Skip to content

This ‘credible’ plan from Andy Burnham sounds as credible as my plan to date Margot Robbie

SystemSystem Posts: 13,175
edited May 1 in General
This ‘credible’ plan from Andy Burnham sounds as credible as my plan to date Margot Robbie– politicalbetting.com

Andy Burnham has a credible plan to return to Westminster “within weeks”, his allies have said, with the Greater Manchester mayor expected to use a byelection fight to set out a new agenda for government.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,254
    edited May 1
    Eabhal said:

    viewcode said:

    Leon said:

    If we can please get back on topic, I lost a gilet yesterday on a game drive. I got over excited as we watched lions fighting buffalo and my gilet somehow bounced out of the Landcruiser and I didn’t notice. If anyone is in east Rwanda near Lake Rwanyakizinga, in the next few days, I’d be hugely grateful if they could have a look for it, by the weaver bird tree on the southern shore. It’s around there somewhere

    Otherwise I fear I’ll have to buy a new one. Up til now I’ve always bought Hilfiger gilets but maybe it’s time to experiment. I like the light puffer packable ones. Any recommendations?

    https://www.mountainwarehouse.com/mens/jackets/mens-gilets-bodywarmers/

    I can't tell you they are good. I can tell you they are cheap. Very cheap.
    If Leon wants to build some cred in the middle-class outdoor community, it has to be one of these: https://paramo-clothing.com/en-gb/explore-range/product/mens-torres-medio-gilet/?attribute_pa_colour-t=black

    (Mountain Rescue are big fans of Paramo's smocks, so it's good kit)
    This is currently on the Burberry posh-to-chav pipeline around here:

    https://www.hollandcooper.com/products/menswear-country-fleece-gilet-ink-navy?variant=42442780278980&currency=GBP

    Note the tacky neck embroidery.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,480
    The arrogance of Burnham knows no bounds.

    Get on with your job, and leave it those actually in parliament to contest the leadership.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,571
    Bev Craig is a competent politician - hardworking, intelligent, conscientious, well-prepared. She's only about 4'11 but I don't see that standing against her. But there's no way a labour candidate is winning the mayoralty in GM at the moment.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,396
    I suspect the "'impressive' candidate" lined up is a well known ex football player whose first name begins with G.

    You read it here first kids.


  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,851
    williamglenn said:

    "My plan is that in the wake of a historically awful local election result for Labour, I will trigger a vanity by-election and give the electorate another chance to give us a kicking."

    Less of a cunning plan, more of a Plan 9 From Outer Space.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,436
    MPs have discussed the possibility of Burnham offering Starmer the chance to stay on as foreign secretary

    And the underpants gnomes have discussed phase two of the plan but forgot that they haven't yet stolen any underpants.

    (He isn't an MP, there isn't a by election and he hasn't become a candidate and hasn't won the one that hasn't yet taken place. Apart from that I can't see anything could go wrong.)
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 7,149
    Must be Burnham.
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,363
    williamglenn said:

    "My plan is that in the wake of a historically awful local election result for Labour, I will trigger a vanity by-election and give the electorate another chance to give us a kicking."

    Well


  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,851
    algarkirk said:

    MPs have discussed the possibility of Burnham offering Starmer the chance to stay on as foreign secretary

    And the underpants gnomes have discussed phase two of the plan but forgot that they haven't yet stolen any underpants.

    (He isn't an MP, there isn't a by election and he hasn't become a candidate and hasn't won the one that hasn't yet taken place. Apart from that I can't see anything could go wrong.)

    It'd be funny if they did defenestrate Starmer but keep him as foreign secretary for Starmer to turn the tables and start the counter-revolution plotting to get back to PM.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,597
    rottenborough said:

    I suspect the "'impressive' candidate" lined up is a well known ex football player whose first name begins with G.

    You read it here first kids.


    That was my thought as well.
    Not Glenn Hoddle either. Or even Gareth Southgate!

  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,851
    edited May 1
    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    Must be Burnham.

    Michael Burnham from Star Trek: Discovery.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,562
    algarkirk said:

    MPs have discussed the possibility of Burnham offering Starmer the chance to stay on as foreign secretary

    And the underpants gnomes have discussed phase two of the plan but forgot that they haven't yet stolen any underpants.

    (He isn't an MP, there isn't a by election and he hasn't become a candidate and hasn't won the one that hasn't yet taken place. Apart from that I can't see anything could go wrong.)

    That’s a disgraceful slur on those planning geniuses, the underpants gnomes.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,380
    Snooker news: 56 minutes without a ball being potted in Wu vs Allen. Frame 90 mins plus and still going.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,221
    edited May 1
    nico67 said:

    Burnham is really beginning to grate on me .

    And his so called plan to return seems to ignore reality.

    He expects Labour to sit and wait and for other leadership candidates to just accept this coronation.

    He’s not even guaranteed to win any by-election . I hope Starmer tells him to get stuffed .

    And me. This saga seems to be too much driven by his personal ego and ambition.

    Reality is that Burnham made a poor decision not to resign to seek nomination as a candidate in 2025 and is stuck with the consequences. Starmer is not going to give him a route back without which he won't become an MP so long as Starmer is PM. What grates with me is that, rather than boosting the chances of another insurgent candidate with not dissimilar views to his (Rayner/Miliband) and with it their standing with the general public should they win, he refuses to face reality and risks those candidates chances in so doing. He could name his job in their Cabinet should he offer such support, he doesn't need to be an elected MP to do that while still serving out his time as GM Mayor.

    He's already made two very poor judgement calls regarding the Labour leadership. (1. Refusing to resign from Harman's Shadow Cabinet in 2015, 2. Not standing down as Mayor in 2024.) He now seems in the midst of making a third one.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,516
    tpfkar said:

    rottenborough said:

    I suspect the "'impressive' candidate" lined up is a well known ex football player whose first name begins with G.

    You read it here first kids.


    That was my thought as well.
    Not Glenn Hoddle either. Or even Gareth Southgate!

    George Best, obviously.

    Or we could be thinking surnames... what about Ryan Giggs?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,818
    Burnham failed in previous attempts but he is well regarded locally and I get why many in the party are desperate to try something 'new' rather than an existing Cabinet Member (or Rayner), but they are probably putting hopes before reality, and requiring a convoluted process to get in doesn't help - he cannot even be a candidate until he gets back to Westminster(?), and if Keir is going to go why would he wait until Burnham, who has been gunning for for ages, is ready?

    As the header notes winning a by-election may not be easy, even if Burnham might get a boost over a generic Labour candidate.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,818
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Snooker news: 56 minutes without a ball being potted in Wu vs Allen. Frame 90 mins plus and still going.

    This is not persuading me to take up snooker as a hobby.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,436
    SandyRentool said:

    The arrogance of Burnham knows no bounds.

    Get on with your job, and leave it those actually in parliament to contest the leadership.

    Yes. It looks terrible to really really want to be PM all of a sudden when you were in the position to walk into being an MP at a general election without breaking sweat and being able to choose a top seat because you were well known but didn't.

