham endorsement of either Rayner or Miliband (which seems inevitable and will carry weight with the 41% for whom Burnham is 1st preference.)

    2. Rayner should be favourite even if the contest comes while (as now) the HMRC verdict is awaited.

    3. Miliband is in with a decent shout if Rayner does not stand.

    4. Of the candidates at longer odds, Cooper stands a better chance than Mahmood. Cooper should not be discounted because it is not too fanciful to think that both Rayner and Streeting might see their campaign falter for different reasons (an adverse HMRC ruling in Rayner's case, revelations from correspondence with his close friend and ally Mandelson in Streeting's case)

    5. Powell and Haigh are not credible alternative soft left candidates to Rayner and Miliband, each only received 1% of 1st preferences.

    The main caveat is how representative is the sample base of the wider Labour selectorate of all Labour members plus non-members who are political levy payers in a Labour affiliated union.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,858
    edited 9:29AM

    Omnium said:

    Alistair Carns is slowly and steadily shortening in next PM market. Potentially quite interesting if its anything other than a couple of straw-in-the-wind backers. I can see him quite appealing to some on the backbenches that have had enough.

    (He's a good result for me, but far from my best, and I've not backed him directly)

    It would be quite something for a governing party to parachute into the PM role someone elected in 2024 whose only government experience is being a junior minister. Weirder things have happened, but I can’t see it myself.
    I just don't think it is a realistic thing to do. You will be absolutely clueless about the process of government, how the game is played, the sort of taekwon-spin moves you need to pull etc. We saw that with Sunak being over promoted too quickly, he was totally unable to make anything happen and was quickly drowning.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,675
    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    "Smoke me a kipper, Roger. I'll be back for breakfast!"

    "Ace Starmer - what a guy!"
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,927
    Brixian59 said:

    Roger said:


    Starmer made one mistake and one only

    What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
    Starmer works 7 days a week

    Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto

    Perhaps the Government would run a bit better if he went back down to 5.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 127
    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Boing - first again !

    Boing, feckin boing?

    Are you a closet Baggie?
    The best thing about the Hawthorns is the smell from the bread factory just over the road. I wonder if it is still there,

    The worst think about it is the walk through the slums from the station.
    I haven't been to the Oil Rig for about 10 years since relocating.

    It was always infinitely more welcoming than the Custard Bowl and the bags of piss.

    I've got many happ0 memories of Vile Park, non better than 2002 in Abbey National hospitality box when their security had to evacuate us, it was full of blue noses, at full time to one of the Chaimans rooms and bless him old deadly doug came and apologised and paid for a round of drinks. He sacked Turnip Taylor the next day...
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,514

    Omnium said:

    Alistair Carns is slowly and steadily shortening in next PM market. Potentially quite interesting if its anything other than a couple of straw-in-the-wind backers. I can see him quite appealing to some on the backbenches that have had enough.

    (He's a good result for me, but far from my best, and I've not backed him directly)

    It would be quite something for a governing party to parachute into the PM role someone elected in 2024 whose only government experience is being a junior minister. Weirder things have happened, but I can’t see it myself.
    Yes it would be. I rather discounted his chances too, but in the current atmosphere a military background might appeal, and perhaps a first mover might accrue some benefit. Probably nothing in the moves anyway.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,649
    Brixian59 said:

    Roger said:


    Starmer made one mistake and one only

    What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
    Starmer works 7 days a week

    Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto


    Isn't it that his wife is Jewish and he likes the idea of 'family Friday nights'? What will happen when his son wants to go out on the pull (or something) on Friday nights I don't know.
    Although in my youth Friday night was, allegedly anyway, hair washing night.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,256

    Omnium said:

    Alistair Carns is slowly and steadily shortening in next PM market. Potentially quite interesting if its anything other than a couple of straw-in-the-wind backers. I can see him quite appealing to some on the backbenches that have had enough.

    (He's a good result for me, but far from my best, and I've not backed him directly)

    It would be quite something for a governing party to parachute into the PM role someone elected in 2024 whose only government experience is being a junior minister. Weirder things have happened, but I can’t see it myself.
    I just don't think it is a realistic thing to do. You will be absolutely clueless about the process of government, how the game is played, the sort of taekwon-spin moves you need to pull etc. We saw that with Sunak being over promoted too quickly, he was totally unable to make anything happen and was quickly drowning.
    Weill he couldn't do a great deal worse than his 1,2,3,4,5 immediate predecessors.

    When one of the realistic options is Edstone Milliband, roll the dice!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 39,246
    Omnium said:

    Alistair Carns is slowly and steadily shortening in next PM market. Potentially quite interesting if its anything other than a couple of straw-in-the-wind backers. I can see him quite appealing to some on the backbenches that have had enough.

    (He's a good result for me, but far from my best, and I've not backed him directly)

    He sounds a bit like the 2026 equivalent of John Moore in 1989.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 42,320
    @Steven_Swinford
    Not sure this intervention from Gordon Brown will be entirely welcome in No 10 this morning

    He says Keir Starmer is a man of integrity but he has been ‘slow to do the right things’

    That’s the verdict of a former Labour prime minister on a current Labour prime minister…

    I can look in his eyes and I can see that he is a man of integrity. He wants to do the right things.
    “Perhaps he’s been too slow to do the right things, but he must do the right things now, and let’s judge what he does, on what happens in the next few months when he tries to, and I believe (he) will try, to clean up the system.”
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,649

    My comments on this poll, from previous thread:
    ________________________________

    https://labourlist.org/2026/02/keir-starmer-wes-streeting-leadership-survation-poll/

    Since Burnham isn't eligible to stand, and Labour leadership contests are nowadays never won on the first ballot, it is better to look at broader support including 2nd and probably 3rd preferences.

