So I've been told that a Labour MP is going to stand down for Burnham within the next 48 hours.
If Starmer blocks him for standing more than 81 MPs will trigger a leadership contest.
That noise you can hear is me making a reverse ferret on my betting positions.
Right now overall I'm green even if Burnham wins but I want to make big profits.
However Streeting might pull the plug on Starmer this week.
Decisions decisions.
So if Starmer blocks Burnham, Burnham's lickspittles trigger a contest that Burnham won't be eligible to stand in.
Have they fully thought this through?
Or Starmer doesn't block Burnham - and allows the public to vote 'Not Burnham' in the By-election - which is surely going to happen unless it's really non-obvious who the 'Not Labour' candidate is... but it requires the person stepping down to (a) be in a Labour very safe seat, (b) be a seat where both Reform and Green can claim to be the alternative, (c) be willing to sacrifice themselves for Burnham's ambition - I am sure that Burnham will have offered them all manner of Lord's goodies etc in due course, but if the plan fails they've totally shot themselves in the foot because neither Starmer nor Streeting will be doing anything to help them. I'm not sure that I can identify who might be stepping down - as mentioned previously Clive Lewis might be willing - but that doesn't help. (other to enable the Greens to get another MP and everyone else to have a laugh at Labour's expense)
Just in case anyone is doubting my alcohol credentials
Here is my drinks shelf. In my “entertainment corner”. Right this minute
I hope you hire someone to dust these.
There are, incidentally,. some exceptionally rare liquors in there. Like Momposinos sweet wine, only made in the insane dream town of Mompox, Colombia (the inspo for Macondo in 100 Years of Solitude). I bought it there
The little box at the front is a Tsarist lacquer box from about 1840 containing my gascake. Next to it is an emergency dose of ayahuasca
Not going to lie if Andy Burnham stands in a by-election and loses I might actually die laughing.
Edit - No might about it, I will.
I'm starting to appreciate why politicians in some countries decide to cut out all the stupid stuff about holding elections & just get on with declaring themselves the winners.
I think the Rwanda policy was simply mad and an astonishing waste of scarce resources but Sunak is right that one of the reasons the mainstream parties died on Thursday is because people get completely fed up of governments who simply can't solve a problem.
I think he is also right in saying that the problems governments have is the interventionist role played by our courts but he completely fails to recognise that it is politicians who have given the courts both the power and duty to do that.
The answer to me is much more fundamental. It is withdrawal from the Convention on Refugees and passing legislation that those who come here by boat without our permission will simply be ejected because they have no rights whatsoever. But our political class are simply not up for that kind of law. Its much easier to blame the courts for enforcing the laws they passed.
++++++++
Having now been to Rwanda - last week - I can say with some authority that: it would likely have worked, if enacted properly
Rwanda is actually a perfect choice for such a scheme, in the absence of a handy but bleak nearby island, as the Australians had
It is a long long long way away. It is locked up in central Africa. It is poor and in some places grim, you really don't want to live there. But it it also stable and safe, so you can humanely send people there, if all these people care about is being safe (and that is supposedly the situation with asylum seekers, unless of course they are fake and just looking for better benefits and economic opportunity)
I reckon HMG would have solved the boats overnight if they'd managed to get a few hundred people there, but done it intensely - ie shipping 90% of arrivals in one month. That would have terrified the boat people and the boats would have stopped
Exactly. And there we have it: Rwanda would have worked.
Sunak simply didn't have enough time to overcome all the legal obstacles and political resistance.
What do you mean 'have enough time' - he called an election a year early!
You are, in all honesty, a mug if you pay your expected legal tax to this ludicrous fucking government. They just instantly and eagerly hand it over to anyone who can get here on a raft this weekend, with extra private dentistry plus pension plus free entry to the Tower of London
If you murmur about "uh, rapes?" they shout that you are a RACIST and you are not thinking in CONTEXT and then they put you in PRISON
The wine good tonight?
Excellent. As I said, a rather stellar Kiwi Sauv Blanc, by Whitehaven
That said, I am only half a bottle in. And if you think a drunk like me gets loaded on half a bottle of white, then I have an Egyptian whisky to sell you, at £900 a case
Having followed your work for some time, I would never accuse you of being such a lightweight. Half a case seems more apt.
I know whereof I speak. Egyptian malt whisky actually exists and it is actually a thing, I was given a bottle of this when staying at the Four Seasons, on assignment, in Alexandria, they put me in the single best room in the entire city
I think it won an award just for the insanity of being a single malt whisky from Egypt
I cannot, in all honesty, recommend it over a fine Macallan. But if you're bored and marooned and in Egypt, and need a tincture, it does the job
I received a whisky advent calendar from my mother in law. Whiskies of the world. Some of them - including the Egyptian one - were surprisingly good. I was also takem by the Japanese ones. The Indian ones OTOH, were horrific. Sorry India.
Yeah, the Egyptian one is surprisingly OK. I would never voluntarily buy it, but if I needed something - anything - to get me through this Labour government, sure
Thai whisky used to be infamously evil, now it is just mediocre
It's a shame all the truly terrible, poisonous, three-day-hangover liquors are being superseded by Meh
You are, in all honesty, a mug if you pay your expected legal tax to this ludicrous fucking government. They just instantly and eagerly hand it over to anyone who can get here on a raft this weekend, with extra private dentistry plus pension plus free entry to the Tower of London
If you murmur about "uh, rapes?" they shout that you are a RACIST and you are not thinking in CONTEXT and then they put you in PRISON
And there is a significant chunk in labour who are viscerally opposed to extending ILR to ten years from five. The main driver for this is preventing access to benefits system.