    Not trying to be an MP at a general election when you are a major party figure = saying I don't want to be PM in the foreseeable future thank you very much. He should stick by that implied pledge.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,396
    edited May 1
    Cookie said:

    Bev Craig is a competent politician - hardworking, intelligent, conscientious, well-prepared. She's only about 4'11 but I don't see that standing against her. But there's no way a labour candidate is winning the mayoralty in GM at the moment.

    Which is bonkers.

    As far as can be seen Burnham has done a great job driving Manchester forward - why would you give up on that and elect Matt Goodwin or whichever other grifter Reform put up?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,436
    kle4 said:

    Burnham failed in previous attempts but he is well regarded locally and I get why many in the party are desperate to try something 'new' rather than an existing Cabinet Member (or Rayner), but they are probably putting hopes before reality, and requiring a convoluted process to get in doesn't help - he cannot even be a candidate until he gets back to Westminster(?), and if Keir is going to go why would he wait until Burnham, who has been gunning for for ages, is ready?

    As the header notes winning a by-election may not be easy, even if Burnham might get a boost over a generic Labour candidate.

    Any by election in any seat would be Burnham v Another Single Candidate The Wisdom of Crowds Picks. And would be a bit of a nightmare, as well as huge fun.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,480
    rottenborough said:

    I suspect the "'impressive' candidate" lined up is a well known ex football player whose first name begins with G.

    You read it here first kids.


    Geoff Hirst?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,880
    solarflare said:

    williamglenn said:

    "My plan is that in the wake of a historically awful local election result for Labour, I will trigger a vanity by-election and give the electorate another chance to give us a kicking."

    Less of a cunning plan, more of a Plan 9 From Outer Space.
    Currently showing on BFI player in their "trash cinema" section. It really is a sensationally bad film, a sort of triumph of cinema akin to naive art, with no concessions to film convention such as script, plot, continuity or acting.

    https://player.bfi.org.uk/subscription/film/watch-plan-9-from-outer-space-1958-online

    I think even the knuckleheaded cops that foiled Plan 9 could cope with Burnham.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,204
    Good evening

    All this speculation about Burnham seems unlikely, not least it assumes other potential leaders are going to put on one side their ambitions for the return of someone who expects to win the crown without a contest

    I assume next weekend, and before the King's speech, will be a very perilous time for Starmer (who is so unsuited to the job) and the opportunity for those hoping to claim the crown before the king of the north (which he is) attempts to roll up in the HOC
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,450
    kle4 said:

    Burnham failed in previous attempts but he is well regarded locally and I get why many in the party are desperate to try something 'new' rather than an existing Cabinet Member (or Rayner), but they are probably putting hopes before reality, and requiring a convoluted process to get in doesn't help - he cannot even be a candidate until he gets back to Westminster(?), and if Keir is going to go why would he wait until Burnham, who has been gunning for for ages, is ready?

    As the header notes winning a by-election may not be easy, even if Burnham might get a boost over a generic Labour candidate.

    The main reason is that while Streeting will alienate the left and Rayner will alienate the right, Burnham offers the chance of being a unity candidate, and the wiser Labour MPs, having lived through the Corbyn era, knows that another slow-burning civil war is the last thing Labour needs.
  • scampi25scampi25 Posts: 582
    nico67 said:

    Burnham is really beginning to grate on me .

    And his so called plan to return seems to ignore reality.

    He expects Labour to sit and wait and for other leadership candidates to just accept this coronation.

    He’s not even guaranteed to win any by-election . I hope Starmer tells him to get stuffed .

    Me too. I really want Starmer to stay - a year or so more and a massive loss at the next election could be locked in.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,702
    I am relieved, as I thought I might be alone in finding this the absolute height of self regarding hubris.

    The Guardian story was pretty clearly drafted by Burnham and coterie:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/01/andy-burnham-westminster-return-plan-within-weeks

    It gives several classic demonstrations of 'begging the question', as well as the aforementioned reek of vanity, so I suppose there's one thing positive to be said about it.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 9,134
    edited May 1
    I agree with others that this Burnham saga is now starting to look very silly.

    All I’ll say is continuing to agitate/machinate about ways to get back into the Commons purely to be parachuted into the top job isnt making him or his backers look statesmanlike at all. If this continues I think this will backfire badly.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,884
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Burnham failed in previous attempts but he is well regarded locally and I get why many in the party are desperate to try something 'new' rather than an existing Cabinet Member (or Rayner), but they are probably putting hopes before reality, and requiring a convoluted process to get in doesn't help - he cannot even be a candidate until he gets back to Westminster(?), and if Keir is going to go why would he wait until Burnham, who has been gunning for for ages, is ready?

    As the header notes winning a by-election may not be easy, even if Burnham might get a boost over a generic Labour candidate.

    The main reason is that while Streeting will alienate the left and Rayner will alienate the right, Burnham offers the chance of being a unity candidate, and the wiser Labour MPs, having lived through the Corbyn era, knows that another slow-burning civil war is the last thing Labour needs.
    Because Brunham will alienate everyone?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,480
    ABB: Anyone But Burnham
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,562
    numbertwelve said:

    I agree with others that this Burnham saga is now starting to look very silly.

    All I’ll say is continuing to agitate/machinate about ways to get back into the Commons purely to be parachuted into the top job isnt making him or his backers look statesmanlike at all. If this continues I think this will backfire badly.

    He's not the messiah?
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,851
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Good evening

    All this speculation about Burnham seems unlikely, not least it assumes other potential leaders are going to put on one side their ambitions for the return of someone who expects to win the crown without a contest

    I assume next weekend, and before the King's speech, will be a very perilous time for Starmer (who is so unsuited to the job) and the opportunity for those hoping to claim the crown before the king of the north (which he is) attempts to roll up in the HOC

    Question is, who actually is suited to the job?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,221
    edited May 1
    I posted the following four days ago and see no reason to change any of it.

    "[To become next PM] Burnham needs to:
    1. Hope that none of his rivals triggers a contest in the wake of the locals OR that Starmer wins such a contest
    2. Persuade an MP to stand down in a normally very safe seat
    3. Persuade the NEC (i.e.Starmer) to let him stand after the MP stands down
    4. Get selected for the seat
    5. Persuade Starmer to move the by-election quickly to forestall a challenge from one of his rivals
    6. Win the seat
    7. Get proposed as leader
    8. Win the leadership race
    The big hurdles are 1, 2, 3, 5 and possibly 6 depending on the safeness of 2."

    So what are the odds of each happening, to deliver the next PM as Burnham? Going through each step and the implied probabilities (conditional on each preceeding step have been satisfied) I'd put them as follows:

    1. 0.2 (if that)
    2. 0.5
    3. 0.2
    4. 0.9
    5. 0.8 (conditional probability: 3 having been satisfied implies Starmer is playing ball)
    6. 0.8
    7. 0.9
    8. 0.9

    Multiplying each together (because they all have to be satisfied) gives an overall probability of Burnham becoming next PM of just under 0.01. Which means that odds of about 100/1 would be a fair price, not the 6/1 best odds offered by the markets.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,562
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Burnham failed in previous attempts but he is well regarded locally and I get why many in the party are desperate to try something 'new' rather than an existing Cabinet Member (or Rayner), but they are probably putting hopes before reality, and requiring a convoluted process to get in doesn't help - he cannot even be a candidate until he gets back to Westminster(?), and if Keir is going to go why would he wait until Burnham, who has been gunning for for ages, is ready?