    Combined 1st or 2nd preferences:
    Burnham 53%
    Rayner 36%
    Streeting 34%
    Miliband 26%
    Mahmood 17%
    Cooper 17%

    Combined 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences:
    Burnham 62%
    Rayner 55%
    Miliband 48%
    Streeting 45%
    Cooper 31%
    Mahmood 24%

    Conclusions:

    1. Streeting is in a weaker position than the betting markets suggest. The fact that 2nd and 3rd preferences heavily favour Rayner and MIliband points to most Burnham supporters switching to those two. And this doesn't factor in the full effect of an explicit Burnham endorsement of either Rayner or Miliband (which seems inevitable and will carry weight with the 41% for whom Burnham is 1st preference.)

    2. Rayner should be favourite even if the contest comes while (as now) the HMRC verdict is awaited.

    3. Miliband is in with a decent shout if Rayner does not stand.

    4. Of the candidates at longer odds, Cooper stands a better chance than Mahmood. Cooper should not be discounted because it is not too fanciful to think that both Rayner and Streeting might see their campaign falter for different reasons (an adverse HMRC ruling in Rayner's case, revelations from correspondence with his close friend and ally Mandelson in Streeting's case)

    5. Powell and Haigh are not credible alternative soft left candidates to Rayner and Miliband, each only received 1% of 1st preferences.

    The main caveat is how representative is the sample base of the wider Labour selectorate of all Labour members plus non-members who are political levy payers in a Labour affiliated union.

    One objection to Milliband (E) is that he led the party to defeat in 2015. Two points I think should be taken into account here (they won't be on the right), viz Milliband's defeat was primarily as a result of losing seats in Scotland, not England or Wales and secondly it's only recently that we've held that it's one strike, lose and you';re out. Harold Wilson, for example lost in 1970, but four years later was back as PM. It was his health which forced him out.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 60,590

    Roger said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    The Telegraph and Mail will always be anti Labour, I dont think they will face any backlash for being so, it's who they are, it's what they were bought to be.
    The backlash will come if there's a deep dive into the behaviour of various politicians, As the expenses scandal taught us these witch hunts can move in unexpected directions. Moving to Reform isn't a mikvah bath.
    This is not a witch hunt but an investigation into Mandelson's behaviour in public office and that will include his time in Washington

    Nobody knows just what will be revealed but there may well be other public figures drawn into this and that is an ongoing problem for Starmer and his government
    The next step will be working out who Mandelson was selling information to after Epstein.

    His involvement with Peter Thiel/Palantir will be the first port of call, I reckon.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,256
    edited 9:43AM

    Brixian59 said:

    Roger said:


    Starmer made one mistake and one only

    What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
    Starmer works 7 days a week

    Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto


    Isn't it that his wife is Jewish and he likes the idea of 'family Friday nights'? What will happen when his son wants to go out on the pull (or something) on Friday nights I don't know.
    Although in my youth Friday night was, allegedly anyway, hair washing night.
    It was one of the unfair lies told about Starmer from an innocent throw away comment. Mind you an element of laziness does enter the picture. Starmer took full delegation to the extreme. He was a "democratic style manager" who delegated away his authority. He should have held Reeves on a tight leash and realised he was McSweeney's boss and not the other way around.

    The Mandelson business is what it is, but the overarching weak management is why his Prime Ministership has ultimately failed. The failure is very basic.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,514
    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Alistair Carns is slowly and steadily shortening in next PM market. Potentially quite interesting if its anything other than a couple of straw-in-the-wind backers. I can see him quite appealing to some on the backbenches that have had enough.

    (He's a good result for me, but far from my best, and I've not backed him directly)

    He sounds a bit like the 2026 equivalent of John Moore in 1989.
    Had to look Moore up. I was also thinking a bit about John Redwood - when he threw his hat in the ring against Major he was pretty obscure (although maybe that was just me).
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 69,432
    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    Not sure this intervention from Gordon Brown will be entirely welcome in No 10 this morning

    He says Keir Starmer is a man of integrity but he has been ‘slow to do the right things’

    That’s the verdict of a former Labour prime minister on a current Labour prime minister…

    I can look in his eyes and I can see that he is a man of integrity. He wants to do the right things.
    “Perhaps he’s been too slow to do the right things, but he must do the right things now, and let’s judge what he does, on what happens in the next few months when he tries to, and I believe (he) will try, to clean up the system.”

    Starmer is in a position that he cannot control what is to be revealed over the coming months, even years if this involves criminal prosecutions

    In other words he is in a very unenviable position the like of which I cannot recall

    He must be living a daily nightmare fearing the unknown
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,895
    edited 9:46AM

    Omnium said:

    Alistair Carns is slowly and steadily shortening in next PM market. Potentially quite interesting if its anything other than a couple of straw-in-the-wind backers. I can see him quite appealing to some on the backbenches that have had enough.

    (He's a good result for me, but far from my best, and I've not backed him directly)

    It would be quite something for a governing party to parachute into the PM role someone elected in 2024 whose only government experience is being a junior minister. Weirder things have happened, but I can’t see it myself.
    I just don't think it is a realistic thing to do. You will be absolutely clueless about the process of government, how the game is played, the sort of taekwon-spin moves you need to pull etc. We saw that with Sunak being over promoted too quickly, he was totally unable to make anything happen and was quickly drowning.
    Weill he couldn't do a great deal worse than his 1,2,3,4,5 immediate predecessors.

