— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
So a Starmer and Burnham supporters alliance to stop West, which means she almost certainly will fail to get the 80 Labour MPs to nominate her she needs (unless Streeting and Rayner supporters briefly sign up for her to get their candidate in)
Wasn’t there reporting last week that Streeting had the numbers to prompt a challenge?
I agree that Labour could do much worse than Streeting. He actually talks like a human, for one. Whether he can actually do anything to fix their fortunes is a matter for debate, but he can’t be worse than the current incumbent (whereas other contenders really could be).
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
So a Starmer and Burnham supporters alliance to stop West, which means she almost certainly will fail to get the 80 Labour MPs to nominate her she needs (unless Streeting and Rayner supporters briefly sign up for her to get their candidate in)
Burnham is only relevant because he thinks he is relevant. Starmer much the same. Why don't Rayner and Streeting roll the dice anyway?
I agree that Labour could do much worse than Streeting. He actually talks like a human, for one. Whether he can actually do anything to fix their fortunes is a matter for debate, but he can’t be worse than the current incumbent (whereas other contenders really could be).
Yes. Rayner and Miliband really could be worse. Getting Burnham into the job could take many months they don’t have - and even then he could be worse, too
Streeting is there. Definitely better than Starmer. Shows some brains. Might even have a plan (but probably not). The Mandelson thing is awkward but not fatal
His problem is that he’s on the right of the party as it turns left to fight the Greens
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
I know that my ward is not exactly typical. However my analysis of the result is as follows: LDs lost some votes to the Greens. Tories lost more votes to Reform so the LD majority actually increased. The Greens beat Reform because they got votes from LD and Labour, whereas Reform only got votes from the Tories.
We’re experiencing a transition into a more fragmented European-style multi-party system. Labour and the Tories are facing competition for their core vote in a way they never have before. As a result they are struggling to identify strategies that allow them to retain previously loyal voters, while appealing to the centre, as Reform and the Greens hoover up the right and left bloc votes. The result is a paralysis of indecision and an increasingly dissatisfied electorate. And so the cycle continues, made worse by an electoral system unsuited to our new politics that encourages a narrow tactical approach from parties.
He also comments that, whilst Reform polled well in many areas, there are sufficient missed targets (Bexley, Swindon, Harlow, Bromley) to suggest that their vote and organisation are currently insufficient to point to a likely majority in a GE. He also observes that Reform's NEV share is down 4% from the 2025 locals.
He observes the symmetry emerging between the LibDems, who are the 'left' party of choice in areas that are too genteel to vote Labour, and the Tories, who are the 'right' party of choice for those areas too genteel to vote Reform. He sees the Greens underperformance arising from lack of organisation and campaigning nouse - an impression I'd certainly share from having seen them try and target the IOW.
For the next GE, he surmises that if the LibDems maintain a hold on say 70 seats and the Greens are limited by their current pitch to gunning for maybe 50 mostly urban seats, SNP/PC dominant but limited by their geography, and with the government unpopular, it's quite likely that none of the left parties will enter the election realistically able to land a majority, and coalition talk could come to dominate the campaign.
He thinks Labour will be pushed to renegotiating Brexit as its attempt at a 'get out of jail' card, because the geopolitical and economic pressures are such that it has little other option to try and re-energise its voters.
Finally he notes the irony that the different PR systems in Wales and Scotland have delivered results that are more likely to lead to stable administration than has FPTP for many local councils or that current FPTP projections look likely to deliver for the country. He says the case for PR for national elections "is now overwhelming". (he misses the opportunity that embracing PR could give Labour as another 'big idea' that doesn't have a significant financial cost)
It’s simpler, I think.
The older Conservative and Labour parties were coalitions. Instead of building a coalition in horse trading after an election, they went into elections with their coalition built.
In both cases, the coalition has broken up. Reform and the Greens (and then Scottish and Welsh nationalists) are about groups going their own way, rather than being “internal” parties.
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
So a Starmer and Burnham supporters alliance to stop West, which means she almost certainly will fail to get the 80 Labour MPs to nominate her she needs (unless Streeting and Rayner supporters briefly sign up for her to get their candidate in)
Burnham is only relevant because he thinks he is relevant. Starmer much the same. Why don't Rayner and Streeting roll the dice anyway?
I was told if they become leader in 2026 then there's a chance they are replaced in 2028 if things don't improve.
If they become leader in 2027 then they won't get replaced as leader before the election.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
While I can understand your reluctance to say it, to me that just sounds like you think (some) immigrants themselves are the problem. I don't necessarily disagree. I have some sympathy with the cultural point, but I think this would better be addressed by a confident and assertive assimilation programme which immigrants must sign up to as a condition of being here.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You seem to be conflating immigrants with asylum seekers who came over on a small boat. Most immigrants are not fleeing persecution. They come over as students (nearly all of whom then go back again), on skilled work visas or here because they fell in love with a Brit.
And immigration is way down. Hence the debate switch to "but what about all of them already here".
I think maxh understands that. My view is that the problem isn't perceived to be immigration per se - no one minds Canadians or Australians, very few mind Hong Kongers, not many mind Indians - it is specically immigration of skillless, largely young men, largely from the Middle East and North Africa, with a noticably different culture to our own. This is exemplified by, but not solely, small boat arrivals. (Students are a mixed bag: the majority are a benefit, however there is undeniably a significant number of dodgy not-really-students at not-really-universities).
I think that was what maxh was talking about, to be fair.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
While I can understand your reluctance to say it, to me that just sounds like you think (some) immigrants themselves are the problem. I don't necessarily disagree. I have some sympathy with the cultural point, but I think this would better be addressed by a confident and assertive assimilation programme which immigrants must sign up to as a condition of being here.
I don’t give a tiny little fuck what you think
Is that post "ban envy"?
No, it was genuine irritation at @maxh cheerfully projecting opinions on to me that I just explicitly said I do not have
I’m a tolerant old geezer but that can rub me up the wrong way, sometimes
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
So a Starmer and Burnham supporters alliance to stop West, which means she almost certainly will fail to get the 80 Labour MPs to nominate her she needs (unless Streeting and Rayner supporters briefly sign up for her to get their candidate in)
Burnham is only relevant because he thinks he is relevant. Starmer much the same. Why don't Rayner and Streeting roll the dice anyway?
I was told if they become leader in 2026 then there's a chance they are replaced in 2028 if things don't improve.
If they become leader in 2027 then they won't get replaced as leader before the election.
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
There’s a big difference between deporting those who have committed criminal offences , overstayed visas etc .
I don’t think anyone has an issue with that .
Deporting people who fulfilled their contract , have been law abiding citizens and done everything expected of them is disgusting.
In response to your first two paras - but we appear completely unable and unwillin to.
We saw with Brexit: the problem with not giving an inch in response to popular opinion on a subject is that in the end people end up voting for the extreme solution.
You write "we appear" and that's very accurate.
Thousands of foreign national offenders are deported every year, and the numbers being deported are increasing under Labour. The Telegraph and X pick on a tiny number of cases to give the impression that none are.
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
They could do a lot worse than Streeting. Indeed, I think he’s probably the best choice, despite the Mandelson connection
This Burnham as Messiah nonsense is nonsense. Streeting talks human, seems quite smart, has a working class background. Do it. And do it quick
But he’s on the right. Will Labour tolerate this? You’re a member
I really don't know. I think he wins if Burnham isn't there but that could be my pref and my book talking.
I agree on AB. I quite like him, and he's definitely a better package now than 10 years ago, eg his glasses really suit him, but the yearning seems a bit ott.
Counterproductive too because it sets you up for a letdown. He swoops, he comes, he conquers, then after the dust clears and you calm down you don't see Him anymore you just see ... Andy Burnham.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
While I can understand your reluctance to say it, to me that just sounds like you think (some) immigrants themselves are the problem. I don't necessarily disagree. I have some sympathy with the cultural point, but I think this would better be addressed by a confident and assertive assimilation programme which immigrants must sign up to as a condition of being here.
I don’t give a tiny little fuck what you think
Is that post "ban envy"?
No, it was genuine irritation at @maxh cheerfully projecting opinions on to me that I just explicitly said I do not have
I’m a tolerant old geezer but that can rub me up the wrong way, sometimes
I agree that Labour could do much worse than Streeting. He actually talks like a human, for one. Whether he can actually do anything to fix their fortunes is a matter for debate, but he can’t be worse than the current incumbent (whereas other contenders really could be).
Yes. Rayner and Miliband really could be worse. Getting Burnham into the job could take many months they don’t have - and even then he could be worse, too
Streeting is there. Definitely better than Starmer. Shows some brains. Might even have a plan (but probably not). The Mandelson thing is awkward but not fatal
His problem is that he’s on the right of the party as it turns left to fight the Greens
Streeting is also more working class than Burnham. Burnham's parents were lower middle class, Streeting grew up in a council flat with his single mother and his granddad was an armed robber who spent time in prison. Despite that background he got to Cambridge and took a first in History. His background is not much grander than Rayner's but his academic record is much better than Rayner's and he has held a more senior Cabinet post running a department than she has
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
So we have cast iron promises which must be fulfilled to immigrants but not to the people of this country ???
You can do both . By all means change the law so in future people know exactly the situation before they come .
For over twenty years governments have lied and broken promises about controlling immigration.
Why is this deemed acceptable and something that people who have been negatively affected have to put up with but making a change which negatively affects immigrants deemed unacceptable ?
How is it "deemed unacceptable"? Labour, following Sunak's lead, is delivering a huge fall in immigration, which is what (many) voters wanted.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
While I can understand your reluctance to say it, to me that just sounds like you think (some) immigrants themselves are the problem. I don't necessarily disagree. I have some sympathy with the cultural point, but I think this would better be addressed by a confident and assertive assimilation programme which immigrants must sign up to as a condition of being here.
I don’t give a tiny little fuck what you think
Is that post "ban envy"?
No, it was genuine irritation at @maxh cheerfully projecting opinions on to me that I just explicitly said I do not have
I’m a tolerant old geezer but that can rub me up the wrong way, sometimes
Excuse me for choking!