    As the header notes winning a by-election may not be easy, even if Burnham might get a boost over a generic Labour candidate.

    The main reason is that while Streeting will alienate the left and Rayner will alienate the right, Burnham offers the chance of being a unity candidate, and the wiser Labour MPs, having lived through the Corbyn era, knows that another slow-burning civil war is the last thing Labour needs.
    It's about wishcasting -

    Burnham will accidentally wander into No.10. All those who defected to the Greens will instantly return home - see whole season of Dallas/shower scene. Labour is back on 40%+ in the polls in seconds. Farage will evaporate when Burnham pours some water on him. Then Burnham will lead the Labour Party to 2 decades in power everyone will love them and him.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,396
    Bill Kristol
    @BillKristol
    ·
    23m
    One possible effect of the redistricting fights: The Court decision and moves by GOP governors are a major and direct attack on Black political power. Could this lead to increased Black turnout everywhere against the GOP? Could this affect other races, including for the senate?

    https://x.com/BillKristol/status/2050273640378167613
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,396
    Bill Kristol
    @BillKristol
    ·
    23m
    One possible effect of the redistricting fights: The Court decision and moves by GOP governors are a major and direct attack on Black political power. Could this lead to increased Black turnout everywhere against the GOP? Could this affect other races, including for the senate?

    https://x.com/BillKristol/status/2050273640378167613
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958
    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    I posted the following four days ago and see no reason to change any of it.

    "[To become next PM] Burnham needs to:
    1. Hope that none of his rivals triggers a contest in the wake of the locals OR that Starmer wins such a contest
    2. Persuade an MP to stand down in a normally very safe seat
    3. Persuade the NEC (i.e.Starmer) to let him stand after the MP stands down
    4. Get selected for the seat
    5. Persuade Starmer to move the by-election quickly to forestall a challenge from one of his rivals
    6. Win the seat
    7. Get proposed as leader
    8. Win the leadership race
    The big hurdles are 1, 2, 3, 5 and possibly 6 depending on the safeness of 2."

    So what are the odds of each happening, to deliver the next PM as Burnham? Going through each step and the implied probabilities (conditional on each preceeding step have been satisfied) I'd put them as follows:

    1. 0.2 (if that)
    2. 0.5
    3. 0.2
    4. 0.9
    5. 0.8 (conditional probability: 3 having been satisfied implies Starmer is playing ball)
    6. 0.8
    7. 0.9
    8. 0.9

    Multiplying each together (because they all have to be satisfied) gives an overall probability of Burnham becoming next PM of just under 0.01. Which means that odds of about 100/1 would be a fair price, not the 6/1 best odds offered by the markets.

    I think you have 1 and 2 very wrong. Starmer is 1.44 to go this year so it is at least 30% he survives the next few weeks. I'd suggest 40% based on the market and personally think it is higher. I'm not sure how many Labour MPs are enjoying being in power, again I don't think he will find it difficult to find a winnable vacancy (he doesn't need it very safe, he will have a personal vote attached which will be enough in plenty of seats given how fragmented the electorate is).

    And these are not independent events you can multiply through - if the likes of Streeting, Miliband and Rayner get together and agree its the best course for Labour to retain power then it becomes close to a formality.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,807
    SandyRentool said:

    rottenborough said:

    I suspect the "'impressive' candidate" lined up is a well known ex football player whose first name begins with G.

    You read it here first kids.


    Geoff Hirst?
    In reality, it'd be whatever grifter Reform choose to put up for election.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,396
    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    I posted the following four days ago and see no reason to change any of it.

    "[To become next PM] Burnham needs to:
    1. Hope that none of his rivals triggers a contest in the wake of the locals OR that Starmer wins such a contest
    2. Persuade an MP to stand down in a normally very safe seat
    3. Persuade the NEC (i.e.Starmer) to let him stand after the MP stands down
    4. Get selected for the seat
    5. Persuade Starmer to move the by-election quickly to forestall a challenge from one of his rivals
    6. Win the seat
    7. Get proposed as leader
    8. Win the leadership race
    The big hurdles are 1, 2, 3, 5 and possibly 6 depending on the safeness of 2."

    So what are the odds of each happening, to deliver the next PM as Burnham? Going through each step and the implied probabilities (conditional on each preceeding step have been satisfied) I'd put them as follows:

    1. 0.2 (if that)
    2. 0.5
    3. 0.2
    4. 0.9
    5. 0.8 (conditional probability: 3 having been satisfied implies Starmer is playing ball)
    6. 0.8
    7. 0.9
    8. 0.9

    Multiplying each together (because they all have to be satisfied) gives an overall probability of Burnham becoming next PM of just under 0.01. Which means that odds of about 100/1 would be a fair price, not the 6/1 best odds offered by the markets.

    Except that there is a connection between the different pots - politics. If the herd is moving or the winds of change are blowing or some other metaphor then stuff like 'persuade an MP' and 'persuade the NEC' become related.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,514
    Nigelb said:

    I am relieved, as I thought I might be alone in finding this the absolute height of self regarding hubris.

    The Guardian story was pretty clearly drafted by Burnham and coterie:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/01/andy-burnham-westminster-return-plan-within-weeks

    It gives several classic demonstrations of 'begging the question', as well as the aforementioned reek of vanity, so I suppose there's one thing positive to be said about it.

    It's so bad you wonder if it was created by Streeting to make Burnham look stupid.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,884
    solarflare said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Good evening

    All this speculation about Burnham seems unlikely, not least it assumes other potential leaders are going to put on one side their ambitions for the return of someone who expects to win the crown without a contest

    I assume next weekend, and before the King's speech, will be a very perilous time for Starmer (who is so unsuited to the job) and the opportunity for those hoping to claim the crown before the king of the north (which he is) attempts to roll up in the HOC

    Question is, who actually is suited to the job?
    As Jeffrey Pearson wrote in his elegant memoirs,

    Who is fit for the job? You never know till you suck it and see.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,624
    To me, Andy Burnham is a figure of fun.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,880
    ThomasNashe said:

    By the way Margot Robbie's just been in touch to ask for TSE's contact details.

    Is she two-timing @rcs1000? Shocking if true...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,937
    Certainly Burnham cannot stand as a Labour candidate for parliament unless his supporters gain control of the NEC and allow him to be on the approved parliamentary candidate list. So all this is hypothetical until then
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,884
    HYUFD said:

    Certainly Burnham cannot stand as a Labour candidate for parliament unless his supporters gain control of the NEC and allow him to be on the approved parliamentary candidate list. So all this is hypothetical until then

    You know that. I know that. Everyone knows that...

    ... but Andy Brunham really really wants to be Prime Minister.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,937
    The King met Mayor Mamdani at the WTO memorial but Mamdani wanted to focus on asking the King to return the Koh-i-Noor diamond.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/king-charles-visit-zohran-mamdani-nyc
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,221
    noneoftheabove said:

    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    I posted the following four days ago and see no reason to change any of it.