    When one of the realistic options is Edstone Milliband, roll the dice!
    A wise man on Blue Sky said
    Trump's most hard-core supporters were voting to Make America Great Again but the squishy middle that delivered him victory, like their counterparts in the rest of the industrialized world, thought they were voting to Make the Calendar Say 2018 Again.
    Maybe the solution is to wheel out the Edstone and ask the voters if they want to have another go at 2015.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,586
    edited 9:47AM

    My comments on this poll, from previous thread:
    ________________________________

    https://labourlist.org/2026/02/keir-starmer-wes-streeting-leadership-survation-poll/

    Since Burnham isn't eligible to stand, and Labour leadership contests are nowadays never won on the first ballot, it is better to look at broader support including 2nd and probably 3rd preferences.

    Combined 1st or 2nd preferences:
    Burnham 53%
    Rayner 36%
    Streeting 34%
    Miliband 26%
    Mahmood 17%
    Cooper 17%

    Combined 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences:
    Burnham 62%
    Rayner 55%
    Miliband 48%
    Streeting 45%
    Cooper 31%
    Mahmood 24%

    Conclusions:

    1. Streeting is in a weaker position than the betting markets suggest. The fact that 2nd and 3rd preferences heavily favour Rayner and MIliband points to most Burnham supporters switching to those two. And this doesn't factor in the full effect of an explicit Burnham endorsement of either Rayner or Miliband (which seems inevitable and will carry weight with the 41% for whom Burnham is 1st preference.)

    2. Rayner should be favourite even if the contest comes while (as now) the HMRC verdict is awaited.

    3. Miliband is in with a decent shout if Rayner does not stand.

    4. Of the candidates at longer odds, Cooper stands a better chance than Mahmood. Cooper should not be discounted because it is not too fanciful to think that both Rayner and Streeting might see their campaign falter for different reasons (an adverse HMRC ruling in Rayner's case, revelations from correspondence with his close friend and ally Mandelson in Streeting's case)

    5. Powell and Haigh are not credible alternative soft left candidates to Rayner and Miliband, each only received 1% of 1st preferences.

    The main caveat is how representative is the sample base of the wider Labour selectorate of all Labour members plus non-members who are political levy payers in a Labour affiliated union.

    Cooper is the long shot, worth a look. Rayner comes unstuck because the one disqualification in the current climate is a hint of dodginess. The party (wrongly) don't like Streeting. Miliband should be a non-starter as an already failed. Mahmood is not popular with the party and there is no such thing as a currently popular current home secretary.

    Cooper or Carns worth a look.

    Outside of betting, what they should look for? The person who in every respect would understand what is entailed in the slogan 'The Buck Stops Here'. The implications about what it means to be the CEO of UK plc are immense. That Starmer just does not get it has been a major surprise. We shall find out, but from here I would guess Carney has the quality.

    The qualities can be tested for, but how PMs are appointed make it a pretty random thing.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 86,135
    Stereodog said:

    One of the good things that could come out of this whole Mandleson saga is an overhaul of how major public appointments are vetted and approved. Contrary to this idea that the Civil Service and other parts of the state are constantly frustrating the will of the government, it is in fact almost impossible to say no to an appointment once a PM or Minister has made the decision.

    I remember being involved with a Select Committee who was scrutinising the appointment of someone to be CEO of a fairly important arms length body. The Committee unanimously thought they were useless and totally the wrong choice but it would have been so explosive to actually deem them unfit to be appointed that it begrudgingly approved the appointment with some pointed caveats.

    I'd be willing to bet that when we see the vetting documents for Mandleson, there'll be a few 'concerns raised' amongst a load of neutral waffle that clears the way for the PM to appoint him.

    So Starmer was not entirely wrong when he said the "process" needs fundamental reform.

    That doesn't get him off the hook, of course, but it's something that shouldn't be abandoned if/when he gets the boot.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,979
    edited 9:50AM

    My comments on this poll, from previous thread:
    ________________________________

    https://labourlist.org/2026/02/keir-starmer-wes-streeting-leadership-survation-poll/

    Since Burnham isn't eligible to stand, and Labour leadership contests are nowadays never won on the first ballot, it is better to look at broader support including 2nd and probably 3rd preferences.

    Combined 1st or 2nd preferences:
    Burnham 53%
    Rayner 36%
    Streeting 34%
    Miliband 26%
    Mahmood 17%
    Cooper 17%

    Combined 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences:
    Burnham 62%
    Rayner 55%
    Miliband 48%
    Streeting 45%
    Cooper 31%
    Mahmood 24%

    Conclusions:

    1. Streeting is in a weaker position than the betting markets suggest. The fact that 2nd and 3rd preferences heavily favour Rayner and MIliband points to most Burnham supporters switching to those two. And this doesn't factor in the full effect of an explicit Burnham endorsement of either Rayner or Miliband (which seems inevitable and will carry weight with the 41% for whom Burnham is 1st preference.)

    2. Rayner should be favourite even if the contest comes while (as now) the HMRC verdict is awaited.

    3. Miliband is in with a decent shout if Rayner does not stand.

    4. Of the candidates at longer odds, Cooper stands a better chance than Mahmood. Cooper should not be discounted because it is not too fanciful to think that both Rayner and Streeting might see their campaign falter for different reasons (an adverse HMRC ruling in Rayner's case, revelations from correspondence with his close friend and ally Mandelson in Streeting's case)

    5. Powell and Haigh are not credible alternative soft left candidates to Rayner and Miliband, each only received 1% of 1st preferences.