Hah. But it’s true. I get called all sorts of names on here and I ignore them all, mainly because I enjoy doing it myself - dishing out insults - and I’m not a hypocrite
But saying “you have this opinion” right after I’ve said “I do not have this opinion” is both annoying and corrosive
Anyway. Enough navel-gazing. I gotta work and do stuff. Later
Looking at headline numbers, the Tories can claim that they didn't do as badly as last year. But it isn't as straightforward as that.
Firstly, they were starting from a relatively low base, so losing on top of losses 4 years ago isn't a good look for a start.
Secondly, the London results were so much better for them than the rest of the country:
Overall: 801 seats, down 563; a reduction of 41%
London: 407 seats, up 3
Rest of England: 394 seats, down 566; a reduction of 59%
Add to that, losing three quarters of their (nominal) seats in Wales and two thirds in Scotland, all I can conclude is that (aside from London)...
IT WAS A TERRRRRRIBLE NIGHT FOR THE CONSERVATIVES!
I think similarly to Labour the Tory party is also dominated by the London agenda. Reform are, IMO, the only party who are out there talking to the rest of the country. The Tories need to learn fast over the next couple of years to expand the conversation to everywhere else in England, not just the South East and London.
The lessons here for the Tory party is that Kemi and the rest of the party need to get out of London for the next year and speak to ordinary people like those mentioned by @Cookie living on streets with lots of HMOs and other unliveable environments created by bad policy. A year of listening to the concerns of voters who aren't wealthy southerners would do the Tories the world of good and I hope that's what is next for Kemi and the rest of the senior leadership.
But outside of London, the Tories have lost the southerners too. An arc from the Isle of Wight to Norfolk gave the Tories a kicking.
Not entirely true, the Tories still have most seats on Hampshire County Council and have more seats than Reform on Wiltshire CC, Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire CCs, Hertfordshire CC and on East and West Surrey and Buckinghamshire unitary councils (Bucks has a Tory majority still).
Harlow, Broxbourne and Fareham councils are also still majority Tory controlled
Cambs didn't have elections this year! And the LDs are now the largest party after the Tories lost 18 seats last year. In South Cambs district, the Tories just lost six of the eight seats they have left, in Cambridge they won nothing, in Huntingdonshire (once the safest Tory area in the country) they lost 7 seats and the LDs are now the largest party, in Peterborough they lost one seat.
The same on Oxon where the LDs are also the largest party after the Tories lost 10 seats last year. In Oxford there are no Tories left, in Cherwell they lost 4 seats and only held 2, in West Oxon they did actually pick up three but the LDs are still largest party.
And in Wiltshire where the LDs are the largest party after the Tories lost 24 seats last year.
Citing areas that didn't have county elections this year is scraping the barrel of argumentation, even for you!!
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
While I can understand your reluctance to say it, to me that just sounds like you think (some) immigrants themselves are the problem. I don't necessarily disagree. I have some sympathy with the cultural point, but I think this would better be addressed by a confident and assertive assimilation programme which immigrants must sign up to as a condition of being here.
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
They could do a lot worse than Streeting. Indeed, I think he’s probably the best choice, despite the Mandelson connection
This Burnham as Messiah nonsense is nonsense. Streeting talks human, seems quite smart, has a working class background. Do it. And do it quick
But he’s on the right. Will Labour tolerate this? You’re a member
I really don't know. I think he wins if Burnham isn't there but that could be my pref and my book talking.
I agree on AB. I quite like him, and he's definitely a better package now than 10 years ago, eg his glasses really suit him, but the yearning seems a bit ott.
Counterproductive too because it sets you up for a letdown. He swoops, he comes, he conquers, then after the dust clears and you calm down you don't see Him anymore you just see ... Andy Burnham.
Burnham is setting himself up for a fall. The way his supporters are briefing about him is positively messianic. He’s been an effective local mayor. It doesnt translate that he’ll make an effective PM. The entitlement dripping from the briefings is even worse than the days of the Brownites fantasising about the day their man finally was going to get the job.
I agree that Labour could do much worse than Streeting. He actually talks like a human, for one. Whether he can actually do anything to fix their fortunes is a matter for debate, but he can’t be worse than the current incumbent (whereas other contenders really could be).
Yes. Rayner and Miliband really could be worse. Getting Burnham into the job could take many months they don’t have - and even then he could be worse, too
Streeting is there. Definitely better than Starmer. Shows some brains. Might even have a plan (but probably not). The Mandelson thing is awkward but not fatal
His problem is that he’s on the right of the party as it turns left to fight the Greens
Streeting is also more working class than Burnham. Burnham's parents were lower middle class, Streeting grew up in a council flat with his single mother and his granddad was an armed robber who spent time in prison. Despite that background he got to Cambridge and took a first in History. His background is not much grander than Rayner's but his academic record is much better than Rayner's and he has held a more senior Cabinet post running a department than she has
Streeting can also point to last week's council results where Labour romped home in his manor, Redbridge, but fell apart in chez Burnham & Rayner. Being able to lead a campaign is important, especially to backbenchers looking at their own areas' results. https://election.news.sky.com/elections/england-councils-2026/redbridge-4842
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
I know that my ward is not exactly typical. However my analysis of the result is as follows: LDs lost some votes to the Greens. Tories lost more votes to Reform so the LD majority actually increased. The Greens beat Reform because they got votes from LD and Labour, whereas Reform only got votes from the Tories.
Make of that what you will.
May have been the case with you. Not here in Epping Forest where the LDs lost their one seat up to Reform and came third behind the Tories and Reform in the two wards they had won most votes and 2/3 of the seats in in 2024, one incumbent Tory holding on in Epping and the other losing to Reform in Theydon Bois (Reform also won the county seat with the Tories second and LDs falling from second in 2021 to third).
The Greens also lost their one district council seat in Buckhurst Hill to Reform and the Tories won the other Buckhurst Hill seat with the Greens falling from second to third behind Reform
I agree that Labour could do much worse than Streeting. He actually talks like a human, for one. Whether he can actually do anything to fix their fortunes is a matter for debate, but he can’t be worse than the current incumbent (whereas other contenders really could be).
He shoots his prisoners, even those on his own side. Order your popcorn early, sit back and await developments....
The daft thing about the 10 years thing is that the very thing which prompted the coup against Blair was him telling the Times that he would go on and on. Part of the problem in politics these days is that half the people doing it and half the people advising them seem to have no knowledge of anything which happened more than 5 years ago
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
They could do a lot worse than Streeting. Indeed, I think he’s probably the best choice, despite the Mandelson connection
This Burnham as Messiah nonsense is nonsense. Streeting talks human, seems quite smart, has a working class background. Do it. And do it quick
But he’s on the right. Will Labour tolerate this? You’re a member
I really don't know. I think he wins if Burnham isn't there but that could be my pref and my book talking.
I agree on AB. I quite like him, and he's definitely a better package now than 10 years ago, eg his glasses really suit him, but the yearning seems a bit ott.
Counterproductive too because it sets you up for a letdown. He swoops, he comes, he conquers, then after the dust clears and you calm down you don't see Him anymore you just see ... Andy Burnham.
That’s exactly right and I predict that’s what would happen. All this wild but agonisingly prolonged expectation then you end up with another boring identikit Labour politician who also does nothing. Thats worse. And it will be later in the electoral cycle
Forget Burnham. Do it now. Make the choice. Staunch the bleeding. Is my non partisan advice to Labour
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
Dan Carden made the point does Labour even want to represent these people anymore.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
Yes but what is "the something to help these communities" that Labour is not doing, that someone else could?
Starter for 10: stop telling people what they are supposed to think and listen to what they do think.
For all councils I would start with the absolute fucking basics. Spend the money so that these places don't look like slums. Pull the weeds, fill the cracks, fix the pot holes. Community action - we are going to put the pride back into our local area. A wholesale blitzing of litter and crap. Make the place look like the kind of place people want to live. Go fix the endless list of stupid - close to me is a school with broken heating stuck on which the council rules don't allow to be fixed as the school is being replaced 5 years ago.
And whilst you do it, market the shit out of it. Facebook and TikTok reels, community engagement. Town meetings - what can we fix? And then show them you're doing it.
"there's no money for this" is the excuse, but there's always money to deal with the chaos created by cuts. Change the budget priorities.
Left behind communities want some attention and upkeep. Do that and be amazed how the mood shifts.
On one hand, absolutely.
In the other, given the choice between using the savings they found to spend on making their neighbourhoods better, and using them to reduce the rate of growth in Council Tax levels, Reform councils go for the latter.
There is a slice of the Reform vote who have been let down for decades. Even if the decline of industrial towns was inevitable, the transition to a world where productive jobs happen in cities should have been lubricated better. That's not just metros for commuters, but it's a lot of it.
But plenty of Reform voters are the extremely comfortable- more the White Retired Class- who just don't like paying taxes and are cross with the consequences of their preference. But not so cross as to change their preference.
There’s a big difference between deporting those who have committed criminal offences , overstayed visas etc .
I don’t think anyone has an issue with that .
Deporting people who fulfilled their contract , have been law abiding citizens and done everything expected of them is disgusting.
In response to your first two paras - but we appear completely unable and unwillin to.
We saw with Brexit: the problem with not giving an inch in response to popular opinion on a subject is that in the end people end up voting for the extreme solution.
People are being deported, in larger numbers than they were under the previous govt. The deliberate slowing of processing and deportations under the Conservatives resulted in the large numbers being housed in temporary, unsuitable accommodation and ensuing social problems, perceptions that have fueled the popularity of Reform.
Neither the Conservatives, Reform or the media that support them have an interest in Labour resolving or mitigating the problem that the Conservatives exacerbated.
While that is true, and the truly out of control wave of immigration came after Brexit, and was under governments which our prominent Leavers voted for (you know who you are), even the most hypocritical of that group are right to point out Labour's abject failure on housebuilding.
It was the single thing they could have done to move the dial, which might have been achieved without troubling the exchequer. It was their one stated policy, and even those of. U.S. who didn't vote for them (me) had high hopes, sadly dashed, that they might actually deliver on that.
Instead they trod water for a year and a half.