They want your money to throw around to others.
Why work hard and achieve ? You’re a mug if you do. You just get told you’re ‘greedy’ or ‘selfish’ for wanting to keep what you earn.
Most of the tax most people pay, they get back in their education, their healthcare and their pension.
State pension comes from National Insurance as does our sainted NHS (pbuh). It’s not tax and the state pension is contribution based.
It’s also not the case for higher earners like Max who will be net contributors over their lifetime. As have I been. That that will get back what they put in or more.
Where is the incentive to work hard and achieve, especially with the cliff edges in the tax system.
We need to incentivise higher earners to work and earn more not revile them or treat them as cash cows.
National Insurance is tax. The NHS costs roughly £242 billion per year while NI raises about £171 billion per year. NI does not cover the NHS, let alone the state pension as well.
Yes, higher earners, like you and me, will be net contributors over our lifetimes, although that doesn't mean I don't and won't still get plenty back in terms of healthcare, state pension etc. We do have a somewhat redistributive tax system. Can't say I feel reviled. The incentive to work hard and achieve is that you achieve and get more money, although I agree with you about cliff edges.
Anyone who aims to break even on the NHS should have their head examined. I've paid in hundreds of thousands over the years and taken out tuppence, and the longer that pertains the happier I shall be.
I must say it's great fun to have the grown ups back in control. The first 2 years have been calm, rational with measured responses to all the problems here and abroad. I especially have enjoyed the absence of any financial or sexual sleaze or the petty infighting within and without the cabinet, all of which left everyone so scarred under the Tories. It's also been great to indulge in the clear leadership without a hint of cliché which we hear from the mouth of our great leader. It's been a blast with another 3 years to come.........
You are, in all honesty, a mug if you pay your expected legal tax to this ludicrous fucking government. They just instantly and eagerly hand it over to anyone who can get here on a raft this weekend, with extra private dentistry plus pension plus free entry to the Tower of London
If you murmur about "uh, rapes?" they shout that you are a RACIST and you are not thinking in CONTEXT and then they put you in PRISON
And there is a significant chunk in labour who are viscerally opposed to extending ILR to ten years from five. The main driver for this is preventing access to benefits system.
They want your money to throw around to others.
Why work hard and achieve ? You’re a mug if you do. You just get told you’re ‘greedy’ or ‘selfish’ for wanting to keep what you earn.
Most of the tax most people pay, they get back in their education, their healthcare and their pension.
State pension comes from National Insurance as does our sainted NHS (pbuh). It’s not tax and the state pension is contribution based.
It’s also not the case for higher earners like Max who will be net contributors over their lifetime. As have I been. That that will get back what they put in or more.
Where is the incentive to work hard and achieve, especially with the cliff edges in the tax system.
We need to incentivise higher earners to work and earn more not revile them or treat them as cash cows.
National Insurance is tax. The NHS costs roughly £242 billion per year while NI raises about £171 billion per year. NI does not cover the NHS, let alone the state pension as well.
Yes, higher earners, like you and me, will be net contributors over our lifetimes, although that doesn't mean I don't and won't still get plenty back in terms of healthcare, state pension etc. We do have a somewhat redistributive tax system. Can't say I feel reviled. The incentive to work hard and achieve is that you achieve and get more money, although I agree with you about cliff edges.
Anyone who aims to break even on the NHS should have their head examined. I've paid in hundreds of thousands over the years and taken out tuppence, and the longer that pertains the happier I shall be.
I thank you for your service. Through no fault of my own I’ve had my share and several others. That’s how the cookie crumbles.
Not going to lie if Andy Burnham stands in a by-election and loses I might actually die laughing.
Edit - No might about it, I will.
Where on earth will he find a safe seat? As I see this, it has to be either Greater Manchester or London, and even there is dicey
And I am genuinely not sure if I can identify a safe seat in either of these places where there is an MP likely to step down for The Manc Messiah. However, others will know Labour politics and topography much better
So I've been told that a Labour MP is going to stand down for Burnham within the next 48 hours.
If Starmer blocks him for standing more than 81 MPs will trigger a leadership contest.
That noise you can hear is me making a reverse ferret on my betting positions.
Right now overall I'm green even if Burnham wins but I want to make big profits.
However Streeting might pull the plug on Starmer this week.
Decisions decisions.
So if Starmer blocks Burnham, Burnham's lickspittles trigger a contest that Burnham won't be eligible to stand in.
Have they fully thought this through?
Yes.
They are telling Wes Streeting if you win a contest without Burnham then there will be another contest if and when Burnham becomes an MP.
Starmer needs to hold his nerve here.
If he lets Burnham back into Parliament then 100% certain Burnham will take over.
If he blocks Burnham, he dares the Left to go for Rayner. And I reckon the Left would probably then blink - because deep down they know Rayner will lose them their seats.
OK, if the Left blinks then maybe sometime down the road Miliband gets it by default. But he should take that chance.
Depending on how vengeful Starmer might be things could really get wild .
So Starmer is supposed to sit and wait around for Burnham to contest a by-election , then if he wins he walks into Parliament and everyone knows he’ll then challenge Starmer.
If I was Starmer I’d find that simply too much to stomach . And unless Starmer is willing to be humiliated then he has a choice . Go early to sabotage Burnham or hang around knowing the backstabbing Judas is coming to stick the knife in .
So I've been told that a Labour MP is going to stand down for Burnham within the next 48 hours.