    The main caveat is how representative is the sample base of the wider Labour selectorate of all Labour members plus non-members who are political levy payers in a Labour affiliated union.

    One objection to Milliband (E) is that he led the party to defeat in 2015. Two points I think should be taken into account here (they won't be on the right), viz Milliband's defeat was primarily as a result of losing seats in Scotland, not England or Wales and secondly it's only recently that we've held that it's one strike, lose and you';re out. Harold Wilson, for example lost in 1970, but four years later was back as PM. It was his health which forced him out.
    Scotland is a bit of a red herring. Miliband could have swept all 57 in Scotland and Cameron would still have had a majority
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,256
    Hold my bacon sandwich.

    Are we bigging up Milliband to boost TSE's bank balance or are we really serious about this serial loser? And I voted for the idiot in 2010.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,911

    Omnium said:

    Alistair Carns is slowly and steadily shortening in next PM market. Potentially quite interesting if its anything other than a couple of straw-in-the-wind backers. I can see him quite appealing to some on the backbenches that have had enough.

    (He's a good result for me, but far from my best, and I've not backed him directly)

    It would be quite something for a governing party to parachute into the PM role someone elected in 2024 whose only government experience is being a junior minister. Weirder things have happened, but I can’t see it myself.
    Yes. You would also be asking many Labour members to vote in as PM someone who they had previously never heard of. Either that or it's just me.

    If you're looking for some value in backing a long shot (I'm not but I can see the argument for doing so) then Cooper at best odds 20/1 looks much better value than Carns at 22/1. Beyond that John Healey at 66/1. I've had dealings with him in the past and he's widely regarded as someone who plays a straight bat, well respected across the party.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,802

    Omnium said:

    Alistair Carns is slowly and steadily shortening in next PM market. Potentially quite interesting if its anything other than a couple of straw-in-the-wind backers. I can see him quite appealing to some on the backbenches that have had enough.

    (He's a good result for me, but far from my best, and I've not backed him directly)

    It would be quite something for a governing party to parachute into the PM role someone elected in 2024 whose only government experience is being a junior minister. Weirder things have happened, but I can’t see it myself.
    I just don't think it is a realistic thing to do. You will be absolutely clueless about the process of government, how the game is played, the sort of taekwon-spin moves you need to pull etc. We saw that with Sunak being over promoted too quickly, he was totally unable to make anything happen and was quickly drowning.
    Weill he couldn't do a great deal worse than his 1,2,3,4,5 immediate predecessors.

    When one of the realistic options is Edstone Milliband, roll the dice!
    A wise man on Blue Sky said
    Trump's most hard-core supporters were voting to Make America Great Again but the squishy middle that delivered him victory, like their counterparts in the rest of the industrialized world, thought they were voting to Make the Calendar Say 2018 Again.
    Maybe the solution is to wheel out the Edstone and ask the voters if they want to have another go at 2015.

    I agree everyone wants to wind the clock baco to when we had fewer problems. But we can't undo covid nor to make Russia uninvade Ukraine, which are the two big reasons for our curremt travails.
  • TazTaz Posts: 24,617

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    Not sure this intervention from Gordon Brown will be entirely welcome in No 10 this morning

    He says Keir Starmer is a man of integrity but he has been ‘slow to do the right things’

    That’s the verdict of a former Labour prime minister on a current Labour prime minister…

    I can look in his eyes and I can see that he is a man of integrity. He wants to do the right things.
    “Perhaps he’s been too slow to do the right things, but he must do the right things now, and let’s judge what he does, on what happens in the next few months when he tries to, and I believe (he) will try, to clean up the system.”

    Starmer is in a position that he cannot control what is to be revealed over the coming months, even years if this involves criminal prosecutions

    In other words he is in a very unenviable position the like of which I cannot recall

    He must be living a daily nightmare fearing the unknown
    He only has himself to blame for his own lack of judgement. Can’t say I’m sympathetic. Labour campaigned over standards in public office and made a big thing of it when Johnson was PM.

    Oops !
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 127

    My comments on this poll, from previous thread:
    ________________________________

    https://labourlist.org/2026/02/keir-starmer-wes-streeting-leadership-survation-poll/

    Since Burnham isn't eligible to stand, and Labour leadership contests are nowadays never won on the first ballot, it is better to look at broader support including 2nd and probably 3rd preferences.

    Combined 1st or 2nd preferences:
    Burnham 53%
    Rayner 36%
    Streeting 34%
    Miliband 26%
    Mahmood 17%
    Cooper 17%

    Combined 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences:
    Burnham 62%
    Rayner 55%
    Miliband 48%
    Streeting 45%
    Cooper 31%
    Mahmood 24%

    Conclusions:

    1. Streeting is in a weaker position than the betting markets suggest. The fact that 2nd and 3rd preferences heavily favour Rayner and MIliband points to most Burnham supporters switching to those two. And this doesn't factor in the full effect of an explicit Burnham endorsement of either Rayner or Miliband (which seems inevitable and will carry weight with the 41% for whom Burnham is 1st preference.)

    2. Rayner should be favourite even if the contest comes while (as now) the HMRC verdict is awaited.

    3. Miliband is in with a decent shout if Rayner does not stand.

    4. Of the candidates at longer odds, Cooper stands a better chance than Mahmood. Cooper should not be discounted because it is not too fanciful to think that both Rayner and Streeting might see their campaign falter for different reasons (an adverse HMRC ruling in Rayner's case, revelations from correspondence with his close friend and ally Mandelson in Streeting's case)

    5. Powell and Haigh are not credible alternative soft left candidates to Rayner and Miliband, each only received 1% of 1st preferences.