That Rayner was originally in charge of delivery gives me little hope that she'd be any better than Starmer.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 16m The Labour Party is a strange beast & it's hard to interpret its movements, but my guess is that Starmer can't last the week without either announcing a timetable for his departure or facing a formal challenge. I think it's either or, now - or both.
I agree that Labour could do much worse than Streeting. He actually talks like a human, for one. Whether he can actually do anything to fix their fortunes is a matter for debate, but he can’t be worse than the current incumbent (whereas other contenders really could be).
Yes. Rayner and Miliband really could be worse. Getting Burnham into the job could take many months they don’t have - and even then he could be worse, too
Streeting is there. Definitely better than Starmer. Shows some brains. Might even have a plan (but probably not). The Mandelson thing is awkward but not fatal
His problem is that he’s on the right of the party as it turns left to fight the Greens
Weren't you just telling us that left and right are now irrelevant metrics ?
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
Trouble is, large blocks of Red Reform voters don't think they are on the Right. They think there's going to be more social housing and increased benefits for the poor, whilst taking an axe to the rich. Utterly bizarre.
Not really, 84% of Reform voters wanted the 2 child benefit cap kept compared to only 60% of voters overall
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 16m The Labour Party is a strange beast & it's hard to interpret its movements, but my guess is that Starmer can't last the week without either announcing a timetable for his departure or facing a formal challenge. I think it's either or, now - or both.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
While I can understand your reluctance to say it, to me that just sounds like you think (some) immigrants themselves are the problem. I don't necessarily disagree. I have some sympathy with the cultural point, but I think this would better be addressed by a confident and assertive assimilation programme which immigrants must sign up to as a condition of being here.
I don’t give a tiny little fuck what you think
Is that post "ban envy"?
No, it was genuine irritation at @maxh cheerfully projecting opinions on to me that I just explicitly said I do not have
I’m a tolerant old geezer but that can rub me up the wrong way, sometimes
Excuse me for choking!
Hah. But it’s true. I get called all sorts of names on here and I ignore them all, mainly because I enjoy doing it myself - dishing out insults - and I’m not a hypocrite
But saying “you have this opinion” right after I’ve said “I do not have this opinion” is both annoying and corrosive
Anyway. Enough navel-gazing. I gotta work and do stuff. Later
You could usefully pop out and give your wheeliebins a jet wash, and encourage your neighbours to line them up more neatly. I drove down your road yesterday and the dirty wheelie bins randomly scattered on those short front paths aren't of the standard that one would hope for from Primrose-Hill-borders. And get the council to move those barriers dumped across the road now the roadworks for HS2 appear to be done.
There’s a big difference between deporting those who have committed criminal offences , overstayed visas etc .
I don’t think anyone has an issue with that .
Deporting people who fulfilled their contract , have been law abiding citizens and done everything expected of them is disgusting.
In response to your first two paras - but we appear completely unable and unwillin to.
We saw with Brexit: the problem with not giving an inch in response to popular opinion on a subject is that in the end people end up voting for the extreme solution.
You write "we appear" and that's very accurate.
Thousands of foreign national offenders are deported every year, and the numbers being deported are increasing under Labour. The Telegraph and X pick on a tiny number of cases to give the impression that none are.
What is 'thousands' as a proportion?
Hopefully it's a smaller proportion than those who arrive on small boats under SKS's 17-in-one-out-then-that-one-back-in-again scheme.
The daft thing about the 10 years thing is that the very thing which prompted the coup against Blair was him telling the Times that he would go on and on. Part of the problem in politics these days is that half the people doing it and half the people advising them seem to have no knowledge of anything which happened more than 5 years ago
I agree that Labour could do much worse than Streeting. He actually talks like a human, for one. Whether he can actually do anything to fix their fortunes is a matter for debate, but he can’t be worse than the current incumbent (whereas other contenders really could be).
Yes. Rayner and Miliband really could be worse. Getting Burnham into the job could take many months they don’t have - and even then he could be worse, too
Streeting is there. Definitely better than Starmer. Shows some brains. Might even have a plan (but probably not). The Mandelson thing is awkward but not fatal
His problem is that he’s on the right of the party as it turns left to fight the Greens
Streeting is also more working class than Burnham. Burnham's parents were lower middle class, Streeting grew up in a council flat with his single mother and his granddad was an armed robber who spent time in prison. Despite that background he got to Cambridge and took a first in History. His background is not much grander than Rayner's but his academic record is much better than Rayner's and he has held a more senior Cabinet post running a department than she has
Streeting can also point to last week's council results where Labour romped home in his manor, Redbridge, but fell apart in chez Burnham & Rayner. Being able to lead a campaign is important, especially to backbenchers looking at their own areas' results. https://election.news.sky.com/elections/england-councils-2026/redbridge-4842
Streeting could be the Macron to Starmer's Hollande
As some of you know my wife has been quite ill recently and it looks very like she has celiac disease
In 2020 she had a high likelihood comment on her blood readings but due to covid it was overlooked and she now has iron defiency anemia and the iron tablets made her terribly ill
The doctor and consultant have been wonderful with us and she is due an endyscope procedure in 10 days to confirm the diagnosis
However, she has to continue eating wheat products even though they are making her ill until the procedure, so not to mask the result
I am readying our food and cooking to go gluten free and apparently we get a Wales NHS credit card loaded to buy gluten free food for life
We can afford to buy the food so maybe this should be means tested
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
So a Starmer and Burnham supporters alliance to stop West, which means she almost certainly will fail to get the 80 Labour MPs to nominate her she needs (unless Streeting and Rayner supporters briefly sign up for her to get their candidate in)
Burnham is only relevant because he thinks he is relevant. Starmer much the same. Why don't Rayner and Streeting roll the dice anyway?
I was told if they become leader in 2026 then there's a chance they are replaced in 2028 if things don't improve.
If they become leader in 2027 then they won't get replaced as leader before the election.
Fills you with optimism that they're so confident in their own ability!!
That's the over-cautious timidity that has resulted in the Starmer fiasco
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
I know that my ward is not exactly typical. However my analysis of the result is as follows: LDs lost some votes to the Greens. Tories lost more votes to Reform so the LD majority actually increased. The Greens beat Reform because they got votes from LD and Labour, whereas Reform only got votes from the Tories.
Make of that what you will.
May have been the case with you. Not here in Epping Forest where the LDs lost their one seat up to Reform and came third behind the Tories and Reform in the two wards they had won most votes and 2/3 of the seats in in 2024, one incumbent Tory holding on in Epping and the other losing to Reform in Theydon Bois (Reform also won the county seat with the Tories second and LDs falling from second in 2021 to third).
The Greens also lost their one district council seat in Buckhurst Hill to Reform and the Tories won the other Buckhurst Hill seat with the Greens falling from second to third behind Reform
In Epping Forest the Tories lost vote share of over 12% and came second for the first time ever, holding only four of twelve seats defended.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
I know that my ward is not exactly typical. However my analysis of the result is as follows: LDs lost some votes to the Greens. Tories lost more votes to Reform so the LD majority actually increased. The Greens beat Reform because they got votes from LD and Labour, whereas Reform only got votes from the Tories.
Make of that what you will.
There's a pretty good article here on Labour's failure in Yorkshire.
As some of you know my wife has been quite ill recently and it looks very like she has celiac disease
In 2020 she had a high likelihood comment on her blood readings but due to covid it was overlooked and she now has iron defiency anemia and the iron tablets made her terribly ill
The doctor and consultant have been wonderful with us and she is due an endyscope procedure in 10 days to confirm the diagnosis
However, she has to continue eating wheat products even though they are making her ill until the procedure, so not to mask the result
I am readying our food and cooking to go gluten free and apparently we get a Wales NHS credit card loaded to buy gluten free food for life
We can afford to buy the food so maybe this should be means tested
Good that it is diagnosed and so easily treatable.
Means testing is inefficient and produces cliff edges. Make the benefit taxable.
Looking at headline numbers, the Tories can claim that they didn't do as badly as last year. But it isn't as straightforward as that.
Firstly, they were starting from a relatively low base, so losing on top of losses 4 years ago isn't a good look for a start.
Secondly, the London results were so much better for them than the rest of the country:
Overall: 801 seats, down 563; a reduction of 41%
London: 407 seats, up 3
Rest of England: 394 seats, down 566; a reduction of 59%
Add to that, losing three quarters of their (nominal) seats in Wales and two thirds in Scotland, all I can conclude is that (aside from London)...
IT WAS A TERRRRRRIBLE NIGHT FOR THE CONSERVATIVES!
I think similarly to Labour the Tory party is also dominated by the London agenda. Reform are, IMO, the only party who are out there talking to the rest of the country. The Tories need to learn fast over the next couple of years to expand the conversation to everywhere else in England, not just the South East and London.
The lessons here for the Tory party is that Kemi and the rest of the party need to get out of London for the next year and speak to ordinary people like those mentioned by @Cookie living on streets with lots of HMOs and other unliveable environments created by bad policy. A year of listening to the concerns of voters who aren't wealthy southerners would do the Tories the world of good and I hope that's what is next for Kemi and the rest of the senior leadership.
What is clear is class is back in a big way for the Tory vote and has overtaken age again as the key predictor of whether you vote Tory or not.
On Thursday the Tories did best in areas they held even in the 1997 general election or 1998 local elections, Hampshire, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Fareham, Broxbourne, Chigwell etc and the only Tory council gain of the night was in Westminster, average property price £1,373,157 but average age only 44. Whereas it was Reform who did best in areas with lots of pensioners and over 50s, in rural areas and seaside and non commuter market towns and ex industrial towns.
The only council the Tories held and won on Thursday they did not hold the council or parliamentary seat in 1997 or 1998 was Harlow, if Kemi wants to go anywhere on Thursday she should go there. The Tories held a council which was a top Reform target comfortably and gained seats from Labour by regenerating and developing the town, Harlow is even now getting an M & S
There’s a big difference between deporting those who have committed criminal offences , overstayed visas etc .
I don’t think anyone has an issue with that .
Deporting people who fulfilled their contract , have been law abiding citizens and done everything expected of them is disgusting.