If Starmer blocks him for standing more than 81 MPs will trigger a leadership contest.
That noise you can hear is me making a reverse ferret on my betting positions.
Right now overall I'm green even if Burnham wins but I want to make big profits.
However Streeting might pull the plug on Starmer this week.
Decisions decisions.
So if Starmer blocks Burnham, Burnham's lickspittles trigger a contest that Burnham won't be eligible to stand in.
Have they fully thought this through?
Or Starmer doesn't block Burnham - and allows the public to vote 'Not Burnham' in the By-election - which is surely going to happen unless it's really non-obvious who the 'Not Labour' candidate is... but it requires the person stepping down to (a) be in a Labour very safe seat, (b) be a seat where both Reform and Green can claim to be the alternative, (c) be willing to sacrifice themselves for Burnham's ambition - I am sure that Burnham will have offered them all manner of Lord's goodies etc in due course, but if the plan fails they've totally shot themselves in the foot because neither Starmer nor Streeting will be doing anything to help them. I'm not sure that I can identify who might be stepping down - as mentioned previously Clive Lewis might be willing - but that doesn't help. (other to enable the Greens to get another MP and everyone else to have a laugh at Labour's expense)
Graham Stringer must be in the frame
Blackley and Middleton South
Yup... that's a good shout. But even then, all the wards which make up that constituency voted on Thursday - and of the 7 wards (5 in Manc and 2 in Rochdale), 4 were won by Reform, with just 3 held by Labour. A naive (just average all the wards out) calculation of Thursday's voting gives it to Labour by a whisker... 35% v Reform on 34% with the Greens on 18% and others on 12%. In a non-Burnham by-election in the current environment I think that I would be putting money on Reform to win - so I don't think that even a seat like that is a "gimme" for Burnham. Voters don't really like being taken for granted - particularly when that's what they've just expressed through the ballot box and Reform will absolutely go full pelt at the seat with a 'Labour taking you for granted again' approach and the Greens will use all the Lib Dems best tricks and bar charts to say 'only we can beat Reform'.
I genuinely think Andy Burnham should come down the M1, past Luton, riding on a humble donkey, as weeping people gratefully throw palm fronds at his three mile long cavalcade, like he is Lady Diana's coffin but with new designer glasses and a history of good decisions on trams
Then, as he passes Friern Barnet, he should be given a crown of thorns but nice, and comfy, and also a constituency
Finally, as his donkey proceeds down Whitehall, and grown women are seen to involuntarily prolapse in worship, he should cast pearls in front of the police, then change water into lager, and eventually give a Sermon by Westminster Abbey, whereat St Mo Mowlam's cremated body is summoned from the ash tray, and she falls to her ashy knees, and then he becomes the new leader?
What has saved Starmer is Labour has come second on seats won, even if Reform won most seats overall. Plus the realisation from the Labour left that Starmer is at least a Brownite, welcoming Gordon Brown back to No 10 as an adviser. Whereas Streeting is New Labour and a Blairite through and through from their perspective so unless and until Burnham returns as an MP removing Starmer is too big a risk as Streeting would move Labour further to the right than Starmer has.
That means Starmer survives this year most likely and West fails to get the nominations she needs from Labour MPs to challenge Starmer. Though next year Starmer may not be able to hold on, London is not voting next year in the local elections and this year over half of Labour councillors elected were from London, so next year's local elections could see Labour fall behind not only Reform but the LDs and Tories and maybe even the Greens on seats won too. That would almost certainly trigger a leadership challenge against Starmer
What has saved Starmer is Labour has come second on seats won, even if Reform won most seats overall. Plus the realisation from the Labour left that Starmer is at least a Brownite, welcoming Gordon Brown back to No 10 as an adviser. Whereas Streeting is New Labour and a Blairite through and through from their perspective so unless and until Burnham returns as an MP removing Starmer is too big a risk.
That means Starmer survives this year most likely and West fails to get the nominations she needs from Labour MPs to challenge Starmer. Though next year Starmer may not be able to hold on, London is not voting next year in the local elections and this year over half of Labour councillors elected were from London, so next year's local elections could see Labour fall behind not only Reform but the LDs and Tories and maybe even the Greens on seats won too. That would almost certainly trigger a leadership challenge against Starmer
I simply do not understand your post which seems far removed from reality
This may be the only time I EVER eagerly tune in for a speech by Skyr Toolmakersson
Because, if that really is the text, it is going to be - given the context - literally the worst speech in the history of humankind, and in decades to come our grandchildren will ask, Were you there when Sir Beer Korma said "it's a big ask, but incremental change won't cut it"
Batshit thought the speech preview is in general, we also have "Because standing shoulder to shoulder with the countries that most share our interests, our values, and our enemies - that is the right choice for Britain. That is the Labour choice." I rather like that he's willing to admit we have enemies. Mimsy 90s centrists would never.
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
Thanks for the question Maxh.
I think what has been agreed across the board, including by Starmer, is that the 'Boriswave' has seen immigration on a scale where successful integration (let alone assimilation) is simply not possible. That isn't a judgement on people, it's just a fact. Neither our welfare system nor our society can cope with immigration at that speed, in those numbers, from those places. So regrettably, those people must return home.