    The main caveat is how representative is the sample base of the wider Labour selectorate of all Labour members plus non-members who are political levy payers in a Labour affiliated union.

    One objection to Milliband (E) is that he led the party to defeat in 2015. Two points I think should be taken into account here (they won't be on the right), viz Milliband's defeat was primarily as a result of losing seats in Scotland, not England or Wales and secondly it's only recently that we've held that it's one strike, lose and you';re out. Harold Wilson, for example lost in 1970, but four years later was back as PM. It was his health which forced him out.
    Once again I'll make the point, Burnham should be thanking his lucky stars he's not standing in Horton as his political career would be over and he'd be unemployed

    Secondly, given that a majority of the membership still support Keir, and that would grow significantly if he removed McSweeney, those Members, especially those on seats of 2024 new intake should be telling their MP to shut the f up and support the guy who got them elected and to tell any MSM reporter seeking dirt to f off too.

    This is a time forunity not belly aching in public and the time can and will come in the summer to regroup, possibly make changes and move on

    As for the usual cabal of shits like Burgon, Long Bailey, McDonnell, and Co. Get them in a taxi to Corbyns allotment and throw them in the steaming manure.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,979
    edited 9:57AM

    Hold my bacon sandwich.

    Are we bigging up Milliband to boost TSE's bank balance or are we really serious about this serial loser? And I voted for the idiot in 2010.

    I think he would go down well with the party but like cold sick in the country.
    Like the Tories reelecting Hague as leader in 2005
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 60,590

    Brixian59 said:

    Roger said:


    Starmer made one mistake and one only

    What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
    Starmer works 7 days a week

    Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto


    Isn't it that his wife is Jewish and he likes the idea of 'family Friday nights'? What will happen when his son wants to go out on the pull (or something) on Friday nights I don't know.
    Although in my youth Friday night was, allegedly anyway, hair washing night.
    It was one of the unfair lies told about Starmer from an innocent throw away comment. Mind you an element of laziness does enter the picture. Starmer took full delegation to the extreme. He was a "democratic style manager" who delegated away his authority. He should have held Reeves on a tight leash and realised he was McSweeney's boss and not the other way around.

    The Mandelson business is what it is, but the overarching weak management is why his Prime Ministership has ultimately failed. The failure is very basic.
    Ultimately, it’s about being in office and not in power.

    Thatcher, Blair, Brown and Cameron were both in office and in power. No one doubted they ran the government. So when they delegated they were lending power *they* possessed.

    Starmer delegated by allowing others to take the power that he himself didn’t have.

    It’s hard to imagine any of the PMs on that list publicly complaining about being unable to do things.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,979

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    Not sure this intervention from Gordon Brown will be entirely welcome in No 10 this morning

    He says Keir Starmer is a man of integrity but he has been ‘slow to do the right things’

    That’s the verdict of a former Labour prime minister on a current Labour prime minister…

    I can look in his eyes and I can see that he is a man of integrity. He wants to do the right things.
    “Perhaps he’s been too slow to do the right things, but he must do the right things now, and let’s judge what he does, on what happens in the next few months when he tries to, and I believe (he) will try, to clean up the system.”

    Starmer is in a position that he cannot control what is to be revealed over the coming months, even years if this involves criminal prosecutions

    In other words he is in a very unenviable position the like of which I cannot recall

    He must be living a daily nightmare fearing the unknown
    Might be why he is clinging on. Resigning sets a precedent that might see the coming juice force a weekly resignation parade.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,802
    FPT:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour members | Preference for leader:

    Andy Burnham: 41%
    Wes Streeting: 19%
    Angela Rayner: 17%
    Miliband 8%
    Cooper 7%
    Mahmood 7%

    Poll:
    @Survation
    /
    @LabourList
    , 29 Jan-3 Feb
    https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/2019800423477944610?s=20

    Thank the Lord, Milliband is currently an also ran and Burnham isn't an MP. Too late for Cooper, too early for Mahmood. Rayner is in Zahawi- legal jeopardy which leaves Streeting.

    I'd roll the dice on Rayner. It could go all Liz Truss, but it could work. Streeting is most likely continuity Sunak-Starmer.
    I still favour Streeting as we speak but Rayner is in with a chance with me. Maybe it's time to bring the curtain down (and this time for good) on the Blair New Labour project. If that sort of politics, even well delivered, can't now beat Farage then we might have to look at something different.
    That is my feeling. Mandelson has soiled New Labour to the point of extinction. He's Johnsoned the brand.
    Ratner would be a better comparison.

    The problem with the Mandelson scandal is that it reveals an essential truth about the New Labour project which there was previously a polite refusal to confront.
    So how does Labour detoxify it. Simply throwing Mandelson to the Wolves and making out it’s just him won’t work.
    I was very specific. The long term toxicity is in the New Labour brand.

    Of course in the medium term Mandelson trashes Labour but by jettisoning the entire project they have a chance of repatriating the lefty vote. A tall order but possible. Remember Mandelson's treachery was aimed as much at his own Labour Government in Office as discrediting the nation.
    You were very specific, but what if you're wrong? What if it's the Labiur brand rather than the new Labour brand he's trashed? Ask 100 people in the street for thoughta about Mandelson, I bet it's no more than 10 who identify him specifically with 'new labour' rather than just 'labour'. I'm certainly not hearing anyone say 'that new labour lot, they're dodgy as fuck, but the rest of the party is mustard'.
    Some of you have your blue scarves tied so tightly around your necks it is cutting off the blood supply to your heads.