    "[To become next PM] Burnham needs to:
    1. Hope that none of his rivals triggers a contest in the wake of the locals OR that Starmer wins such a contest
    2. Persuade an MP to stand down in a normally very safe seat
    3. Persuade the NEC (i.e.Starmer) to let him stand after the MP stands down
    4. Get selected for the seat
    5. Persuade Starmer to move the by-election quickly to forestall a challenge from one of his rivals
    6. Win the seat
    7. Get proposed as leader
    8. Win the leadership race
    The big hurdles are 1, 2, 3, 5 and possibly 6 depending on the safeness of 2."

    So what are the odds of each happening, to deliver the next PM as Burnham? Going through each step and the implied probabilities (conditional on each preceeding step have been satisfied) I'd put them as follows:

    1. 0.2 (if that)
    2. 0.5
    3. 0.2
    4. 0.9
    5. 0.8 (conditional probability: 3 having been satisfied implies Starmer is playing ball)
    6. 0.8
    7. 0.9
    8. 0.9

    Multiplying each together (because they all have to be satisfied) gives an overall probability of Burnham becoming next PM of just under 0.01. Which means that odds of about 100/1 would be a fair price, not the 6/1 best odds offered by the markets.

    I think you have 1 and 2 very wrong. Starmer is 1.44 to go this year so it is at least 30% he survives the next few weeks. I'd suggest 40% based on the market and personally think it is higher. I'm not sure how many Labour MPs are enjoying being in power, again I don't think he will find it difficult to find a winnable vacancy (he doesn't need it very safe, he will have a personal vote attached which will be enough in plenty of seats given how fragmented the electorate is).

    And these are not independent events you can multiply through - if the likes of Streeting, Miliband and Rayner get together and agree its the best course for Labour to retain power then it becomes close to a formality.
    On 1, I'm aware of what the betting markets are saying about the likelihood of Starmer holding on this year, but like you I think they are wrong, just in the opposite direction.
    On 2, remember that Burnham hasn't yet found anyone willing to step down for him, Andrew Gwynne went in scandal once his pension was sorted and made it clear that he wasn't doing so to help Burnham. I have the combined probability of there being a vacancy created in the near future AND of Burnham winning it (assuming he stands) at 0.4 (2 and 6 combined.) I think that is if anything on the high side.
    On 3, Starmer is fighting like a cornered rat to try and stay in post, and has specifically blocked Burnham. Even if he throws in the towel, he's been so factional in his leadership that I hardly think he'll choose now to do Burnham a favour at the expense of all his mates on the Labour right. A probability of 0.2 of that happening if anything is overstating it.

    On your other point, I find the notion of Burnham having an alternate route in which every other leading Labour politician with personal ambition just stood aside with Starmer for a Burnham coronation just bizarre.
  • Leon_VotedForStarmerLeon_VotedForStarmer Posts: 69,000
    edited May 1
    In all honesty, I cannot recommend the food and beverage options at Kigali International Airport

    But thankyou to PB for the nifty gilet suggestions
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,612
    edited May 1
    To paraphrase Robert Picard.

    I always thought Andy Burnham needed a little humiliation. Or was it humility? Either would do.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,789
    Casino_Royale said:

    To me, Andy Burnham is a figure of fun.

    We're not exactly well stocked with potential leaders right now are we? My fear is he would have to pander to the grassroots to get it which could mean all kinds of challenging diplomatic and market reactions. But Starmer seems like a dud and many in the party obviously have a survival instinct.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,808
    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    I posted the following four days ago and see no reason to change any of it.

    "[To become next PM] Burnham needs to:
    1. Hope that none of his rivals triggers a contest in the wake of the locals OR that Starmer wins such a contest
    2. Persuade an MP to stand down in a normally very safe seat
    3. Persuade the NEC (i.e.Starmer) to let him stand after the MP stands down
    4. Get selected for the seat
    5. Persuade Starmer to move the by-election quickly to forestall a challenge from one of his rivals
    6. Win the seat
    7. Get proposed as leader
    8. Win the leadership race
    The big hurdles are 1, 2, 3, 5 and possibly 6 depending on the safeness of 2."

    So what are the odds of each happening, to deliver the next PM as Burnham? Going through each step and the implied probabilities (conditional on each preceeding step have been satisfied) I'd put them as follows:

    1. 0.2 (if that)
    2. 0.5
    3. 0.2
    4. 0.9
    5. 0.8 (conditional probability: 3 having been satisfied implies Starmer is playing ball)
    6. 0.8
    7. 0.9
    8. 0.9

    Multiplying each together (because they all have to be satisfied) gives an overall probability of Burnham becoming next PM of just under 0.01. Which means that odds of about 100/1 would be a fair price, not the 6/1 best odds offered by the markets.

    You are assuming they are independent. They may not be.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,221
    rottenborough said:

    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    I posted the following four days ago and see no reason to change any of it.

    "[To become next PM] Burnham needs to:
    1. Hope that none of his rivals triggers a contest in the wake of the locals OR that Starmer wins such a contest
    2. Persuade an MP to stand down in a normally very safe seat
    3. Persuade the NEC (i.e.Starmer) to let him stand after the MP stands down
    4. Get selected for the seat
    5. Persuade Starmer to move the by-election quickly to forestall a challenge from one of his rivals
    6. Win the seat
    7. Get proposed as leader
    8. Win the leadership race
    The big hurdles are 1, 2, 3, 5 and possibly 6 depending on the safeness of 2."

    So what are the odds of each happening, to deliver the next PM as Burnham? Going through each step and the implied probabilities (conditional on each preceeding step have been satisfied) I'd put them as follows:

    1. 0.2 (if that)
    2. 0.5
    3. 0.2
    4. 0.9
    5. 0.8 (conditional probability: 3 having been satisfied implies Starmer is playing ball)
    6. 0.8
    7. 0.9
    8. 0.9

    Multiplying each together (because they all have to be satisfied) gives an overall probability of Burnham becoming next PM of just under 0.01. Which means that odds of about 100/1 would be a fair price, not the 6/1 best odds offered by the markets.

    Except that there is a connection between the different pots - politics. If the herd is moving or the winds of change are blowing or some other metaphor then stuff like 'persuade an MP' and 'persuade the NEC' become related.

    I did allow for that, I said above that each probability is in my view conditional on the preceeding one. We can disagree on whether the probabilities are correct.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,562
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    I am relieved, as I thought I might be alone in finding this the absolute height of self regarding hubris.

    The Guardian story was pretty clearly drafted by Burnham and coterie:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/01/andy-burnham-westminster-return-plan-within-weeks

    It gives several classic demonstrations of 'begging the question', as well as the aforementioned reek of vanity, so I suppose there's one thing positive to be said about it.

    It's so bad you wonder if it was created by Streeting to make Burnham look stupid.
    Was it written by the DfE?
  • Leon_VotedForStarmerLeon_VotedForStarmer Posts: 69,000
    edited May 1
    This is arguably the worst airport I’ve ever used. It’s just big enough to be annoying and a bit dirty yet completely devoid of any entertainment apart from looking at the selection of authentic knick knacks made in China. And the only booze is bad warm beer

    And Rwanda Air insist you check in 3 hours before your flight
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,254
    ydoethur said:

    I'm sitting in the Glyn Ceiriog hotel with a pint and dinner on the way.*

    A bit like TSE, no time to follow the news. So when did WWIII break out?