With regard to the wider point about Reform's attitude to immigration, Reform are civic nationalists. They don't care about colour or religion (prominent figures are Muslim), but loyalty to the State. So religion is something for the private sphere, strict crackdown on Sharia, probably banning the Burqa and Niquab, and end to the 'community policing' approach that has let some communities police themselves, but if you choose to be 'one of us' you are welcome. I cannot disagree with this approach. There simply cannot be any long-term sense in giving bunk space to large numbers of people whose loyalty lies with either a different state, or a concept like a global caliphate. What happens when there's a war (God forbid) and everyone needs to sign up? A nation needs some sort of glue to hold it together.
I also don't take your point that 'Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity = unnalloyed racism'. It is not that we are more worthy of it, but we should certainly expect that our Government prioritises it over the wealth and prosperity of other peoples - that is what any Government must do, and it seems to be a uniquely British approach that the wellbeing of non-British subjects should be prioritised above those of British ones. It breaks the social contract.
This civic nationalism approach is different to Restore, which has very prominent supporters and figures (not their actual policies as yet) who are ethno-nationalists. They believe in a particular sense of belonging here for those with British descent, and that mass migration as a whole needs to be reversed, and the country of The Haywane and Miss Marple 'restored'.
This rhetoric around those "whose loyalty lies with either a different state, or a concept like a global caliphate" is the sort of nonsense we had in this country for centuries around Catholics. The same gumpf was still being said in the US when JFK stood.
Nigel Farage's loyalty lies either to the guy in Thailand who gave him £5 million, or to his idol Donald Trump. He's clearly happy to distort policy to satisfy both of them. Can we chuck Farage out of the country?
The point is that it wasn't nonsense. Catholicism then wasn't a slightly different way of doing communion, it was a theocracy that wanted to replace the monarch, overturn the will of parliament, burn heretics, and rule from Rome. Catholicism in the UK is a benign force today *because* it was successfully broken by the State. To dismiss it as nonsense is to be utterly ignorant of history. There are very direct parallels with political Islam today, and if you had the ability to understand such concepts, you'd see this as an optimistic comparison, because it indicates that if the UK Government adopts a robust approach to protecting British freedoms and prohibiting political religion, being a pracising Muslim will one day be considered in the same vein as being a practising Catholic. But we aren't there yet.
Indeed, hence Henry VIII created the Church of England which would be headed by the English monarch as its Supreme Governor rather than have the national church with its allegiance to the Pope in Rome and the Vatican. Muslims like Roman Catholics can freely worship now but the national faith remains the Church of England (and in Scotland the Church of Scotland remains the faith protected by the now UK monarch)
Labour's dilemma, and it's a huge dilemma, is, I think, that:
1. Streeting is the most likely contender to take on both Farage and Polanski, and defeat them, and:
2. Streeting is the least likely contender to be elected by the Labour Party to be its leader.
And that's why there's such interest in Burnham, for whom 2. may not apply if he were an MP.
Not true, Streeting is Labour members second choice to replace Starmer after Burnham on this poll, just ahead of Rayner and well ahead of Mahmood, Cooper and Ed Miliband
Wes Streeting has told Sir Keir Starmer that he is preparing his case to be the next Prime Minister, the Telegraph can disclose.
An ally says: “Wes has made it clear to No10 that he won’t challenge Keir, but he is preparing a case if it all falls apart.
“Like most of the party, he thinks Keir is owed the chance to set out how he’s going to turn things around this week. He’s not plotting.”
If Streeting does launch a leadership campaign, I understand he will argue that he is the only candidate who can beat Reform UK, after Labour held on to his local Redbridge council this week.
He will point out that Angela Rayner’s council fell to Reform.
This looks pretty desperate stuff from Streeting if he’s using council elections in his area to come to that conclusion.
He has a paltry 500 vote majority . Elections are nationwide and Redbridge is hostile territory for Reform.
I like Streeting and he’s a good communicator but there’s also the elephant in the room that he’s gay and how well will that go down in less socially liberal parts of the country?
I couldn’t care less about his sexuality but others might .
Redbridge borders Essex, Reform could have won a lot of councillors there, Streeting can say the fact they didn't and Labour won most seats in his council area shows his and his Association's campaigning skills
Labour's dilemma, and it's a huge dilemma, is, I think, that:
1. Streeting is the most likely contender to take on both Farage and Polanski, and defeat them, and:
2. Streeting is the least likely contender to be elected by the Labour Party to be its leader.
And that's why there's such interest in Burnham, for whom 2. may not apply if he were an MP.
Not true, Streeting is Labour members second choice to replace Starmer after Burnham on this poll, just ahead of Rayner and well ahead of Mahmood, Cooper and Ed Miliband
All the respondees to that seem disappointed that he isn't reinventing himself as a foaming far right English ethno-nationalist. Because that (apparently) was the message from the local elections.
It's good that amongst all the people he's pissing off at least some of them are the right people to piss off. Every cloud.
All the respondees to that seem disappointed that he isn't reinventing himself as a foaming far right English ethno-nationalist. Because that (apparently) was the message from the local elections.
It's good that amongst all the people he's pissing off at least some of them are the right people to piss off. Every cloud.
But he is not saying anything other than words that have no meaning
What has saved Starmer is Labour has come second on seats won, even if Reform won most seats overall. Plus the realisation from the Labour left that Starmer is at least a Brownite, welcoming Gordon Brown back to No 10 as an adviser. Whereas Streeting is New Labour and a Blairite through and through from their perspective so unless and until Burnham returns as an MP removing Starmer is too big a risk.