    I have been remarkably circumspect. Of course Labour could be finished forever, a narrative which you are rooting for. I am suggesting that if they have any hope of survival they tack to the left.
    Why do you assume anyone who doesn't support the Labour Party is a partisan Tory? Is it because you can't imagine any other reason for not being left wing but tribalism? I find this particularly strange for someone who I believe vites Lib Dem.
    I only voted Lib Dem to mitigate Tory votes. Much the same as voting Labour, which I do here in the Vale. I will be voting Plaid in May to ensure Reform don't win in Wales. My scarf is anything but blue.
    Well that is just as daftly tribal as what you are accusing others of. Most of us vote for whomever we perceive to be the beat option for each election.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,256
    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    Not sure this intervention from Gordon Brown will be entirely welcome in No 10 this morning

    He says Keir Starmer is a man of integrity but he has been ‘slow to do the right things’

    That’s the verdict of a former Labour prime minister on a current Labour prime minister…

    I can look in his eyes and I can see that he is a man of integrity. He wants to do the right things.
    “Perhaps he’s been too slow to do the right things, but he must do the right things now, and let’s judge what he does, on what happens in the next few months when he tries to, and I believe (he) will try, to clean up the system.”

    Starmer is in a position that he cannot control what is to be revealed over the coming months, even years if this involves criminal prosecutions

    In other words he is in a very unenviable position the like of which I cannot recall

    He must be living a daily nightmare fearing the unknown
    He only has himself to blame for his own lack of judgement. Can’t say I’m sympathetic. Labour campaigned over standards in public office and made a big thing of it when Johnson was PM.

    Oops !
    I don't see Starmer's main failure as Mandelson. If Starmer had been on the case for the last eighteen months he could have ridden the Mandelson scandal out, and make no mistake, Mandelson is scandalous.

    Mandelson is the straw that broke the camel's back. All the U turns and general inertia have put him in the position he finds himself. He lost the changing room a while ago.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,911

    My comments on this poll, from previous thread:
    ________________________________

    https://labourlist.org/2026/02/keir-starmer-wes-streeting-leadership-survation-poll/

    Since Burnham isn't eligible to stand, and Labour leadership contests are nowadays never won on the first ballot, it is better to look at broader support including 2nd and probably 3rd preferences.

    Combined 1st or 2nd preferences:
    Burnham 53%
    Rayner 36%
    Streeting 34%
    Miliband 26%
    Mahmood 17%
    Cooper 17%

    Combined 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences:
    Burnham 62%
    Rayner 55%
    Miliband 48%
    Streeting 45%
    Cooper 31%
    Mahmood 24%

    Conclusions:

    1. Streeting is in a weaker position than the betting markets suggest. The fact that 2nd and 3rd preferences heavily favour Rayner and MIliband points to most Burnham supporters switching to those two. And this doesn't factor in the full effect of an explicit Burnham endorsement of either Rayner or Miliband (which seems inevitable and will carry weight with the 41% for whom Burnham is 1st preference.)

    2. Rayner should be favourite even if the contest comes while (as now) the HMRC verdict is awaited.

    3. Miliband is in with a decent shout if Rayner does not stand.

    4. Of the candidates at longer odds, Cooper stands a better chance than Mahmood. Cooper should not be discounted because it is not too fanciful to think that both Rayner and Streeting might see their campaign falter for different reasons (an adverse HMRC ruling in Rayner's case, revelations from correspondence with his close friend and ally Mandelson in Streeting's case)

    5. Powell and Haigh are not credible alternative soft left candidates to Rayner and Miliband, each only received 1% of 1st preferences.

    The main caveat is how representative is the sample base of the wider Labour selectorate of all Labour members plus non-members who are political levy payers in a Labour affiliated union.

    One objection to Milliband (E) is that he led the party to defeat in 2015. Two points I think should be taken into account here (they won't be on the right), viz Milliband's defeat was primarily as a result of losing seats in Scotland, not England or Wales and secondly it's only recently that we've held that it's one strike, lose and you';re out. Harold Wilson, for example lost in 1970, but four years later was back as PM. It was his health which forced him out.
    Scotland is a bit of a red herring. Miliband could have swept all 57 in Scotland and Cameron would still have had a majority
    Scotland did for Miliband in England too.

    But this time, were he to get the chance, the electorate would be judging Miliband after 3 years in which he showed what he could or could not achieve, and they had formed their opinion accordingly at that point. Rather different to judging someone before they get into office, based on images of him in Salmond's pocket on Conservative leaflets etc.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 86,135
    Scott_xP said:

    @patrickwintour
    Striking that it is from outside government in the shape of Gordon Brown that a plan is laid out to end the systematic abuse of power revealed by Mandelson scandal.
    Much of it derived from Transparency International and Brown’s own report A New Britain.
    Current anti-corruption Tsar Margaret Hodge upgraded to independent parliament appointed anti corruption commission with power to seize assets; controls on political lobbying including 91 peers currently paid to give political advice; existing Ethics and Integrity Commission to be given statutory powers to investigate bank accounts and initiate investigations; public select committee hearings to vet appointment of senior diplomats; end to MPs second jobs (with professional training exceptions) & controls on ministerial private external communications.
    Brown says Starmer could introduce a comprehensive bill within 3 months.

    Another statutory body costing £££ no doubt.
    And with powers "seize bank accounts" that raise quis custodet questions.
    Hodge !!?
    All of that should not be rushed in without a lot more scrutiny, if at all.