    *This is quite poignant for me in a number of ways. My father lived in Oswestry and was the vet for the Ceiriog and Dee valleys before moving to Gloucestershire, so he frequently brought us here for short holidays. Normally we would stay at the West Arms in Llanarmon Dyffryn Ceiriog, but I couldn't quite make the numbers work on a stay there. This one, where I got a largeish discount, works better.

    So I will be waking to the sound of the Afon Ceiriog and the hills above Llangollen as I often did in my childhood - but I'll be on my own this time.

    Hoping to get some cycling in if the weather's not too terrible, and some hill walking if it is.

    Sounds lovely. I'm planning a little weekend round-Wales driving trip for when the weather next cheers up. Got my eye on Browns Hotel Laugharne and Wildings Llandudno, both of which have surprisingly reasonable single room prices at this time of year - about £75pn.

    Open to recommendations for the hotel in between, anywhere up the west coast or in the deep middle...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,937
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Good evening

    All this speculation about Burnham seems unlikely, not least it assumes other potential leaders are going to put on one side their ambitions for the return of someone who expects to win the crown without a contest

    I assume next weekend, and before the King's speech, will be a very perilous time for Starmer (who is so unsuited to the job) and the opportunity for those hoping to claim the crown before the king of the north (which he is) attempts to roll up in the HOC

    Not necessarily though, the latest Britain Votes Now forecast for next week is Reform to win most local council seats with 1393, then Labour second with 1253, the LDs third with 789, the Tories 4th with 721 and the Greens fifth with 631. If those were the results I expect Starmer survives

    https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26/council-elections
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,221
    edited May 1
    viewcode said:

    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    I posted the following four days ago and see no reason to change any of it.

    "[To become next PM] Burnham needs to:
    1. Hope that none of his rivals triggers a contest in the wake of the locals OR that Starmer wins such a contest
    2. Persuade an MP to stand down in a normally very safe seat
    3. Persuade the NEC (i.e.Starmer) to let him stand after the MP stands down
    4. Get selected for the seat
    5. Persuade Starmer to move the by-election quickly to forestall a challenge from one of his rivals
    6. Win the seat
    7. Get proposed as leader
    8. Win the leadership race
    The big hurdles are 1, 2, 3, 5 and possibly 6 depending on the safeness of 2."

    So what are the odds of each happening, to deliver the next PM as Burnham? Going through each step and the implied probabilities (conditional on each preceeding step have been satisfied) I'd put them as follows:

    1. 0.2 (if that)
    2. 0.5
    3. 0.2
    4. 0.9
    5. 0.8 (conditional probability: 3 having been satisfied implies Starmer is playing ball)
    6. 0.8
    7. 0.9
    8. 0.9

    Multiplying each together (because they all have to be satisfied) gives an overall probability of Burnham becoming next PM of just under 0.01. Which means that odds of about 100/1 would be a fair price, not the 6/1 best odds offered by the markets.

    You are assuming they are independent. They may not be.
    No. I explicitly said that I was assuming the probabilities are conditional on each other. i.e. "the implied probabilities (conditional on each preceeding step have been satisfied)". e.g. even if step 2 is satisfied (there is a vacancy with a Labour MP stepping down in the near future) I still don't think the chances of the NEC playing ball are going to be much higher than they were when Gwynne vacated Gorton and Denton so 0.2 for step 3 holds.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,884
    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Good evening

    All this speculation about Burnham seems unlikely, not least it assumes other potential leaders are going to put on one side their ambitions for the return of someone who expects to win the crown without a contest

    I assume next weekend, and before the King's speech, will be a very perilous time for Starmer (who is so unsuited to the job) and the opportunity for those hoping to claim the crown before the king of the north (which he is) attempts to roll up in the HOC

    Not necessarily though, the latest Britain Votes Now forecast for next week is Reform to win most local council seats with 1393, then Labour second with 1253, the LDs third with 789, the Tories 4th with 721 and the Greens fifth with 631. If those were the results I expect Starmer survives

    https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26/council-elections
    That sharp and squishy sound you can hear is Sir Keir Starmer biting your hand off.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,789
    Can someone explain the media's special relationship obsession? Is it a clickbait thing?

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/king-charles-has-saved-the-special-relationship-for-now/ar-AA229Fna?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=45e7a4f3fa1e46768a6b7d7842a0a69e&ei=10

    It may have been a real thing in the second world war. Perhaps our continuing fixation on WW2 extends the myth? And under Trump? The only special relationship he has is with himself. His preference is for hubristic splendid isolation (until things go wrong).
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,288
    carnforth said:

    ydoethur said:

    I'm sitting in the Glyn Ceiriog hotel with a pint and dinner on the way.*

    A bit like TSE, no time to follow the news. So when did WWIII break out?

    *This is quite poignant for me in a number of ways. My father lived in Oswestry and was the vet for the Ceiriog and Dee valleys before moving to Gloucestershire, so he frequently brought us here for short holidays. Normally we would stay at the West Arms in Llanarmon Dyffryn Ceiriog, but I couldn't quite make the numbers work on a stay there. This one, where I got a largeish discount, works better.

    So I will be waking to the sound of the Afon Ceiriog and the hills above Llangollen as I often did in my childhood - but I'll be on my own this time.

    Hoping to get some cycling in if the weather's not too terrible, and some hill walking if it is.

    Sounds lovely. I'm planning a little weekend round-Wales driving trip for when the weather next cheers up. Got my eye on Browns Hotel Laugharne and Wildings Llandudno, both of which have surprisingly reasonable single room prices at this time of year - about £75pn.

    Open to recommendations for the hotel in between, anywhere up the west coast or in the deep middle...
    Not a hotel but I enjoyed the very posh camping (cottages/yurts/pods available) at Graig Wen. You can cycle/walk into Barmouth for dinner along the old railway and bridge.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,789
    Leon said:

    This is arguably the worst airport I’ve ever used. It’s just big enough to be annoying and a bit dirty yet completely devoid of any entertainment apart from looking at the selection of authentic knick knacks made in China. And the only booze is bad warm beer

    And Rwanda Air insist you check in 3 hours before your flight

    Yes but is it safe?
  • RattersRatters Posts: 2,028
    I have to say it would be delightfully funny if Burnham returned to Parliament, ousted Starmer, then lost the Labour leadership election for the third time.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,221
    Leon said:

    This is arguably the worst airport I’ve ever used. It’s just big enough to be annoying and a bit dirty yet completely devoid of any entertainment apart from looking at the selection of authentic knick knacks made in China. And the only booze is bad warm beer

    And Rwanda Air insist you check in 3 hours before your flight

    Maybe you should focus more on the question of whether it also turns out to be the worst plane you've ever flown in, guided by the worst air traffic control. Hope you make it back in one piece.
  • Leon_VotedForStarmerLeon_VotedForStarmer Posts: 69,000
    FrankBooth said:

    Can someone explain the media's special relationship obsession? Is it a clickbait thing?

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/king-charles-has-saved-the-special-relationship-for-now/ar-AA229Fna?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=45e7a4f3fa1e46768a6b7d7842a0a69e&ei=10

    It may have been a real thing in the second world war. Perhaps our continuing fixation on WW2 extends the myth? And under Trump? The only special relationship he has is with himself. His preference is for hubristic splendid isolation (until things go wrong).