In response to your first two paras - but we appear completely unable and unwillin to.
We saw with Brexit: the problem with not giving an inch in response to popular opinion on a subject is that in the end people end up voting for the extreme solution.
You write "we appear" and that's very accurate.
Thousands of foreign national offenders are deported every year, and the numbers being deported are increasing under Labour. The Telegraph and X pick on a tiny number of cases to give the impression that none are.
What is 'thousands' as a proportion?
Hopefully it's a smaller proportion than those who arrive on small boats under SKS's 17-in-one-out-then-that-one-back-in-again scheme.
We go through these stats around once a month on pb. If even regular contributors, clearly, capable, interested and passionate about the topic itself, cannot be bothered to remember the facts, what chance do we have?
Something went badly wrong for Labour in opposition didn’t it? They never fully renewed. Milliband and Burnham? Streeting?
Had Cameron fallen in 2012, it wouldn’t have been a Major vintage cabinet minister that succeeded him. Ok, maybe Hague. But what we are seeing here is the equivalent of Redwood fighting it out with Portillo.
Something went badly wrong for Labour in opposition didn’t it? They never fully renewed. Milliband and Burnham? Streeting?
Had Cameron fallen in 2012, it wouldn’t have been a Major vintage cabinet minister that succeeded him. Ok, maybe Hague. But what we are seeing here is the equivalent of Redwood fighting it out with Portillo.
Farage is polling well below Blair was then though and Burnham polls far better than Redwood or Portillo did then, he is more Heseltine 1990 than Redwood or Portillo 1995. Indeed Streeting could be Major 1990 and Farage Kinnock, heading for government but very much marmite if the governing party got a new and more popular leader
As some of you know my wife has been quite ill recently and it looks very like she has celiac disease
In 2020 she had a high likelihood comment on her blood readings but due to covid it was overlooked and she now has iron defiency anemia and the iron tablets made her terribly ill
The doctor and consultant have been wonderful with us and she is due an endyscope procedure in 10 days to confirm the diagnosis
However, she has to continue eating wheat products even though they are making her ill until the procedure, so not to mask the result
I am readying our food and cooking to go gluten free and apparently we get a Wales NHS credit card loaded to buy gluten free food for life
We can afford to buy the food so maybe this should be means tested
Good that it is diagnosed and so easily treatable.
Means testing is inefficient and produces cliff edges. Make the benefit taxable.
I receive a payment to assist with carer support. It opens a few other doors. I agree about taxing such benefits.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
I know that my ward is not exactly typical. However my analysis of the result is as follows: LDs lost some votes to the Greens. Tories lost more votes to Reform so the LD majority actually increased. The Greens beat Reform because they got votes from LD and Labour, whereas Reform only got votes from the Tories.
Make of that what you will.
May have been the case with you. Not here in Epping Forest where the LDs lost their one seat up to Reform and came third behind the Tories and Reform in the two wards they had won most votes and 2/3 of the seats in in 2024, one incumbent Tory holding on in Epping and the other losing to Reform in Theydon Bois (Reform also won the county seat with the Tories second and LDs falling from second in 2021 to third).
The Greens also lost their one district council seat in Buckhurst Hill to Reform and the Tories won the other Buckhurst Hill seat with the Greens falling from second to third behind Reform
In Epping Forest the Tories lost vote share of over 12% and came second for the first time ever, holding only four of twelve seats defended.
The Tories still held 4 seats, the LDs and Greens won 0 and would be wiped out at next year's unitary elections in Epping Forest if the results were repeated
As some of you know my wife has been quite ill recently and it looks very like she has celiac disease
In 2020 she had a high likelihood comment on her blood readings but due to covid it was overlooked and she now has iron defiency anemia and the iron tablets made her terribly ill
The doctor and consultant have been wonderful with us and she is due an endyscope procedure in 10 days to confirm the diagnosis
However, she has to continue eating wheat products even though they are making her ill until the procedure, so not to mask the result
I am readying our food and cooking to go gluten free and apparently we get a Wales NHS credit card loaded to buy gluten free food for life
We can afford to buy the food so maybe this should be means tested
Good that it is diagnosed and so easily treatable.
Means testing is inefficient and produces cliff edges. Make the benefit taxable.
I receive a payment to assist with carer support. It opens a few other doors. I agree about taxing such benefits.
I think you make all such things taxable, but you also have a very much higher personal allowance c. £20k and tick up the base rate for the rest of us to compensate.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
"A recent study led by Grace Liu at Carnegie-Mellon found that regular AI use caused measurable cognitive impairment."
That could explain some posts allegedly originating from someone with an IQ of 155.
Perhaps the problems that PB have been suffering have been caused by several million personalities if he same individual running LLMs?
That would explain why threads are so long these days. Sometimes I pop in, see there are hundreds of unread posts in the current thread, and head back out again.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
I know that my ward is not exactly typical. However my analysis of the result is as follows: LDs lost some votes to the Greens. Tories lost more votes to Reform so the LD majority actually increased. The Greens beat Reform because they got votes from LD and Labour, whereas Reform only got votes from the Tories.
Make of that what you will.
May have been the case with you. Not here in Epping Forest where the LDs lost their one seat up to Reform and came third behind the Tories and Reform in the two wards they had won most votes and 2/3 of the seats in in 2024, one incumbent Tory holding on in Epping and the other losing to Reform in Theydon Bois (Reform also won the county seat with the Tories second and LDs falling from second in 2021 to third).
The Greens also lost their one district council seat in Buckhurst Hill to Reform and the Tories won the other Buckhurst Hill seat with the Greens falling from second to third behind Reform
In Epping Forest the Tories lost vote share of over 12% and came second for the first time ever, holding only four of twelve seats defended.
The Tories still held 4 seats, the LDs and Greens won 0 and would be wiped out at next year's unitary elections in Epping Forest if the results were repeated
Two more cycles like this year and there'll be 33 Reform and just 12 Tories. Hardly a sign of Conservative strength?
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
I wonder if there is someone Burnham trusts to run as a placeholder for him?
I'll make the same point I have made before. Many on the left say they are tired of Starmerism and want something more progressive. Well what exactly. A wealth tax? A full review of council tax bands? And what would the money be spent on? The fixation on getting closer to the EU just suggests they are out of ideas.
Something went badly wrong for Labour in opposition didn’t it? They never fully renewed. Milliband and Burnham? Streeting?
Had Cameron fallen in 2012, it wouldn’t have been a Major vintage cabinet minister that succeeded him. Ok, maybe Hague. But what we are seeing here is the equivalent of Redwood fighting it out with Portillo.
Corbyn happened.
The generation who ought to be papable about now either lost their seats in the fiasco of 2019, or gave up in despair. Hence Starmer's victory in 2020.
The Conservatives have got this to look forward to, if they survive.
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
They could do a lot worse than Streeting. Indeed, I think he’s probably the best choice, despite the Mandelson connection
This Burnham as Messiah nonsense is nonsense. Streeting talks human, seems quite smart, has a working class background. Do it. And do it quick
But he’s on the right. Will Labour tolerate this? You’re a member
I really don't know. I think he wins if Burnham isn't there but that could be my pref and my book talking.
I agree on AB. I quite like him, and he's definitely a better package now than 10 years ago, eg his glasses really suit him, but the yearning seems a bit ott.
Counterproductive too because it sets you up for a letdown. He swoops, he comes, he conquers, then after the dust clears and you calm down you don't see Him anymore you just see ... Andy Burnham.
That’s exactly right and I predict that’s what would happen. All this wild but agonisingly prolonged expectation then you end up with another boring identikit Labour politician who also does nothing. Thats worse. And it will be later in the electoral cycle
Forget Burnham. Do it now. Make the choice. Staunch the bleeding. Is my non partisan advice to Labour
And that really is it. Pot of tea. Flint. Knap
Speaking as the last remaining Labour Party member I also agree with this. It's not like there's some great ideological struggle at stake here, and it's also not like there's some fabulously charismatic alternative leader, Burnham definitely isn't that. There's an argument for switching Kier for someone who's a better communicator and can drive the news cycle a bit better, if someone wants to run then let them run, let's hear how they sound and what their alternative plan is like, if it's good I'll vote for them. But the worst thing to do is to keep Starmer there, but constantly be scheming against him and briefing the press about some future thing.
This is also why I'm very sick of Burnham's bullshit. Even when he was trying to get back into parliament he didn't come out and say, "I would like to be leader, here's my plan for what I would do differently, let me back into parliament so I can run". He did some vague shite about wanting to get back into the cabinet or something. If he'd got into parliament he'd probably still be scheming and feeding the press stories about splits. If someone who's actually eligible for the job wants to run for it, go ahead and run. If they win cool, if they don't STFU.
I'll make the same point I have made before. Many on the left say they are tired of Starmerism and want something more progressive. Well what exactly. A wealth tax? A full review of council tax bands? And what would the money be spent on? The fixation on getting closer to the EU just suggests they are out of ideas.
Do you want me to write you a Red or Blue Labour manifesto that might actually work? Work, as in keeping the Labour coalition together and maybe even improving the state of the country?
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
They could do a lot worse than Streeting. Indeed, I think he’s probably the best choice, despite the Mandelson connection
This Burnham as Messiah nonsense is nonsense. Streeting talks human, seems quite smart, has a working class background. Do it. And do it quick
But he’s on the right. Will Labour tolerate this? You’re a member
I really don't know. I think he wins if Burnham isn't there but that could be my pref and my book talking.
I agree on AB. I quite like him, and he's definitely a better package now than 10 years ago, eg his glasses really suit him, but the yearning seems a bit ott.
Counterproductive too because it sets you up for a letdown. He swoops, he comes, he conquers, then after the dust clears and you calm down you don't see Him anymore you just see ... Andy Burnham.