    OTOH, select committee involvement, and crackdowns on lobbying are sensible and should be done.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,076

    Brixian59 said:

    Roger said:


    Starmer made one mistake and one only

    What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
    Starmer works 7 days a week

    Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto


    Isn't it that his wife is Jewish and he likes the idea of 'family Friday nights'? What will happen when his son wants to go out on the pull (or something) on Friday nights I don't know.
    Although in my youth Friday night was, allegedly anyway, hair washing night.
    It was one of the unfair lies told about Starmer from an innocent throw away comment. Mind you an element of laziness does enter the picture. Starmer took full delegation to the extreme. He was a "democratic style manager" who delegated away his authority. He should have held Reeves on a tight leash and realised he was McSweeney's boss and not the other way around.

    The Mandelson business is what it is, but the overarching weak management is why his Prime Ministership has ultimately failed. The failure is very basic.
    Your last paragraph is very astute. Mandy is just the peg for some disgruntled Labour MPs to hang their hats. Starmer's' been disappointing but not mendacious and the two things are becoming confused. It would be great if there was a reasonable alternative but looking at Wulfrun's list there isn't one. My hope is that this will die down and if he doesn't improve it will be revisited later in the year. They'll still have three years left
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,499
    algarkirk said:

    Gordon Brown on R4 Today was valiant in limiting both his own blame and Starmer's, while issuing an apology though being slightly unclear as to what they had actually done wrong in his own eyes. What he, and Starmer, hid behind is the concept of process.

    I don't think this will do. It is a fair assumption that a PM making important decisions about people with form are not controlled by 'process' (any more than Starmer is controlled by legal process and a court about what he believes about how 'woman' should be defined under his premiership).

    Being the person where the buck stops means that you command the actual procedure and decide the rules - what is needed to do right - for a particular case. You have the entire resource of the state to draw on. Others advise, you decide.

    Trevor Wilson mused of Lloyd George that 'given he did not get to the top by treachery, it follows he got there by sheer capacity. Time and again he shows he was the necessary man to the Liberal party. In 1931 Grey consoled himself with the idea that in 1926 Lloyd George had 'bought' the Liberal party with his Fund. But the fund was a stumbling block to his acceptance by the party, not the cause of it. The party turned to him because it needed his positive qualities so badly. He alone could hold out hope of a Liberal revival: he alone possessed the dynamism, the imagination, the streak of daring that made it possible.'

    Something similar could perhaps be said of Mandelson. He is a sleazeball and a wrong 'un, but he is also brilliant - his achievements in politics do speak for themselves - and in an era when politicians are rather short on brilliance you can understand why they turn to him.

    Unfortunately the comparison breaks down because sleazy, corrupt and sexually depraved as Lloyd George was nobody has ever to my knowledge accused him of being a traitor which is in effect what Mandelson stands accused of here.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,858
    As a gay man....who hardly sweats and loves Pizza Express....

    Despite telling the BBC presenter he had only seen “middle-aged housekeepers”, he (Mandelson) spent an evening with Epstein and two female students at the paedophile’s New York home in 2012, and went underwear shopping before the occasion.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 60,590
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @patrickwintour
    Striking that it is from outside government in the shape of Gordon Brown that a plan is laid out to end the systematic abuse of power revealed by Mandelson scandal.
    Much of it derived from Transparency International and Brown’s own report A New Britain.
    Current anti-corruption Tsar Margaret Hodge upgraded to independent parliament appointed anti corruption commission with power to seize assets; controls on political lobbying including 91 peers currently paid to give political advice; existing Ethics and Integrity Commission to be given statutory powers to investigate bank accounts and initiate investigations; public select committee hearings to vet appointment of senior diplomats; end to MPs second jobs (with professional training exceptions) & controls on ministerial private external communications.
    Brown says Starmer could introduce a comprehensive bill within 3 months.

    Another statutory body costing £££ no doubt.
    And with powers "seize bank accounts" that raise quis custodet questions.
    Hodge !!?
    All of that should not be rushed in without a lot more scrutiny, if at all.

    OTOH, select committee involvement, and crackdowns on lobbying are sensible and should be done.
    The real question is “Who will be judged too important to go through this new process”

    Some of us are old enough to remember the howls of outrage from MPs over having to fill in expense claims.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,256
    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour members | Preference for leader:

    Andy Burnham: 41%
    Wes Streeting: 19%
    Angela Rayner: 17%
    Miliband 8%
    Cooper 7%
    Mahmood 7%

    Poll:
    @Survation
    /
    @LabourList
    , 29 Jan-3 Feb
    https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/2019800423477944610?s=20

    Thank the Lord, Milliband is currently an also ran and Burnham isn't an MP. Too late for Cooper, too early for Mahmood. Rayner is in Zahawi- legal jeopardy which leaves Streeting.

    I'd roll the dice on Rayner. It could go all Liz Truss, but it could work. Streeting is most likely continuity Sunak-Starmer.
    I still favour Streeting as we speak but Rayner is in with a chance with me. Maybe it's time to bring the curtain down (and this time for good) on the Blair New Labour project. If that sort of politics, even well delivered, can't now beat Farage then we might have to look at something different.
    That is my feeling. Mandelson has soiled New Labour to the point of extinction. He's Johnsoned the brand.
    Ratner would be a better comparison.

    The problem with the Mandelson scandal is that it reveals an essential truth about the New Labour project which there was previously a polite refusal to confront.
    So how does Labour detoxify it. Simply throwing Mandelson to the Wolves and making out it’s just him won’t work.
    I was very specific. The long term toxicity is in the New Labour brand.