    The irony is that the Trump admin - despite its madness - is probably the most instinctively Anglophile US admin since Reagan

    Trump and Vance and others genuinely see the UK as the homeland. The mother country. What they hate is the lefty woke way the old country has been misgoverned for decades

    And for all their many other disastrous flaws, it’s hard to argue with their perception here
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,514
    edited May 1
    carnforth said:

    ydoethur said:

    I'm sitting in the Glyn Ceiriog hotel with a pint and dinner on the way.*

    A bit like TSE, no time to follow the news. So when did WWIII break out?

    *This is quite poignant for me in a number of ways. My father lived in Oswestry and was the vet for the Ceiriog and Dee valleys before moving to Gloucestershire, so he frequently brought us here for short holidays. Normally we would stay at the West Arms in Llanarmon Dyffryn Ceiriog, but I couldn't quite make the numbers work on a stay there. This one, where I got a largeish discount, works better.

    So I will be waking to the sound of the Afon Ceiriog and the hills above Llangollen as I often did in my childhood - but I'll be on my own this time.

    Hoping to get some cycling in if the weather's not too terrible, and some hill walking if it is.

    Sounds lovely. I'm planning a little weekend round-Wales driving trip for when the weather next cheers up. Got my eye on Browns Hotel Laugharne and Wildings Llandudno, both of which have surprisingly reasonable single room prices at this time of year - about £75pn.

    Open to recommendations for the hotel in between, anywhere up the west coast or in the deep middle...
    Not sure what it's like these days, but the George Borrow at Ponterwyd (about 12 miles inland from Aberystwyth) used to be pretty good. Amazing location as well.

    I had a very nice overnight stay at this place in Harlech a couple of years ago as well.

    https://castlecottageinnharlech.com/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,937
    edited May 1
    Leon said:

    FrankBooth said:

    Can someone explain the media's special relationship obsession? Is it a clickbait thing?

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/king-charles-has-saved-the-special-relationship-for-now/ar-AA229Fna?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=45e7a4f3fa1e46768a6b7d7842a0a69e&ei=10

    It may have been a real thing in the second world war. Perhaps our continuing fixation on WW2 extends the myth? And under Trump? The only special relationship he has is with himself. His preference is for hubristic splendid isolation (until things go wrong).

    The irony is that the Trump admin - despite its madness - is probably the most instinctively Anglophile US admin since Reagan

    Trump and Vance and others genuinely see the UK as the homeland. The mother country. What they hate is the lefty woke way the old country has been misgoverned for decades

    And for all their many other disastrous flaws, it’s hard to argue with their perception here
    While Democratic NYC Mayor Mamdani yesterday had little interest in the special relationship with the UK but was mainly focused on pushing the King to return the Koh-i-Noor diamond to India when he met him. Mamdani is of course even more lefty woke than any of our recent UK PMs, including Starmer
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,326
    So we’ve had Offord in Scotland and his 6 houses , 6 boats and 5 cars “ man of the people “ ! Polanski and his re-tweet and Kemi stupidly promoting the army by using footage of Bloody Sunday!

    That leaves Starmer and Davey to do something stupid to complete the set !
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,514
    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    I am relieved, as I thought I might be alone in finding this the absolute height of self regarding hubris.

    The Guardian story was pretty clearly drafted by Burnham and coterie:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/01/andy-burnham-westminster-return-plan-within-weeks

    It gives several classic demonstrations of 'begging the question', as well as the aforementioned reek of vanity, so I suppose there's one thing positive to be said about it.

    It's so bad you wonder if it was created by Streeting to make Burnham look stupid.
    Was it written by the DfE?
    Now come on, it's not that bad.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,514
    edited May 1
    nico67 said:

    So we’ve had Offord in Scotland and his 6 houses , 6 boats and 5 cars “ man of the people “ ! Polanski and his re-tweet and Kemi stupidly promoting the army by using footage of Bloody Sunday!

    That leaves Starmer and Davey to do something stupid to complete the set !

    What could Starmer do that's stupider than appointing a known dodgy twat like Mandelson Ambassador to Washington without any due process or vetting?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 11,143
    Hello again to all PB'ers.

    Some interesting ideas by Burnham-supportimg MP's being flioated around. Byelection within weeks, Starmer to stay on as Foreign Sec. That might be a bit of a atrange idea for him, but I suppose stranger things have happened. Cameron stayed on as Foreign Sec umder Sunak, waan't it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,562
    ydoethur said:

    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    I am relieved, as I thought I might be alone in finding this the absolute height of self regarding hubris.

    The Guardian story was pretty clearly drafted by Burnham and coterie:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/01/andy-burnham-westminster-return-plan-within-weeks

    It gives several classic demonstrations of 'begging the question', as well as the aforementioned reek of vanity, so I suppose there's one thing positive to be said about it.

    It's so bad you wonder if it was created by Streeting to make Burnham look stupid.
    Was it written by the DfE?
    Now come on, it's not that bad.
    It appears to be written by drunk, incompetent, self harming idiots, so I thought...
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,326
    ydoethur said:

    nico67 said:

    So we’ve had Offord in Scotland and his 6 houses , 6 boats and 5 cars “ man of the people “ ! Polanski and his re-tweet and Kemi stupidly promoting the army by using footage of Bloody Sunday!

    That leaves Starmer and Davey to do something stupid to complete the set !

    What could Starmer do that's stupider than appointing a known dodgy twat like Mandelson Ambassador to Washington without any due process or vetting?
    That’s old news ! We’re seeing which leader can screw up in the week running upto the elections .
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,514
    edited May 1
    WhisperingOracle said:

    Hello again to all PB'ers.

    Some interesting ideas by Burnham-supportimg MP's being flioated around. Byelection within weeks, Starmer to stay on as Foreign Sec. That might be a bit of a atrange idea for him, but I suppose stranger things have happened. Cameron stayed on as Foreign Sec umder Sunak, waan't it.

    Returned as, not stayed on.

    The last PM to serve under his immediate successor was Neville Chamberlain in 1940, and the last to do so for any length of time was Russell in 1852. (Technically that was his successor but one, but after a very short gap.)
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,726
    Foxy said:

    solarflare said:

    williamglenn said:

    "My plan is that in the wake of a historically awful local election result for Labour, I will trigger a vanity by-election and give the electorate another chance to give us a kicking."

    Less of a cunning plan, more of a Plan 9 From Outer Space.
    Currently showing on BFI player in their "trash cinema" section. It really is a sensationally bad film, a sort of triumph of cinema akin to naive art, with no concessions to film convention such as script, plot, continuity or acting.

    https://player.bfi.org.uk/subscription/film/watch-plan-9-from-outer-space-1958-online

    I think even the knuckleheaded cops that foiled Plan 9 could cope with Burnham.

    They screwed the 'Plan 9' copyright renewal up so there are legal copies all over YouTube and Archive.org.

    'Night of the Living Dead' is available on similar terms.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,789
    Leon said:

    FrankBooth said:

    Can someone explain the media's special relationship obsession? Is it a clickbait thing?