That means Starmer survives this year most likely and West fails to get the nominations she needs from Labour MPs to challenge Starmer. Though next year Starmer may not be able to hold on, London is not voting next year in the local elections and this year over half of Labour councillors elected were from London, so next year's local elections could see Labour fall behind not only Reform but the LDs and Tories and maybe even the Greens on seats won too. That would almost certainly trigger a leadership challenge against Starmer
I simply do not understand your post which seems far removed from reality
We will see but I expect Starmer to still be Labour leader and PM and not facing a leadership challenger nominated by Labour MPs this time next week
What has saved Starmer is Labour has come second on seats won, even if Reform won most seats overall. Plus the realisation from the Labour left that Starmer is at least a Brownite, welcoming Gordon Brown back to No 10 as an adviser. Whereas Streeting is New Labour and a Blairite through and through from their perspective so unless and until Burnham returns as an MP removing Starmer is too big a risk.
That means Starmer survives this year most likely and West fails to get the nominations she needs from Labour MPs to challenge Starmer. Though next year Starmer may not be able to hold on, London is not voting next year in the local elections and this year over half of Labour councillors elected were from London, so next year's local elections could see Labour fall behind not only Reform but the LDs and Tories and maybe even the Greens on seats won too. That would almost certainly trigger a leadership challenge against Starmer
I simply do not understand your post which seems far removed from reality
No one other than @HYUFD has used the terms Brownite or Blairite for a decade.
What has saved Starmer is Labour has come second on seats won, even if Reform won most seats overall. Plus the realisation from the Labour left that Starmer is at least a Brownite, welcoming Gordon Brown back to No 10 as an adviser. Whereas Streeting is New Labour and a Blairite through and through from their perspective so unless and until Burnham returns as an MP removing Starmer is too big a risk.
That means Starmer survives this year most likely and West fails to get the nominations she needs from Labour MPs to challenge Starmer. Though next year Starmer may not be able to hold on, London is not voting next year in the local elections and this year over half of Labour councillors elected were from London, so next year's local elections could see Labour fall behind not only Reform but the LDs and Tories and maybe even the Greens on seats won too. That would almost certainly trigger a leadership challenge against Starmer
I simply do not understand your post which seems far removed from reality
No one other than @HYUFD has used the terms Brownite or Blairite for a decade.
All the respondees to that seem disappointed that he isn't reinventing himself as a foaming far right English ethno-nationalist. Because that (apparently) was the message from the local elections.
It's good that amongst all the people he's pissing off at least some of them are the right people to piss off. Every cloud.
But he is not saying anything other than words that have no meaning
So long as there's no "getting on with delivering the change that people voted for" it's a triumph afaic.
I feel like the last Prime Minister who was actually good at big set piece interventions was Theresa May.
Starmer's speeches are usually completely forgettable, and the one time he accidentally said something memorable, he disowned it.
When we had this other chap, called "William Glenn" here, I am sure you remember a speech she gave where she said "Brexit means Brexit" rather than defining what it meant even though at that point nobody had decided.
I hold her responsible for a lot of the mess that followed. But otherwise, she was the last PM not in it for vanity.
What has saved Starmer is Labour has come second on seats won, even if Reform won most seats overall. Plus the realisation from the Labour left that Starmer is at least a Brownite, welcoming Gordon Brown back to No 10 as an adviser. Whereas Streeting is New Labour and a Blairite through and through from their perspective so unless and until Burnham returns as an MP removing Starmer is too big a risk.
That means Starmer survives this year most likely and West fails to get the nominations she needs from Labour MPs to challenge Starmer. Though next year Starmer may not be able to hold on, London is not voting next year in the local elections and this year over half of Labour councillors elected were from London, so next year's local elections could see Labour fall behind not only Reform but the LDs and Tories and maybe even the Greens on seats won too. That would almost certainly trigger a leadership challenge against Starmer
I simply do not understand your post which seems far removed from reality
We will see but I expect Starmer to still be Labour leader and PM and not facing a leadership challenger nominated by Labour MPs this time next week
I think Labour has plenty of time to make positive change and win the next election. But with Keir Starmer at the helm, they are utterly screwed and stuck. We need a new leader with new ideas and to tell us a story of Britain today under a Labour government with a 100 seat majority.
I don't understand, he's saying the Mandy saga was bad and axing the winter fuel allowance was also bad. He was PM for both of those, he made those decisions. It's completely fucking stupid to highlight these and just bring the subjects back into the public eye. It would be different if he was freshly elected and was criticising the previous leadership but he's not.
Nothing in that speech will win voters back from Reform or Green. I'm really not sure why he's bothering, it's not a policy reset, it's not offering anything different to what is already happening he's just saying "we'll do the same as now but less incompetent, promise".
In the short term he needs to bring down costs which means lower inflation, cutting energy costs and probably something to bring food costs down. Nothing proposed here will do anything to address those issues. The best thing he could do is reverse the NI rise, reverse the rates changes and cut welfare to balance the books. Get young people off the dole and into jobs in hospitality. I'd even consider a temporary cut to VAT of 5% to get the economy moving and an instant cut to inflation.
If he wants to win the young middle classes back then some kind of student debt forgiveness will be necessary and a permanent cut in the interest rates, bring it back to the base rate and cap it at 3% or something.
There's nothing in that speech which will change anyone's mind about Labour or about him. It's a very Theresa May type of speech where she just came on TV to say "nothing has changed" all the time until it all came crashing down and Boris won the leadership and a landslide election.
What has saved Starmer is Labour has come second on seats won, even if Reform won most seats overall. Plus the realisation from the Labour left that Starmer is at least a Brownite, welcoming Gordon Brown back to No 10 as an adviser. Whereas Streeting is New Labour and a Blairite through and through from their perspective so unless and until Burnham returns as an MP removing Starmer is too big a risk.