That’s exactly right and I predict that’s what would happen. All this wild but agonisingly prolonged expectation then you end up with another boring identikit Labour politician who also does nothing. Thats worse. And it will be later in the electoral cycle
Forget Burnham. Do it now. Make the choice. Staunch the bleeding. Is my non partisan advice to Labour
And that really is it. Pot of tea. Flint. Knap
Speaking as the last remaining Labour Party member I also agree with this. It's not like there's some great ideological struggle at stake here, and it's also not like there's some fabulously charismatic alternative leader, Burnham definitely isn't that. There's an argument for switching Kier for someone who's a better communicator and can drive the news cycle a bit better, if someone wants to run then let them run, let's hear how they sound and what their alternative plan is like, if it's good I'll vote for them. But the worst thing to do is to keep Starmer there, but constantly be scheming against him and briefing the press about some future thing.
This is also why I'm very sick of Burnham's bullshit. Even when he was trying to get back into parliament he didn't come out and say, "I would like to be leader, here's my plan for what I would do differently, let me back into parliament so I can run". He did some vague shite about wanting to get back into the cabinet or something. If he'd got into parliament he'd probably still be scheming and feeding the press stories about splits. If someone who's actually eligible for the job wants to run for it, go ahead and run. If they win cool, if they don't STFU.
As I posted earlier I don't understand why people talk about 'hating' Starmer. But because they do, I suspect he's got to go.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
I wonder if there is someone Burnham trusts to run as a placeholder for him?
That nice Ed Miliband chap seems like the sort you could make such a deal with and expect him to honour it.......surely?
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Not quite.
Burnham, Streeting and Rayner are all, for different reasons, likely to be downgrades. The best hope for Labour is someone currently on the rung below being promoted and impressing- see John Major for the case study.
I do wonder if part of the urgency of the old big three is the realisation that they are going to be shifted to the Reduced To Clear counter pretty soon.
If Starmer doesn't reshuffle soon to achieve this, serves him right.
maxh - if people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics, then such people are very unlikely to assimilate into life in the UK. Why is this so hard to understand?
Something went badly wrong for Labour in opposition didn’t it? They never fully renewed. Milliband and Burnham? Streeting?
Had Cameron fallen in 2012, it wouldn’t have been a Major vintage cabinet minister that succeeded him. Ok, maybe Hague. But what we are seeing here is the equivalent of Redwood fighting it out with Portillo.
Farage is polling well below Blair was then though and Burnham polls far better than Redwood or Portillo did then, he is more Heseltine 1990 than Redwood or Portillo 1995. Indeed Streeting could be Major 1990 and Farage Kinnock, heading for government but very much marmite if the governing party got a new and more popular leader
It could be that West is Howe, Streeting is Heseltine, and Kyle or Lammy is Major.
West = Howe being the closest. She has struggled with the dilemma for perhaps too long and it is time now for others to consider their own response.
Alex Wickham @alexwickham · 21m There is now a coordinated effort on the Labour left to BLOCK a challenge this week to stop Streeting. After John McDonnell said as much this morning, Richard Burgon and Ian Byrne have published similar statements opposing the Catherine West plan for an immediate contest.
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
They could do a lot worse than Streeting. Indeed, I think he’s probably the best choice, despite the Mandelson connection
This Burnham as Messiah nonsense is nonsense. Streeting talks human, seems quite smart, has a working class background. Do it. And do it quick
But he’s on the right. Will Labour tolerate this? You’re a member
I really don't know. I think he wins if Burnham isn't there but that could be my pref and my book talking.
I agree on AB. I quite like him, and he's definitely a better package now than 10 years ago, eg his glasses really suit him, but the yearning seems a bit ott.
Counterproductive too because it sets you up for a letdown. He swoops, he comes, he conquers, then after the dust clears and you calm down you don't see Him anymore you just see ... Andy Burnham.
That’s exactly right and I predict that’s what would happen. All this wild but agonisingly prolonged expectation then you end up with another boring identikit Labour politician who also does nothing. Thats worse. And it will be later in the electoral cycle
Forget Burnham. Do it now. Make the choice. Staunch the bleeding. Is my non partisan advice to Labour
And that really is it. Pot of tea. Flint. Knap
Speaking as the last remaining Labour Party member I also agree with this. It's not like there's some great ideological struggle at stake here, and it's also not like there's some fabulously charismatic alternative leader, Burnham definitely isn't that. There's an argument for switching Kier for someone who's a better communicator and can drive the news cycle a bit better, if someone wants to run then let them run, let's hear how they sound and what their alternative plan is like, if it's good I'll vote for them. But the worst thing to do is to keep Starmer there, but constantly be scheming against him and briefing the press about some future thing.
This is also why I'm very sick of Burnham's bullshit. Even when he was trying to get back into parliament he didn't come out and say, "I would like to be leader, here's my plan for what I would do differently, let me back into parliament so I can run". He did some vague shite about wanting to get back into the cabinet or something. If he'd got into parliament he'd probably still be scheming and feeding the press stories about splits. If someone who's actually eligible for the job wants to run for it, go ahead and run. If they win cool, if they don't STFU.
As I posted earlier I don't understand why people talk about 'hating' Starmer. But because they do, I suspect he's got to go.
It's because of the scale of disappointment. Rightly or wrongly, people expected a change - a change of national mood, a change of language, a change of tone, a change of policy, a change of direction of travel. By hook or by crook, a huge mandate was delivered.
Yes, the change people wanted was not homogeneous. Some would inevitably be disappointed.
As it is, everyone has been disappointed. And for many it was the last straw. Which has turned into something more bitter than anyone might have anticipated only a year or two ago.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
Alex Wickham @alexwickham · 21m There is now a coordinated effort on the Labour left to BLOCK a challenge this week to stop Streeting. After John McDonnell said as much this morning, Richard Burgon and Ian Byrne have published similar statements opposing the Catherine West plan for an immediate contest.
I'll make the same point I have made before. Many on the left say they are tired of Starmerism and want something more progressive. Well what exactly. A wealth tax? A full review of council tax bands? And what would the money be spent on? The fixation on getting closer to the EU just suggests they are out of ideas.
Do you want me to write you a Red or Blue Labour manifesto that might actually work? Work, as in keeping the Labour coalition together and maybe even improving the state of the country?
Expecting a whole manifesto seems a bit much. But just a few policy ideas would help. What has Starmer not been doing that they think he should have been?
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
That's the thing that has surprised me the most.
I wrote on here a while back that the Coalition, with a much smaller majority, was able to pass contentious/difficult legislation quite easily.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
You might hate him but be careful what you wish for. Things aren't likely to improve with his departure, in fact they could get a good deal worse.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
So Milliband transitions from loser to serial loser.
Reform are taking historic Labour voters with them because the see Labour as a party of cosmopolitan posh boys, whilst they see beer drinking Farage's Reform as the party of working class heroes who hate foreigners.
Is there more of a cosmopolitan posh boy that Milliband?
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
HMO's are a result of the Benefits legislation that says unless you are over 35 you only get the equivalent of a shared room allowance. You need children to get housing payment under 35
That doesn’t make them desirable, I guess it’s a law of unintended consequences and they are put into poorer areas as a whole in that case.
They’re also used in Durham for student accomodation. Homes are bought in areas like Gilesgate and turned into HMOs.
Durham Councils approach is right.
I've got younger colleagues who live in HMOs, it's what they can afford and seem to have replaced house shares, there were a few around when I was younger and in houseshares. I was in a 5bed where the neighbouring house had been split into 7 "bedsits" and the landlord was charging up to 100% higher rent.
I don’t believe these come under the scope of the insane Renters Rights Act.
They aren’t desirable. I wouldn’t want one where I live.
You wouldn't want one where you live for good reason. Nobody does. Just as almost nobody wants houses built near them either.
So where do people live?
Britain needs well-built, affordable apartments in urban centres for young people to live in, and lots of roomy houses for them to move into when those young people are ready to settle down and have a family.
HMOs is what you end up with when you don't build enough housing - probably a contender for Labour's largest failing in government is the collapse in construction activity.
The boom in HMOs predates this Labour govt by several years. I understand that the Renters' rights act, tax changes and other new regs have resulted in flat prices dropping significantly in my area. So flats may become affordable for youngsters again.
I'm not saying Labour created the problem, but one of the few concrete promises to change the country that they made was to build 1.5 million houses, 300k a year for five years, 75k a quarter.
Housing starts are currently at 31k a quarter (2025). For the last five years of the Tory government (Jul-Jun) the average per quarter were: 32k (affected by Covid), 43k, 46k, 48k, 23k (Sunak making progress on fixing problems at the end there, lol).
Not a stunning success for Labour is it?
You’re right to point this out. It is one of their most remarkable failures. They have a massive majority. If there are laws in the way of house building they can repeal them at will
There is no reason for this incredible failure other than total political incompetence and cowardice
That's the thing that has surprised me the most.
I wrote on here a while back that the Coalition, with a much smaller majority, was able to pass contentious/difficult legislation quite easily.
They had a plan.
At least for the first 2-3 years.
We joke about enjoying the quiet. The thing is back then the likes of Danny Alexander and Steve Webb did exactly that, quietly got shit done.
Alex Wickham @alexwickham · 21m There is now a coordinated effort on the Labour left to BLOCK a challenge this week to stop Streeting. After John McDonnell said as much this morning, Richard Burgon and Ian Byrne have published similar statements opposing the Catherine West plan for an immediate contest.
Yes, the Labour left have realised in a sudden panic that while Starmer is not Corbyn Labour he is at least Brown Labour (hence he has brought back Gordon as an adviser), Streeting though is near full on Blairite New Labour so from their perspective even worse than Starmer,
So until Burnham is back as an MP they don't want to risk removing Starmer if it means getting Streeting
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
Dan Carden made the point does Labour even want to represent these people anymore.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
Yes but what is "the something to help these communities" that Labour is not doing, that someone else could?
Starter for 10: stop telling people what they are supposed to think and listen to what they do think.
For all councils I would start with the absolute fucking basics. Spend the money so that these places don't look like slums. Pull the weeds, fill the cracks, fix the pot holes. Community action - we are going to put the pride back into our local area. A wholesale blitzing of litter and crap. Make the place look like the kind of place people want to live. Go fix the endless list of stupid - close to me is a school with broken heating stuck on which the council rules don't allow to be fixed as the school is being replaced 5 years ago.
And whilst you do it, market the shit out of it. Facebook and TikTok reels, community engagement. Town meetings - what can we fix? And then show them you're doing it.