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/king-charles-has-saved-the-special-relationship-for-now/ar-AA229Fna?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=45e7a4f3fa1e46768a6b7d7842a0a69e&ei=10

    It may have been a real thing in the second world war. Perhaps our continuing fixation on WW2 extends the myth? And under Trump? The only special relationship he has is with himself. His preference is for hubristic splendid isolation (until things go wrong).

    The irony is that the Trump admin - despite its madness - is probably the most instinctively Anglophile US admin since Reagan

    Trump and Vance and others genuinely see the UK as the homeland. The mother country. What they hate is the lefty woke way the old country has been misgoverned for decades

    And for all their many other disastrous flaws, it’s hard to argue with their perception here
    Anglophile in their own minds perhaps?

    I think that it's more about the internal politics of the US and trusting more in WASP Americans. But when it comes to the political substance it's completely superficial. They aren't interested in allies, show fealty towards murderous dictators and despise laws getting in the way of self enrichment. Not really the Anglo world I have in mind.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,514
    FrankBooth said:

    Leon said:

    FrankBooth said:

    Can someone explain the media's special relationship obsession? Is it a clickbait thing?

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/king-charles-has-saved-the-special-relationship-for-now/ar-AA229Fna?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=45e7a4f3fa1e46768a6b7d7842a0a69e&ei=10

    It may have been a real thing in the second world war. Perhaps our continuing fixation on WW2 extends the myth? And under Trump? The only special relationship he has is with himself. His preference is for hubristic splendid isolation (until things go wrong).

    The irony is that the Trump admin - despite its madness - is probably the most instinctively Anglophile US admin since Reagan

    Trump and Vance and others genuinely see the UK as the homeland. The mother country. What they hate is the lefty woke way the old country has been misgoverned for decades

    And for all their many other disastrous flaws, it’s hard to argue with their perception here
    Anglophile in their own minds perhaps?

    I think that it's more about the internal politics of the US and trusting more in WASP Americans. But when it comes to the political substance it's completely superficial. They aren't interested in allies, show fealty towards murderous dictators and despise laws getting in the way of self enrichment. Not really the Anglo world I have in mind.
    What minds?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,949
    nico67 said:

    So we’ve had Offord in Scotland and his 6 houses , 6 boats and 5 cars “ man of the people “ ! Polanski and his re-tweet and Kemi stupidly promoting the army by using footage of Bloody Sunday!

    That leaves Starmer and Davey to do something stupid to complete the set !

    Swinney has this covered. He just is stupid.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,696
    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Good evening

    All this speculation about Burnham seems unlikely, not least it assumes other potential leaders are going to put on one side their ambitions for the return of someone who expects to win the crown without a contest

    I assume next weekend, and before the King's speech, will be a very perilous time for Starmer (who is so unsuited to the job) and the opportunity for those hoping to claim the crown before the king of the north (which he is) attempts to roll up in the HOC

    Not necessarily though, the latest Britain Votes Now forecast for next week is Reform to win most local council seats with 1393, then Labour second with 1253, the LDs third with 789, the Tories 4th with 721 and the Greens fifth with 631. If those were the results I expect Starmer survives

    https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26/council-elections
    Another set of laughable predictions unfortunately.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,514
    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    I am relieved, as I thought I might be alone in finding this the absolute height of self regarding hubris.

    The Guardian story was pretty clearly drafted by Burnham and coterie:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/01/andy-burnham-westminster-return-plan-within-weeks

    It gives several classic demonstrations of 'begging the question', as well as the aforementioned reek of vanity, so I suppose there's one thing positive to be said about it.

    It's so bad you wonder if it was created by Streeting to make Burnham look stupid.
    Was it written by the DfE?
    Now come on, it's not that bad.
    It appears to be written by drunk, incompetent, self harming idiots, so I thought...
    Well, as long as they're not actively screwing children,* they're still a step ahead.

    *metaphorically speaking.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 11,143
    edited May 1
    ydoethur said:

    WhisperingOracle said:

    Hello again to all PB'ers.

    Some interesting ideas by Burnham-supportimg MP's being flioated around. Byelection within weeks, Starmer to stay on as Foreign Sec. That might be a bit of a atrange idea for him, but I suppose stranger things have happened. Cameron stayed on as Foreign Sec umder Sunak, waan't it.

    Returned as, not stayed on.

    The last PM to serve under his immediate successor was Neville Chamberlain in 1940, and the last to do so for any length of time was Russell in 1852. (Technically that was his successor but one, but after a very short gap.)
    Yes, I was thinking that staying on immediately afterwards might be an odd experience. On the other hand, Starmer has shown skills and been reasonably respected on the more internatiomal stage, so why not make use of that.

    I'm not sure if sudden demotion would necessarily help that position of respect with his counterparts around the world, but who knows indeed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,949
    In exciting election news my trial may not start until Thursday now meaning that I will be able to vote after all. Now, what did I do with all those leaflets?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,342
    Next Thursday is ELE for Starmer
    There’s already an assumed status in the party that he won’t be PM by 2029
    Graham Stringer retires
    Keith tries a reshuffle and someone senior quits
    Can’t stop Burham as authority on NEC gone
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,851
    WhisperingOracle said:

    ydoethur said:

    WhisperingOracle said:

    Hello again to all PB'ers.

    Some interesting ideas by Burnham-supportimg MP's being flioated around. Byelection within weeks, Starmer to stay on as Foreign Sec. That might be a bit of a atrange idea for him, but I suppose stranger things have happened. Cameron stayed on as Foreign Sec umder Sunak, waan't it.

    Returned as, not stayed on.

    The last PM to serve under his immediate successor was Neville Chamberlain in 1940, and the last to do so for any length of time was Russell in 1852. (Technically that was his successor but one, but after a very short gap.)
    Yes, I was thinking that staying on immediately afterwards might be an odd experience. On the other hand, Starmer has shown skills and been reasomably respected on the more internatiomal stage. I don't if sudden demotion would necessarily help that position of respect with his counterparts around the world.
    I think it's the sort of thing you say to try and give your coup some sort of legitimacy before it launches that immediately gets binned 20 minutes after the coup succeeds, even if Starmer somehow was prepared to accept it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,514
    WhisperingOracle said:

    ydoethur said:

    WhisperingOracle said:

    Hello again to all PB'ers.

    Some interesting ideas by Burnham-supportimg MP's being flioated around. Byelection within weeks, Starmer to stay on as Foreign Sec. That might be a bit of a atrange idea for him, but I suppose stranger things have happened. Cameron stayed on as Foreign Sec umder Sunak, waan't it.

    Returned as, not stayed on.

    The last PM to serve under his immediate successor was Neville Chamberlain in 1940, and the last to do so for any length of time was Russell in 1852. (Technically that was his successor but one, but after a very short gap.)
    Yes, I was thinking that staying on immediately afterwards might be an odd experience. On the other hand, Starmer has shown skills and been reasomably respected on the more internatiomal stage. I don't if sudden demotion would necessarily help that position of respect with his counterparts around the world.
    Home served in Heath's shadow cabinet and as Foreign Secretary from 1970-74. He would be the last such logical example, but he was in opposition when he was forced out as leader.

    I cannot see Starmer being willing to accept a lesser office. Chamberlain was still party leader when he became Lord President and the situation was absolutely desperate. There's nothing comparable here.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958
    Leon said:

    FrankBooth said:

    Can someone explain the media's special relationship obsession? Is it a clickbait thing?