That means Starmer survives this year most likely and West fails to get the nominations she needs from Labour MPs to challenge Starmer. Though next year Starmer may not be able to hold on, London is not voting next year in the local elections and this year over half of Labour councillors elected were from London, so next year's local elections could see Labour fall behind not only Reform but the LDs and Tories and maybe even the Greens on seats won too. That would almost certainly trigger a leadership challenge against Starmer
I simply do not understand your post which seems far removed from reality
No one other than @HYUFD has used the terms Brownite or Blairite for a decade.
It is still relevant though, Gordon Brown was and remains a huge supporter of Starmer, it is Brownites like Cooper and Ed Miliband who remain most loyal to the PM.
It is the left of the party like Rayner and Burnham (albeit Burnham has already been a Brownite and Blairite) and the New Labour Blairite right of the party in Streeting who most want Starmer gone
I feel like the last Prime Minister who was actually good at big set piece interventions was Theresa May.
Starmer's speeches are usually completely forgettable, and the one time he accidentally said something memorable, he disowned it.
When we had this other chap, called "William Glenn" here, I am sure you remember a speech she gave where she said "Brexit means Brexit" rather than defining what it meant even though at that point nobody had decided.
I hold her responsible for a lot of the mess that followed. But otherwise, she was the last PM not in it for vanity.
May was overcompensating because she was seen as a Remainer . I thought at the time it would have been better to have a Leaver as PM during that time whose decisions wouldn’t have been questioned as betraying Brexit , and depending who that was might have been able to get a better deal, they might have made some compromises .By the time Johnson came in the whole situation was so toxic with the goalposts having being moved and no deal being banded around as if it wouldn’t have been a total catastrophe.
I hold no ill feelings towards May. For all her faults she didn’t embarrass the office of PM and wasn’t a corrupt pathological liar like the blonde buffoon who came after her .
If Team Starmer thinks that those extracts are going to prove enticing, they have seriously misjudged things. AGAIN.
It is just typical Starmer word soup, no real content, just words
That won't save him.
We just need this to be over. For the country, for Labour and for him.
To be this beleagured cannot be easy to bear. Even if he tries to deluded himself that he has a future, deep down he must know that he has no future.
A long, bitter retirement beckons.
Speeches tend to be just words.
He needs a big policy announcement. Wealth tax, pr, join the single market, it is go big or go home time.
But there's no manifesto commitment to any of those, the Lords will strike all of them down and he doesn't have the political capital to ram any of them through the commons multiple times without it being killed by a thousand cuts.
If Team Starmer thinks that those extracts are going to prove enticing, they have seriously misjudged things. AGAIN.
It is just typical Starmer word soup, no real content, just words
That won't save him.
We just need this to be over. For the country, for Labour and for him.
To be this beleagured cannot be easy to bear. Even if he tries to deluded himself that he has a future, deep down he must know that he has no future.
A long, bitter retirement beckons.
Speeches tend to be just words.
He needs a big policy announcement. Wealth tax, pr, join the single market, it is go big or go home time.
But there's no manifesto commitment to any of those, the Lords will strike all of them down and he doesn't have the political capital to ram any of them through the commons multiple times without it being killed by a thousand cuts.
He has to give labour MPs a reason to stick with him, they are already lining his replacement up. This is no time for word salad. Just to be clear I dont want any of those things, but I am not the audience he needs to convince. Labour MPs are.
Starmer needs to do something unconventional and pull out an announcement that no one is expecting. Clearly he’s not going to resign so not that but something on policy .
Starmer needs to do something unconventional and pull out an announcement that no one is expecting. Clearly he’s not going to resign so not that but something on policy .
I agree with Trukat , go big or go home.
Announce the end of the devolution experiment and abolish Andy Burnham's job?
All the respondees to that seem disappointed that he isn't reinventing himself as a foaming far right English ethno-nationalist. Because that (apparently) was the message from the local elections.
It's good that amongst all the people he's pissing off at least some of them are the right people to piss off. Every cloud.
It’s not pissing anyone off, at all. It’s genuinely funny, because it’s so bad. Just enjoy the ride
Actually, whilst acknowledging it was AI generated, I agree with it. As I've been pointing out recently (around two years?) one of the big problems is the death or enervation of the nation-state. Defence has been a casualty of this, with the armed forces being badly underfunded, very poor control over the money that is assigned, and reduction of loyalty to Britain-as-a-concept. I don't know how anybody fixes this.
Starmer needs to do something unconventional and pull out an announcement that no one is expecting. Clearly he’s not going to resign so not that but something on policy .
The best thing about the elections and all the drama post them is we haven’t seen Trumps ugly orange face plastered on our tv screens morning till night .
Meanwhile oil prices are going up again .
Good luck to whoever the new leader of the Labour Party is going to be because it’s going to turn very grim economically over the next few months .
“Even those who don’t like Starmer can be surprised at the sheer intensity and spread of the animosity towards him. “[It] is beyond anything I’ve ever experienced,” John McDonnell said on LBC recently. On Newsnight on Wednesday, the Daily Telegraph’s Camilla Tominey said that “visceral dislike” of Starmer was the local elections’ defining theme – and the Labour peer Thangam Debbonaire conceded that “I’ve certainly picked that up on the doorstep, yes.”