"there's no money for this" is the excuse, but there's always money to deal with the chaos created by cuts. Change the budget priorities.
Left behind communities want some attention and upkeep. Do that and be amazed how the mood shifts.
I agree, but I think we have to ask ourselves if it were that easy, why aren’t councils doing it already?
I suspect the main reason is that councils must prioritise areas in which they have legal duties (and they have a lot of those), rather than these items. If we want councils to be more responsive and community-driven, we also need to debate their purpose and whether what we require them to do is effective.
I spent Friday at the count discussing this with various local councillors. Aberdeenshire has been officer-led for too long and much of the stupidity has been them rigidly imposing the rules based on rolling 12-month budgets.
Lifting your eyes from the budget is the first step. Every Cut Costs More Than The Cut Saves. That isn't a directive to keep wasting money, but cash can always be found for crisis spending which is reactive. This needs to be switched to become proactive.
Elect a slate of councillors (like me) with a clear purpose and issue directives to the officers to JFDI. Don't tell me why we can't, tell me how we can. Because in business you don't just sit there and watch the thing sink. So why should a municipal business be any different? We are - to paraphase Neil Kinnock - playing politics with peoples jobs and peoples homes and people's lives and it needs to stop. If a local authority can't do the basics then it has failed.
Signal further help in energy costs . Much closer ties with the EU .
He should accept total responsibility for the election results , accept the government has made silly mistakes.
Finally he should lay into Farage . Highlight the fact that he made a mistake in accepting some freebies when he first came into office but this pails into insignificance by the 5 million donation Farage was given , highlight that Reforms policy on crypto is clearly a return for the donation so in effect accuse Farage of bribery but not explicitly.
Cause an absolute media storm !
Yes I know some in here think the last bit is crazy but Starmer needs to do something unconventional and just let rip .
Something went badly wrong for Labour in opposition didn’t it? They never fully renewed. Milliband and Burnham? Streeting?
Had Cameron fallen in 2012, it wouldn’t have been a Major vintage cabinet minister that succeeded him. Ok, maybe Hague. But what we are seeing here is the equivalent of Redwood fighting it out with Portillo.
Farage is polling well below Blair was then though and Burnham polls far better than Redwood or Portillo did then, he is more Heseltine 1990 than Redwood or Portillo 1995. Indeed Streeting could be Major 1990 and Farage Kinnock, heading for government but very much marmite if the governing party got a new and more popular leader
It could be that West is Howe, Streeting is Heseltine, and Kyle or Lammy is Major.
West = Howe being the closest. She has struggled with the dilemma for perhaps too long and it is time now for others to consider their own response.
West is more Meyer though, not a senior ex Cabinet minister like Howe
— The Labour left are in a panic this morning amid fears that they have accidentally increased the chances of Wes Streeting becoming prime minister.
— Supporters of Andy Burnham have desperately tried to get Catherine West to back down from precipitating a contest before he is eligible. She has refused.
— Burnham allies say if a contest is triggered this week it will be between Streeting and Anglea Rayner, and that they are very worried Rayner’s opponents will be able to brief stories to the media to blow up Rayner’s campaign, clearing his path to No10.
— John McDonnell has come out against West, warning that people “in the shadows,” read Streeting, will benefit from her challenge.
— There is real anger on the left at how Burnham-Miliband-Haigh have handled their orderly transition move over the last few days because they think they have incompetently opened the door to Streeting.
— One Labour left figure points to what they see as nightmare outcome: a contest triggered next week, Streeting v Rayner is the choice, then there is a concerted media campaign to destroy Rayner during the contest that leaves Streeting as the only viable candidate.
— Another Labour left figure says current events make it “much, much more likely” than previously thought that Streeting could become PM.
They could do a lot worse than Streeting. Indeed, I think he’s probably the best choice, despite the Mandelson connection
This Burnham as Messiah nonsense is nonsense. Streeting talks human, seems quite smart, has a working class background. Do it. And do it quick
But he’s on the right. Will Labour tolerate this? You’re a member
I really don't know. I think he wins if Burnham isn't there but that could be my pref and my book talking.
I agree on AB. I quite like him, and he's definitely a better package now than 10 years ago, eg his glasses really suit him, but the yearning seems a bit ott.
Counterproductive too because it sets you up for a letdown. He swoops, he comes, he conquers, then after the dust clears and you calm down you don't see Him anymore you just see ... Andy Burnham.
That’s exactly right and I predict that’s what would happen. All this wild but agonisingly prolonged expectation then you end up with another boring identikit Labour politician who also does nothing. Thats worse. And it will be later in the electoral cycle
Forget Burnham. Do it now. Make the choice. Staunch the bleeding. Is my non partisan advice to Labour
And that really is it. Pot of tea. Flint. Knap
Speaking as the last remaining Labour Party member I also agree with this. It's not like there's some great ideological struggle at stake here, and it's also not like there's some fabulously charismatic alternative leader, Burnham definitely isn't that. There's an argument for switching Kier for someone who's a better communicator and can drive the news cycle a bit better, if someone wants to run then let them run, let's hear how they sound and what their alternative plan is like, if it's good I'll vote for them. But the worst thing to do is to keep Starmer there, but constantly be scheming against him and briefing the press about some future thing.
This is also why I'm very sick of Burnham's bullshit. Even when he was trying to get back into parliament he didn't come out and say, "I would like to be leader, here's my plan for what I would do differently, let me back into parliament so I can run". He did some vague shite about wanting to get back into the cabinet or something. If he'd got into parliament he'd probably still be scheming and feeding the press stories about splits. If someone who's actually eligible for the job wants to run for it, go ahead and run. If they win cool, if they don't STFU.
As I posted earlier I don't understand why people talk about 'hating' Starmer. But because they do, I suspect he's got to go.
It's because of the scale of disappointment. Rightly or wrongly, people expected a change - a change of national mood, a change of language, a change of tone, a change of policy, a change of direction of travel. By hook or by crook, a huge mandate was delivered.
Yes, the change people wanted was not homogeneous. Some would inevitably be disappointed.
As it is, everyone has been disappointed. And for many it was the last straw. Which has turned into something more bitter than anyone might have anticipated only a year or two ago.
Also we were promised an end to the ever-shifting Tory psychodrama and a steady ship, with the adults back in charge making sensible and selfless decisions for the long term, in place of which we've had one false adventure and u-turn after another, social care kicked into the long grass, welfare reform kicked into the long grass, nothing more than good intentions so far on defence, lots of tinkering around the edges due lack of funding, baby steps on Europe, nothing on political reform, failure on housing, and the psychodrama seems to be still alive and kicking. what with the Mandleson fiasco and ongoing party infighting....
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
I know that my ward is not exactly typical. However my analysis of the result is as follows: LDs lost some votes to the Greens. Tories lost more votes to Reform so the LD majority actually increased. The Greens beat Reform because they got votes from LD and Labour, whereas Reform only got votes from the Tories.
Make of that what you will.
May have been the case with you. Not here in Epping Forest where the LDs lost their one seat up to Reform and came third behind the Tories and Reform in the two wards they had won most votes and 2/3 of the seats in in 2024, one incumbent Tory holding on in Epping and the other losing to Reform in Theydon Bois (Reform also won the county seat with the Tories second and LDs falling from second in 2021 to third).
The Greens also lost their one district council seat in Buckhurst Hill to Reform and the Tories won the other Buckhurst Hill seat with the Greens falling from second to third behind Reform
In Epping Forest the Tories lost vote share of over 12% and came second for the first time ever, holding only four of twelve seats defended.
The Tories still held 4 seats, the LDs and Greens won 0 and would be wiped out at next year's unitary elections in Epping Forest if the results were repeated
Two more cycles like this year and there'll be 33 Reform and just 12 Tories. Hardly a sign of Conservative strength?
Next year Epping Forest merges with Harlow and Uttlesford to form West Essex unitary council.
In Harlow the Tories won all 11 seats up last week, taking 5 from Labour and losing 0 to Reform, arguably the best Tory result of the day, even better than Westminster. In Uttlesford the Tories also did slightly better than the Essex average
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
Dan Carden made the point does Labour even want to represent these people anymore.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
Yes but what is "the something to help these communities" that Labour is not doing, that someone else could?
Starter for 10: stop telling people what they are supposed to think and listen to what they do think.
For all councils I would start with the absolute fucking basics. Spend the money so that these places don't look like slums. Pull the weeds, fill the cracks, fix the pot holes. Community action - we are going to put the pride back into our local area. A wholesale blitzing of litter and crap. Make the place look like the kind of place people want to live. Go fix the endless list of stupid - close to me is a school with broken heating stuck on which the council rules don't allow to be fixed as the school is being replaced 5 years ago.
And whilst you do it, market the shit out of it. Facebook and TikTok reels, community engagement. Town meetings - what can we fix? And then show them you're doing it.
"there's no money for this" is the excuse, but there's always money to deal with the chaos created by cuts. Change the budget priorities.
Left behind communities want some attention and upkeep. Do that and be amazed how the mood shifts.
On one hand, absolutely.
In the other, given the choice between using the savings they found to spend on making their neighbourhoods better, and using them to reduce the rate of growth in Council Tax levels, Reform councils go for the latter.
There is a slice of the Reform vote who have been let down for decades. Even if the decline of industrial towns was inevitable, the transition to a world where productive jobs happen in cities should have been lubricated better. That's not just metros for commuters, but it's a lot of it.
But plenty of Reform voters are the extremely comfortable- more the White Retired Class- who just don't like paying taxes and are cross with the consequences of their preference. But not so cross as to change their preference.
As I have pointed out previously, some have tried to spin Reform councils as successful because they are putting their council tax up."Yebbut not by as much as the other council". Gives a shit. Voters don't. Cut taxes and / or deliver value for them. Don't preside over continuing squalor whilst putting taxes up.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
Something the pollsters all same is not only incedible levels of hatred (Thatcher and Boris had that), they geuinely struggle to find anybody who likes him. Even Boris post Partygate still had a rump of the public who were willing to blame others rather than Boris.