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/king-charles-has-saved-the-special-relationship-for-now/ar-AA229Fna?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=45e7a4f3fa1e46768a6b7d7842a0a69e&ei=10

    It may have been a real thing in the second world war. Perhaps our continuing fixation on WW2 extends the myth? And under Trump? The only special relationship he has is with himself. His preference is for hubristic splendid isolation (until things go wrong).

    The irony is that the Trump admin - despite its madness - is probably the most instinctively Anglophile US admin since Reagan

    Trump and Vance and others genuinely see the UK as the homeland. The mother country. What they hate is the lefty woke way the old country has been misgoverned for decades

    And for all their many other disastrous flaws, it’s hard to argue with their perception here
    Woke has only been a thing for the last decade.
    We haven't had left wing governments at all in the last few decades let alone a consistent run of them.

    But your last line is right, it's hard to argue with Trump. Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,480
    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Good evening

    All this speculation about Burnham seems unlikely, not least it assumes other potential leaders are going to put on one side their ambitions for the return of someone who expects to win the crown without a contest

    I assume next weekend, and before the King's speech, will be a very perilous time for Starmer (who is so unsuited to the job) and the opportunity for those hoping to claim the crown before the king of the north (which he is) attempts to roll up in the HOC

    Not necessarily though, the latest Britain Votes Now forecast for next week is Reform to win most local council seats with 1393, then Labour second with 1253, the LDs third with 789, the Tories 4th with 721 and the Greens fifth with 631. If those were the results I expect Starmer survives

    https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26/council-elections
    That equates to us losing half our seats. That's a shellacking.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,937
    edited May 1
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Good evening

    All this speculation about Burnham seems unlikely, not least it assumes other potential leaders are going to put on one side their ambitions for the return of someone who expects to win the crown without a contest

    I assume next weekend, and before the King's speech, will be a very perilous time for Starmer (who is so unsuited to the job) and the opportunity for those hoping to claim the crown before the king of the north (which he is) attempts to roll up in the HOC

    Not necessarily though, the latest Britain Votes Now forecast for next week is Reform to win most local council seats with 1393, then Labour second with 1253, the LDs third with 789, the Tories 4th with 721 and the Greens fifth with 631. If those were the results I expect Starmer survives

    https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26/council-elections
    Another set of laughable predictions unfortunately.
    Not necessarily, remember most council seats up in England this year are in urban areas and city councils including London where Labour will be stronger. Whereas most of the shires and market and seaside towns and rural England where Reform and the Tories will be stronger and Labour weakest voted in their county council elections last year and have their district and unitary council elections next year
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,826
    Leon said:

    FrankBooth said:

    Can someone explain the media's special relationship obsession? Is it a clickbait thing?

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/king-charles-has-saved-the-special-relationship-for-now/ar-AA229Fna?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=45e7a4f3fa1e46768a6b7d7842a0a69e&ei=10

    It may have been a real thing in the second world war. Perhaps our continuing fixation on WW2 extends the myth? And under Trump? The only special relationship he has is with himself. His preference is for hubristic splendid isolation (until things go wrong).

    The irony is that the Trump admin - despite its madness - is probably the most instinctively Anglophile US admin since Reagan

    Trump and Vance and others genuinely see the UK as the homeland. The mother country. What they hate is the lefty woke way the old country has been misgoverned for decades

    And for all their many other disastrous flaws, it’s hard to argue with their perception here
    "Recently the King of the United Kingdom visited the United States and gave a speech. Today, I want to check out some of the jokes King Charles made during his address to the US congress."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHXx9rs4NYI
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,514
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Leon said:

    FrankBooth said:

    Can someone explain the media's special relationship obsession? Is it a clickbait thing?

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/king-charles-has-saved-the-special-relationship-for-now/ar-AA229Fna?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=45e7a4f3fa1e46768a6b7d7842a0a69e&ei=10

    It may have been a real thing in the second world war. Perhaps our continuing fixation on WW2 extends the myth? And under Trump? The only special relationship he has is with himself. His preference is for hubristic splendid isolation (until things go wrong).

    The irony is that the Trump admin - despite its madness - is probably the most instinctively Anglophile US admin since Reagan

    Trump and Vance and others genuinely see the UK as the homeland. The mother country. What they hate is the lefty woke way the old country has been misgoverned for decades

    And for all their many other disastrous flaws, it’s hard to argue with their perception here
    "Recently the King of the United Kingdom visited the United States and gave a speech. Today, I want to check out some of the jokes King Charles made during his address to the US congress."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHXx9rs4NYI
    You can elect anyone as your president. Even a fat second generation immigrant with no brain cells and no dress sense who made his name as an inept TV performer.

    Oh shit, that's not a joke.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,514
    Punch, counter punch at the crucible.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,436
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Burnham failed in previous attempts but he is well regarded locally and I get why many in the party are desperate to try something 'new' rather than an existing Cabinet Member (or Rayner), but they are probably putting hopes before reality, and requiring a convoluted process to get in doesn't help - he cannot even be a candidate until he gets back to Westminster(?), and if Keir is going to go why would he wait until Burnham, who has been gunning for for ages, is ready?

    As the header notes winning a by-election may not be easy, even if Burnham might get a boost over a generic Labour candidate.

    The main reason is that while Streeting will alienate the left and Rayner will alienate the right, Burnham offers the chance of being a unity candidate, and the wiser Labour MPs, having lived through the Corbyn era, knows that another slow-burning civil war is the last thing Labour needs.
    Is anyone able to give an account of the principal differences in actual policy and practice between the 'left' and the 'right', along with an account of how Burnham's policies and practices will unify them and what they will be and why it is that the differences will suddenly cease to matter and why in all other circumstances it matters enough to have civil war?

    Unless this can be done I think this is in fact about friendships, deals, blocs, personalities, power, ambition and rhetoric.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 8,102
    DavidL said:

    In exciting election news my trial may not start until Thursday now meaning that I will be able to vote after all. Now, what did I do with all those leaflets?

    Remember that, due to the current dry weather, there’s a ban on outdoor fires. On the other hand, the binmen emptying the paper and cardboard bins are on overtime!
  • Leon_VotedForStarmerLeon_VotedForStarmer Posts: 69,000
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    FrankBooth said:

    Can someone explain the media's special relationship obsession? Is it a clickbait thing?

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/king-charles-has-saved-the-special-relationship-for-now/ar-AA229Fna?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=45e7a4f3fa1e46768a6b7d7842a0a69e&ei=10

    It may have been a real thing in the second world war. Perhaps our continuing fixation on WW2 extends the myth? And under Trump? The only special relationship he has is with himself. His preference is for hubristic splendid isolation (until things go wrong).

    The irony is that the Trump admin - despite its madness - is probably the most instinctively Anglophile US admin since Reagan

    Trump and Vance and others genuinely see the UK as the homeland. The mother country. What they hate is the lefty woke way the old country has been misgoverned for decades

    And for all their many other disastrous flaws, it’s hard to argue with their perception here
    The most clueless and corrupt US administration in history is hardly in a position to be casting aspersions of 'misgoverning' at anybody else.
    Jeezo. Missing the point or what
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2026