“It’s not that Starmer is viscerally hated by some people – that can be said of other prime ministers like Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Boris Johnson – but that he seems to be viscerally hated across the board. Once, the spited Corbyn wing of the Labour party – victim of Starmer’s anti-left purges – was alone in its anger. Now you would be hard-pressed to say which constituency hates Starmer the most. For a prime minister who seems desperate to appear inoffensive above all else, it is quite the achievement.”
Edit to add. I forgot the link, and I should put it in. The whole essay is worth reading. It’s intelligent
The best thing about the elections and all the drama post them is we haven’t seen Trumps ugly orange face plastered on our tv screens morning till night .
Meanwhile oil prices are going up again .
Good luck to whoever the new leader of the Labour Party is going to be because it’s going to turn very grim economically over the next few months .
Yes, a deal tomorrow with Iran wouldn't prevent blowback, so it doesn't look good.
The best thing about the elections and all the drama post them is we haven’t seen Trumps ugly orange face plastered on our tv screens morning till night .
Meanwhile oil prices are going up again .
Good luck to whoever the new leader of the Labour Party is going to be because it’s going to turn very grim economically over the next few months .
Yes, a deal tomorrow with Iran wouldn't prevent blowback, so it doesn't look good.
Apparently Trump had a tirade over the Iranian response to the US proposal.
If Team Starmer thinks that those extracts are going to prove enticing, they have seriously misjudged things. AGAIN.
It is just typical Starmer word soup, no real content, just words
That won't save him.
We just need this to be over. For the country, for Labour and for him.
To be this beleagured cannot be easy to bear. Even if he tries to deluded himself that he has a future, deep down he must know that he has no future.
A long, bitter retirement beckons.
Speeches tend to be just words.
He needs a big policy announcement. Wealth tax, pr, join the single market, it is go big or go home time.
But there's no manifesto commitment to any of those, the Lords will strike all of them down and he doesn't have the political capital to ram any of them through the commons multiple times without it being killed by a thousand cuts.
A big announcement might save him for six months though. Delivery is a future Keir problem.
I give it 50/50 - many MPs and 100% of the commentariat are desperate for him to announce he is going sometime this week, but they cannot keep that up forever, and if the plan is for Burnham to be The One then things might even go briefly quiet until he pulls the trigger.
“Even those who don’t like Starmer can be surprised at the sheer intensity and spread of the animosity towards him. “[It] is beyond anything I’ve ever experienced,” John McDonnell said on LBC recently. On Newsnight on Wednesday, the Daily Telegraph’s Camilla Tominey said that “visceral dislike” of Starmer was the local elections’ defining theme – and the Labour peer Thangam Debbonaire conceded that “I’ve certainly picked that up on the doorstep, yes.”
“It’s not that Starmer is viscerally hated by some people – that can be said of other prime ministers like Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Boris Johnson – but that he seems to be viscerally hated across the board. Once, the spited Corbyn wing of the Labour party – victim of Starmer’s anti-left purges – was alone in its anger. Now you would be hard-pressed to say which constituency hates Starmer the most. For a prime minister who seems desperate to appear inoffensive above all else, it is quite the achievement.”
Have you just posted that from the Guardian verbatim?
Google tells me Catherine West's constituency of Hornsey is the 8th safest in the country
is this some 7d game of strip poker-chess where she ends up standing down for IT is HE, the Mancunian Son of God?
Just to note (which highlights Labour's problem if this was their 8th safest seat) that the wards which make up the Hornsey & Friern Barnet seat only just voted Labour on Thursday...
The best thing about the elections and all the drama post them is we haven’t seen Trumps ugly orange face plastered on our tv screens morning till night .
Meanwhile oil prices are going up again .
Good luck to whoever the new leader of the Labour Party is going to be because it’s going to turn very grim economically over the next few months .
Yes, a deal tomorrow with Iran wouldn't prevent blowback, so it doesn't look good.
Apparently Trump had a tirade over the Iranian response to the US proposal.
Let me guess - they have no cards, we've beaten them already, I could destroy their civilization but I'm such a nice guy I won't, they are begging for a deal but some of them are messing about, I am amazing, thank you for your attention to this matter?
Google tells me Catherine West's constituency of Hornsey is the 8th safest in the country
is this some 7d game of strip poker-chess where she ends up standing down for IT is HE, the Mancunian Son of God?
Just to note (which highlights Labour's problem if this was their 8th safest seat) that the wards which make up the Hornsey & Friern Barnet seat only just voted Labour on Thursday...
Google tells me Catherine West's constituency of Hornsey is the 8th safest in the country
is this some 7d game of strip poker-chess where she ends up standing down for IT is HE, the Mancunian Son of God?
Just to note (which highlights Labour's problem if this was their 8th safest seat) that the wards which make up the Hornsey & Friern Barnet seat only just voted Labour on Thursday...
Comments
Here is my drinks shelf. In my “entertainment corner”. Right this minute
Blackley and Middleton South
The little box at the front is a Tsarist lacquer box from about 1840 containing my gascake. Next to it is an emergency dose of ayahuasca
Edit - No might about it, I will.
I suppose since you'll no longer be among the living why would you care?
Are we recreating Labour's machinations in spirit form?
Thai whisky used to be infamously evil, now it is just mediocre
It's a shame all the truly terrible, poisonous, three-day-hangover liquors are being superseded by Meh
As far as I see it, everyone runs.
Reform (might win)
Lib Dems (might win)
Tories (can't be seen to allow Reform a free run)
Greens (commie, but won't be able to resist running)
So who is the Jim Hacker compromise consensus candidate?