    Of course in the medium term Mandelson trashes Labour but by jettisoning the entire project they have a chance of repatriating the lefty vote. A tall order but possible. Remember Mandelson's treachery was aimed as much at his own Labour Government in Office as discrediting the nation.
    You were very specific, but what if you're wrong? What if it's the Labiur brand rather than the new Labour brand he's trashed? Ask 100 people in the street for thoughta about Mandelson, I bet it's no more than 10 who identify him specifically with 'new labour' rather than just 'labour'. I'm certainly not hearing anyone say 'that new labour lot, they're dodgy as fuck, but the rest of the party is mustard'.
    Some of you have your blue scarves tied so tightly around your necks it is cutting off the blood supply to your heads.

    I have been remarkably circumspect. Of course Labour could be finished forever, a narrative which you are rooting for. I am suggesting that if they have any hope of survival they tack to the left.
    Why do you assume anyone who doesn't support the Labour Party is a partisan Tory? Is it because you can't imagine any other reason for not being left wing but tribalism? I find this particularly strange for someone who I believe vites Lib Dem.
    I only voted Lib Dem to mitigate Tory votes. Much the same as voting Labour, which I do here in the Vale. I will be voting Plaid in May to ensure Reform don't win in Wales. My scarf is anything but blue.
    Well that is just as daftly tribal as what you are accusing others of. Most of us vote for whomever we perceive to be the beat option for each election.
    And the best option in my opinion has always been to defeat the right wing candidate ( Jeremy Corbyn aside).

    If you vote Conservative in a no hope seat when by voting Lib Dem to defeat Labour you could have ensured one less Labour MP you are not as bright as I assumed you were.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 35,078

    Roger said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Roger said:

    The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.

    It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that

    Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it

    The Telegraph and Mail will always be anti Labour, I dont think they will face any backlash for being so, it's who they are, it's what they were bought to be.
    The backlash will come if there's a deep dive into the behaviour of various politicians, As the expenses scandal taught us these witch hunts can move in unexpected directions. Moving to Reform isn't a mikvah bath.
    This is not a witch hunt but an investigation into Mandelson's behaviour in public office and that will include his time in Washington

    Nobody knows just what will be revealed but there may well be other public figures drawn into this and that is an ongoing problem for Starmer and his government
    The next step will be working out who Mandelson was selling information to after Epstein.

    His involvement with Peter Thiel/Palantir will be the first port of call, I reckon.
    Maybe but the alternative route in for the tech bros is via Tony Blair.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,023
    Morning all :)

    Spotted my first election poster this morning - for Mehmood Mirza and the Newham Independents on the nearby hairdresser's window.

    This is going to be interesting....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,499
    Brixian59 said:

    My comments on this poll, from previous thread:
    ________________________________

    https://labourlist.org/2026/02/keir-starmer-wes-streeting-leadership-survation-poll/

    Since Burnham isn't eligible to stand, and Labour leadership contests are nowadays never won on the first ballot, it is better to look at broader support including 2nd and probably 3rd preferences.

    Combined 1st or 2nd preferences:
    Burnham 53%
    Rayner 36%
    Streeting 34%
    Miliband 26%
    Mahmood 17%
    Cooper 17%

    Combined 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences:
    Burnham 62%
    Rayner 55%
    Miliband 48%
    Streeting 45%
    Cooper 31%
    Mahmood 24%

    Conclusions:

    1. Streeting is in a weaker position than the betting markets suggest. The fact that 2nd and 3rd preferences heavily favour Rayner and MIliband points to most Burnham supporters switching to those two. And this doesn't factor in the full effect of an explicit Burnham endorsement of either Rayner or Miliband (which seems inevitable and will carry weight with the 41% for whom Burnham is 1st preference.)

    2. Rayner should be favourite even if the contest comes while (as now) the HMRC verdict is awaited.

    3. Miliband is in with a decent shout if Rayner does not stand.

    4. Of the candidates at longer odds, Cooper stands a better chance than Mahmood. Cooper should not be discounted because it is not too fanciful to think that both Rayner and Streeting might see their campaign falter for different reasons (an adverse HMRC ruling in Rayner's case, revelations from correspondence with his close friend and ally Mandelson in Streeting's case)

    5. Powell and Haigh are not credible alternative soft left candidates to Rayner and Miliband, each only received 1% of 1st preferences.

    The main caveat is how representative is the sample base of the wider Labour selectorate of all Labour members plus non-members who are political levy payers in a Labour affiliated union.

    One objection to Milliband (E) is that he led the party to defeat in 2015. Two points I think should be taken into account here (they won't be on the right), viz Milliband's defeat was primarily as a result of losing seats in Scotland, not England or Wales and secondly it's only recently that we've held that it's one strike, lose and you';re out. Harold Wilson, for example lost in 1970, but four years later was back as PM. It was his health which forced him out.
    Once again I'll make the point, Burnham should be thanking his lucky stars he's not standing in Horton as his political career would be over and he'd be unemployed

    Secondly, given that a majority of the membership still support Keir, and that would grow significantly if he removed McSweeney, those Members, especially those on seats of 2024 new intake should be telling their MP to shut the f up and support the guy who got them elected and to tell any MSM reporter seeking dirt to f off too.

    This is a time forunity not belly aching in public and the time can and will come in the summer to regroup, possibly make changes and move on

    As for the usual cabal of shits like Burgon, Long Bailey, McDonnell, and Co. Get them in a taxi to Corbyns allotment and throw them in the steaming manure.
    So you're saying he'd be screwed if he were up in Horton?
Sign In or Register to comment.