I think of the scenes from Silicon Valley were they test their app with focus groups...who hates this app...Sally, John, Brian, Philip, Isha, Barbara, Craig, Elisabeth...must be a bad group...this is the 30th straight like this.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
You might hate him but be careful what you wish for. Things aren't likely to improve with his departure, in fact they could get a good deal worse.
I know, which is why I admit the feeling is not entirely rational. If I was being coldly logical, I would probably want the useless Starmer to stay on, as he is such a brilliant recruiting sergeant for Reform, and I loathe Labour and want them to die. Starmer is the poison that could easily kill them
But I am being honest. He does invoke this fierce contempt, which might on a bad day be called hatred. The treachery, the greed, the narcissism, the lying, the cowardice, the spitefulness, the egotism, the way he dumps anyone as a way of avoiding blame. He is genuinely loathsome, and his voice makes me puke, I can't bear to hear it
If it was just me with these crazy weird feelz it wouldn't be an issue. But obvs it is not. Indeed as I mentioned a few days ago I had drinks with a very centre Dad liberal lefty friend who is solidly Labour. Two years ago he supported Starmer. A year ago he expressed weary disappointment but a willingness to perservere with Skyr. Last week I saw hatred,. His eyes narrowed, he snarled: "I want him gone. Not tomorrow. Today"
True story. The fascinating thing is that his reasons for hating Starmer are totally different to mine. But he hates him too
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
Joining the Euro is a process that takes time. We would not have to join right away, because it’s not practical for anyone to join right away.
I never want to join the Euro. Ever.
I find it fascinating how europhiles think they can mollify eurosceptics just by saying it "takes time" and "not right away". See also "two-speed Europe". Exactly the same people who'd then shrug their shoulders a few years down the line when European politics or its treaties demanded we adopt a law, regulation or commitment despite domestic opposition.
Being disingenuous is baked in. It's calculated deception.
We've been here before, and that's precisely why we left.
The promises made for what Brexit would deliver have all turned out to be disingenuous, which is why the polling shows a large majority see Brexit as a mistake and a small majority support rejoin.
Ah, whatabouttery.
When you dig into the polling beneath the headlines, you see strong polling against the idea laws & regulations or trade deals shouldn't be made here and little desire to return to free movement (and that's before you get to the money, yet alone the currency)
That small majority that you think supports Rejoin would disappear in a flash as soon as this came into focus.
My faith in our ability to govern ourselves has been shaken by Thursday. As a country we are simply not being serious about our challenges, our choices and the consequences of those choices. Membership of the Euro removes huge areas of governance from our elected politicians, from any form of democratic oversight really. I used to believe that was a bad thing. But I am beginning to wonder.
Woah there, range rider. I never thought I'd be arguing this contra case, but here we go:
You can't automaticize politics. Politics is a battle over what is right and what is wrong, and the concepts of "right" and "wrong" change over time and place. Those things are decided at the nation-state level by the demos, and the EU is too big for a single demos (at least not yet[1]). Taking the politics out of politics is not a sufficient reason[2] to rejoin the EU.
[1] Heath thought one would develop and should, Powell thought one wouldn't develop and shouldn't. Ironically the growth of transnational affinity groups and our EU departure may have pushed things in a Heathite direction. [2] There are other reasons for rejoining, but removing the politics from politics isn't one of them.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
The polling would have implied that of Cameron in 2012.
In the May elections of that year his approval was -31% whereas Starmer looks to be about -45% now.
The difference is that Tory voters stuck with Cameron whilst Labour voters have, as ever, decided that Starmer fails their purity test and is a neo-Nazi. Or something.
But come the election, in order to avoid Reform, they’d vote for him. And crucially so would some “safety first” Tories. That’s less true of many of his rivals.
maxh - if people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics, then such people are very unlikely to assimilate into life in the UK. Why is this so hard to understand?
There are about 30 Evangelicals who attend the church near to me. I get on with the vicar and one of the congregation is a good personal friend. I think they are fairly well assimilated. They run the local food bank.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
I know that my ward is not exactly typical. However my analysis of the result is as follows: LDs lost some votes to the Greens. Tories lost more votes to Reform so the LD majority actually increased. The Greens beat Reform because they got votes from LD and Labour, whereas Reform only got votes from the Tories.
Make of that what you will.
May have been the case with you. Not here in Epping Forest where the LDs lost their one seat up to Reform and came third behind the Tories and Reform in the two wards they had won most votes and 2/3 of the seats in in 2024, one incumbent Tory holding on in Epping and the other losing to Reform in Theydon Bois (Reform also won the county seat with the Tories second and LDs falling from second in 2021 to third).
The Greens also lost their one district council seat in Buckhurst Hill to Reform and the Tories won the other Buckhurst Hill seat with the Greens falling from second to third behind Reform
In Epping Forest the Tories lost vote share of over 12% and came second for the first time ever, holding only four of twelve seats defended.
The Tories still held 4 seats, the LDs and Greens won 0 and would be wiped out at next year's unitary elections in Epping Forest if the results were repeated
Two more cycles like this year and there'll be 33 Reform and just 12 Tories. Hardly a sign of Conservative strength?
Next year Epping Forest merges with Harlow and Uttlesford to form West Essex unitary council.
In Harlow the Tories won all 11 seats up last week, taking 5 from Labour and losing 0 to Reform, arguably the best Tory result of the day, even better than Westminster. In Uttlesford the Tories also did slightly better than the Essex average
Uttlesford DC didn't have any elections yesterday. In the CC divisions covered by the DC, the Tories won just one out of five
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
The polling would have implied that of Cameron in 2012.
In the May elections of that year his approval was -31% whereas Starmer looks to be about -45% now.
The difference is that Tory voters stuck with Cameron whilst Labour voters have, as ever, decided that Starmer fails their purity test and is a neo-Nazi. Or something.
But come the election, in order to avoid Reform, they’d vote for him. And crucially so would some “safety first” Tories. That’s less true of many of his rivals.
If Labour go into the next GE with Starmer as leader they are going to lose very badly, perhaps catastrophically, and terminally. We now have ample electoral evidence of this, it ain't just polling. This is not going to change unless some incredible Falklands style Black Swan saves him, but then Starmer would probably pay Argentina to take the Falklands, and give them Sussex as well
Consequently, unless Labour are happy to lose so badly most MPs are kicked out (they don't want this) they have to replace him. And it becomes a question of when and who
TBF to Labour I think, as a party, they have accepted this. Starmer must go. But they can't agree on the when and the who
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
They don't care, the world doesn't work for them.
I am 47 years old, in the first 46 years I was racially/religious abused once, not it's been twice in the last 12 months.
It's like listening to the Reform/Restore campaign.
'Did you come over here on a boat? You must have to afford a new iPhone/iPad etc.'
I agree that racism is getting worse, and more flagrant amongst some, and that is deplorable and regrettable.
I also think that to retain harmony and social cohesion, we cannot import people on the scale of the last 10 years. We need to resolve that.
Comments
Streeting is there. Definitely better than Starmer. Shows some brains. Might even have a plan (but probably not). The Mandelson thing is awkward but not fatal
His problem is that he’s on the right of the party as it turns left to fight the Greens
However my analysis of the result is as follows:
LDs lost some votes to the Greens.
Tories lost more votes to Reform so the LD majority actually increased.
The Greens beat Reform because they got votes from LD and Labour, whereas Reform only got votes from the Tories.
Make of that what you will.
The older Conservative and Labour parties were coalitions. Instead of building a coalition in horse trading after an election, they went into elections with their coalition built.
In both cases, the coalition has broken up. Reform and the Greens (and then Scottish and Welsh nationalists) are about groups going their own way, rather than being “internal” parties.
If they become leader in 2027 then they won't get replaced as leader before the election.
My view is that the problem isn't perceived to be immigration per se - no one minds Canadians or Australians, very few mind Hong Kongers, not many mind Indians - it is specically immigration of skillless, largely young men, largely from the Middle East and North Africa, with a noticably different culture to our own. This is exemplified by, but not solely, small boat arrivals. (Students are a mixed bag: the majority are a benefit, however there is undeniably a significant number of dodgy not-really-students at not-really-universities).
I think that was what maxh was talking about, to be fair.
I’m a tolerant old geezer but that can rub me up the wrong way, sometimes
Thousands of foreign national offenders are deported every year, and the numbers being deported are increasing under Labour. The Telegraph and X pick on a tiny number of cases to give the impression that none are.
I agree on AB. I quite like him, and he's definitely a better package now than 10 years ago, eg his glasses really suit him, but the yearning seems a bit ott.
Counterproductive too because it sets you up for a letdown. He swoops, he comes, he conquers, then after the dust clears and you calm down you don't see Him anymore you just see ... Andy Burnham.
Excuse me for choking!
Why is this deemed acceptable and something that people who have been negatively affected have to put up with but making a change which negatively affects immigrants deemed unacceptable ?
How is it "deemed unacceptable"? Labour, following Sunak's lead, is delivering a huge fall in immigration, which is what (many) voters wanted.
But saying “you have this opinion” right after I’ve said “I do not have this opinion” is both annoying and corrosive
Anyway. Enough navel-gazing. I gotta work and do stuff. Later
The same on Oxon where the LDs are also the largest party after the Tories lost 10 seats last year. In Oxford there are no Tories left, in Cherwell they lost 4 seats and only held 2, in West Oxon they did actually pick up three but the LDs are still largest party.
And in Wiltshire where the LDs are the largest party after the Tories lost 24 seats last year.
Citing areas that didn't have county elections this year is scraping the barrel of argumentation, even for you!!
https://election.news.sky.com/elections/england-councils-2026/redbridge-4842
The Greens also lost their one district council seat in Buckhurst Hill to Reform and the Tories won the other Buckhurst Hill seat with the Greens falling from second to third behind Reform
Tim Shipman
@ShippersUnbound
The daft thing about the 10 years thing is that the very thing which prompted the coup against Blair was him telling the Times that he would go on and on. Part of the problem in politics these days is that half the people doing it and half the people advising them seem to have no knowledge of anything which happened more than 5 years ago
https://x.com/ShippersUnbound/status/2053378287338975501
Forget Burnham. Do it now. Make the choice. Staunch the bleeding. Is my non partisan advice to Labour
And that really is it. Pot of tea. Flint. Knap
In the other, given the choice between using the savings they found to spend on making their neighbourhoods better, and using them to reduce the rate of growth in Council Tax levels, Reform councils go for the latter.
There is a slice of the Reform vote who have been let down for decades. Even if the decline of industrial towns was inevitable, the transition to a world where productive jobs happen in cities should have been lubricated better. That's not just metros for commuters, but it's a lot of it.
But plenty of Reform voters are the extremely comfortable- more the White Retired Class- who just don't like paying taxes and are cross with the consequences of their preference. But not so cross as to change their preference.
It was the single thing they could have done to move the dial, which might have been achieved without troubling the exchequer.
It was their one stated policy, and even those of. U.S. who didn't vote for them (me) had high hopes, sadly dashed, that they might actually deliver on that.
Instead they trod water for a year and a half.
That Rayner was originally in charge of delivery gives me little hope that she'd be any better than Starmer.
@andrew_lilico
·
16m
The Labour Party is a strange beast & it's hard to interpret its movements, but my guess is that Starmer can't last the week without either announcing a timetable for his departure or facing a formal challenge. I think it's either or, now - or both.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2053426110537322949
https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/50140-public-support-retaining-the-two-child-benefit-limit-as-starmer-gears-up-for-first-rebellion
You did remember to opt out of AI, didn't you?
Google Chrome will steal 4 GB of disk space from your computer for its local large language model unless you opted out.
It's called weights.bin and it's stored in a folder called OptGuideOnDeviceModel. What's more, if you track down the file and delete it, Chrome will download a fresh copy and reinstate it.
https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/05/07/chrome-silently-installs-a-4-gb-local-llm-on-your-computer/5230893
Hopefully it's a smaller proportion than those who arrive on small boats under SKS's 17-in-one-out-then-that-one-back-in-again scheme.
That could explain some posts allegedly originating from someone with an IQ of 155.
In 2020 she had a high likelihood comment on her blood readings but due to covid it was overlooked and she now has iron defiency anemia and the iron tablets made her terribly ill
The doctor and consultant have been wonderful with us and she is due an endyscope procedure in 10 days to confirm the diagnosis
However, she has to continue eating wheat products even though they are making her ill until the procedure, so not to mask the result
I am readying our food and cooking to go gluten free and apparently we get a Wales NHS credit card loaded to buy gluten free food for life
We can afford to buy the food so maybe this should be means tested
That's the over-cautious timidity that has resulted in the Starmer fiasco
BBC reporting that West has gone south
'Toxic on the doorstep': How Yorkshire ditched Labour in one day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgp249p31ko
Means testing is inefficient and produces cliff edges. Make the benefit taxable.
On Thursday the Tories did best in areas they held even in the 1997 general election or 1998 local elections, Hampshire, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Fareham, Broxbourne, Chigwell etc and the only Tory council gain of the night was in Westminster, average property price £1,373,157 but average age only 44. Whereas it was Reform who did best in areas with lots of pensioners and over 50s, in rural areas and seaside and non commuter market towns and ex industrial towns.
The only council the Tories held and won on Thursday they did not hold the council or parliamentary seat in 1997 or 1998 was Harlow, if Kemi wants to go anywhere on Thursday she should go there. The Tories held a council which was a top Reform target comfortably and gained seats from Labour by regenerating and developing the town, Harlow is even now getting an M & S
Had Cameron fallen in 2012, it wouldn’t have been a Major vintage cabinet minister that succeeded him. Ok, maybe Hague. But what we are seeing here is the equivalent of Redwood fighting it out with Portillo.
It's 2026, we can afford 4GB of storage.
That way you sort of “auto-means test”.
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
The generation who ought to be papable about now either lost their seats in the fiasco of 2019, or gave up in despair. Hence Starmer's victory in 2020.
The Conservatives have got this to look forward to, if they survive.
This is also why I'm very sick of Burnham's bullshit. Even when he was trying to get back into parliament he didn't come out and say, "I would like to be leader, here's my plan for what I would do differently, let me back into parliament so I can run". He did some vague shite about wanting to get back into the cabinet or something. If he'd got into parliament he'd probably still be scheming and feeding the press stories about splits. If someone who's actually eligible for the job wants to run for it, go ahead and run. If they win cool, if they don't STFU.
(I would look this up but I've used up my Claude Pro plan for the week and am unable to learn about the world until 7am tomorrow.)
Burnham, Streeting and Rayner are all, for different reasons, likely to be downgrades. The best hope for Labour is someone currently on the rung below being promoted and impressing- see John Major for the case study.
I do wonder if part of the urgency of the old big three is the realisation that they are going to be shifted to the Reduced To Clear counter pretty soon.
If Starmer doesn't reshuffle soon to achieve this, serves him right.
West = Howe being the closest. She has struggled with the dilemma for perhaps too long and it is time now for others to consider their own response.
Alex Wickham
@alexwickham
·
21m
There is now a coordinated effort on the Labour left to BLOCK a challenge this week to stop Streeting. After John McDonnell said as much this morning, Richard Burgon and Ian Byrne have published similar statements opposing the Catherine West plan for an immediate contest.
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/2053434256198627749
Yes, the change people wanted was not homogeneous. Some would inevitably be disappointed.
As it is, everyone has been disappointed. And for many it was the last straw. Which has turned into something more bitter than anyone might have anticipated only a year or two ago.
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
At least for the first 2-3 years.
So until Burnham is back as an MP they don't want to risk removing Starmer if it means getting Streeting
Lifting your eyes from the budget is the first step. Every Cut Costs More Than The Cut Saves. That isn't a directive to keep wasting money, but cash can always be found for crisis spending which is reactive. This needs to be switched to become proactive.
Elect a slate of councillors (like me) with a clear purpose and issue directives to the officers to JFDI. Don't tell me why we can't, tell me how we can. Because in business you don't just sit there and watch the thing sink. So why should a municipal business be any different? We are - to paraphase Neil Kinnock - playing politics with peoples jobs and peoples homes and people's lives and it needs to stop. If a local authority can't do the basics then it has failed.
Signal further help in energy costs . Much closer ties with the EU .
He should accept total responsibility for the election results , accept the government has made silly mistakes.
Finally he should lay into Farage . Highlight the fact that he made a mistake in accepting some freebies when he first came into office but this pails into insignificance by the 5 million donation Farage was given , highlight that Reforms policy on crypto is clearly a return for the donation so in effect accuse Farage of bribery but not explicitly.
Cause an absolute media storm !
Yes I know some in here think the last bit is crazy but Starmer needs to do something unconventional and just let rip .
Mike Diplockre
@MikeDiplockre
It's crazy how Farage's partner, Laure Ferrari, did a 50min interview a couple months back and it only has 177 views on YouTube.
Interesting takeaways:
- She did Eng Lit & Eng Hist at uni
- Great Grandfather served under De Gaulle
- "I don't want to be another Carrie Johnson"
https://x.com/MikeDiplockre/status/2053304296586797540
In Harlow the Tories won all 11 seats up last week, taking 5 from Labour and losing 0 to Reform, arguably the best Tory result of the day, even better than Westminster. In Uttlesford the Tories also did slightly better than the Essex average
I think of the scenes from Silicon Valley were they test their app with focus groups...who hates this app...Sally, John, Brian, Philip, Isha, Barbara, Craig, Elisabeth...must be a bad group...this is the 30th straight like this.
But I am being honest. He does invoke this fierce contempt, which might on a bad day be called hatred. The treachery, the greed, the narcissism, the lying, the cowardice, the spitefulness, the egotism, the way he dumps anyone as a way of avoiding blame. He is genuinely loathsome, and his voice makes me puke, I can't bear to hear it
If it was just me with these crazy weird feelz it wouldn't be an issue. But obvs it is not. Indeed as I mentioned a few days ago I had drinks with a very centre Dad liberal lefty friend who is solidly Labour. Two years ago he supported Starmer. A year ago he expressed weary disappointment but a willingness to perservere with Skyr. Last week I saw hatred,. His eyes narrowed, he snarled: "I want him gone. Not tomorrow. Today"
True story. The fascinating thing is that his reasons for hating Starmer are totally different to mine. But he hates him too
You can't automaticize politics. Politics is a battle over what is right and what is wrong, and the concepts of "right" and "wrong" change over time and place. Those things are decided at the nation-state level by the demos, and the EU is too big for a single demos (at least not yet[1]). Taking the politics out of politics is not a sufficient reason[2] to rejoin the EU.
[1] Heath thought one would develop and should, Powell thought one wouldn't develop and shouldn't. Ironically the growth of transnational affinity groups and our EU departure may have pushed things in a Heathite direction.
[2] There are other reasons for rejoining, but removing the politics from politics isn't one of them.
In the May elections of that year his approval was -31% whereas Starmer looks to be about -45% now.
The difference is that Tory voters stuck with Cameron whilst Labour voters have, as ever, decided that Starmer fails their purity test and is a neo-Nazi. Or something.
But come the election, in order to avoid Reform, they’d vote for him. And crucially so would some “safety first” Tories. That’s less true of many of his rivals.
Be careful what you wish for Labour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_approval_opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://x.com/OpiniumResearch/status/2020226055638806909/photo/1
I get on with the vicar and one of the congregation is a good personal friend.
I think they are fairly well assimilated.
They run the local food bank.
Ed Miliband would make a good wizard
If Labour go into the next GE with Starmer as leader they are going to lose very badly, perhaps catastrophically, and terminally. We now have ample electoral evidence of this, it ain't just polling. This is not going to change unless some incredible Falklands style Black Swan saves him, but then Starmer would probably pay Argentina to take the Falklands, and give them Sussex as well
Consequently, unless Labour are happy to lose so badly most MPs are kicked out (they don't want this) they have to replace him. And it becomes a question of when and who
TBF to Labour I think, as a party, they have accepted this. Starmer must go. But they can't agree on the when and the who
I also think that to retain harmony and social cohesion, we cannot import people on the scale of the last 10 years. We need to resolve that.