And I am genuinely not sure if I can identify a safe seat in either of these places where there is an MP likely to step down for The Manc Messiah. However, others will know Labour politics and topography much better
If he lets Burnham back into Parliament then 100% certain Burnham will take over.
If he blocks Burnham, he dares the Left to go for Rayner. And I reckon the Left would probably then blink - because deep down they know Rayner will lose them their seats.
OK, if the Left blinks then maybe sometime down the road Miliband gets it by default. But he should take that chance.
So Starmer is supposed to sit and wait around for Burnham to contest a by-election , then if he wins he walks into Parliament and everyone knows he’ll then challenge Starmer.
If I was Starmer I’d find that simply too much to stomach . And unless Starmer is willing to be humiliated then he has a choice . Go early to sabotage Burnham or hang around knowing the backstabbing Judas is coming to stick the knife in .
Google tells me Catherine West's constituency of Hornsey is the 8th safest in the country
is this some 7d game of strip poker-chess where she ends up standing down for IT is HE, the Mancunian Son of God?
https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/2053595469649944869
He will resign. I am confident.
https://x.com/i/status/2053588393632596116
Then, as he passes Friern Barnet, he should be given a crown of thorns but nice, and comfy, and also a constituency
Finally, as his donkey proceeds down Whitehall, and grown women are seen to involuntarily prolapse in worship, he should cast pearls in front of the police, then change water into lager, and eventually give a Sermon by Westminster Abbey, whereat St Mo Mowlam's cremated body is summoned from the ash tray, and she falls to her ashy knees, and then he becomes the new leader?
Why not do it that way?
https://x.com/i/status/2053506215653548438
That means Starmer survives this year most likely and West fails to get the nominations she needs from Labour MPs to challenge Starmer. Though next year Starmer may not be able to hold on, London is not voting next year in the local elections and this year over half of Labour councillors elected were from London, so next year's local elections could see Labour fall behind not only Reform but the LDs and Tories and maybe even the Greens on seats won too. That would almost certainly trigger a leadership challenge against Starmer
I honestly don't think he's intelligent or perceptive, there simply is no other explanation for this. I was duped.
We believe that this document is fully AI-generated
Oh dear Clive, oh dear indeed.
Decisions like cutting winter fuel allowance just weren’t what people expected from a Labour government."
If he wasn't already the leader it would sound like a leadership challenge.
Because, if that really is the text, it is going to be - given the context - literally the worst speech in the history of humankind, and in decades to come our grandchildren will ask, Were you there when Sir Beer Korma said "it's a big ask, but incremental change won't cut it"
https://x.com/itvpeston/status/1972647566941827415?s=20
It's good that amongst all the people he's pissing off at least some of them are the right people to piss off. Every cloud.
It is just typical Starmer word soup, no real content, just words
That won't save him.
We just need this to be over. For the country, for Labour and for him.
To be this beleagured cannot be easy to bear. Even if he tries to deluded himself that he has a future, deep down he must know that he has no future.
A long, bitter retirement beckons.
Starmer's speeches are usually completely forgettable, and the one time he accidentally said something memorable, he disowned it.
I hold her responsible for a lot of the mess that followed. But otherwise, she was the last PM not in it for vanity.
For the good of the country, he must resign.
Nothing in that speech will win voters back from Reform or Green. I'm really not sure why he's bothering, it's not a policy reset, it's not offering anything different to what is already happening he's just saying "we'll do the same as now but less incompetent, promise".
In the short term he needs to bring down costs which means lower inflation, cutting energy costs and probably something to bring food costs down. Nothing proposed here will do anything to address those issues. The best thing he could do is reverse the NI rise, reverse the rates changes and cut welfare to balance the books. Get young people off the dole and into jobs in hospitality. I'd even consider a temporary cut to VAT of 5% to get the economy moving and an instant cut to inflation.
If he wants to win the young middle classes back then some kind of student debt forgiveness will be necessary and a permanent cut in the interest rates, bring it back to the base rate and cap it at 3% or something.
There's nothing in that speech which will change anyone's mind about Labour or about him. It's a very Theresa May type of speech where she just came on TV to say "nothing has changed" all the time until it all came crashing down and Boris won the leadership and a landslide election.
The media questions after will be torrid for him
It is the left of the party like Rayner and Burnham (albeit Burnham has already been a Brownite and Blairite) and the New Labour Blairite right of the party in Streeting who most want Starmer gone
I hold no ill feelings towards May. For all her faults she didn’t embarrass the office of PM and wasn’t a corrupt pathological liar like the blonde buffoon who came after her .
A short speech by SKS
I agree with Trukat , go big or go home.
It is about passion, the ability to inspire, a clear vision
Things we have never seen from Starmer.
There is a place for dull technocrats. Just not in Downing Street
Actually, whilst acknowledging it was AI generated, I agree with it. As I've been pointing out recently (around two years?) one of the big problems is the death or enervation of the nation-state. Defence has been a casualty of this, with the armed forces being badly underfunded, very poor control over the money that is assigned, and reduction of loyalty to Britain-as-a-concept. I don't know how anybody fixes this.
Meanwhile oil prices are going up again .
Good luck to whoever the new leader of the Labour Party is going to be because it’s going to turn very grim economically over the next few months .
“Even those who don’t like Starmer can be surprised at the sheer intensity and spread of the animosity towards him. “[It] is beyond anything I’ve ever experienced,” John McDonnell said on LBC recently. On Newsnight on Wednesday, the Daily Telegraph’s Camilla Tominey said that “visceral dislike” of Starmer was the local elections’ defining theme – and the Labour peer Thangam Debbonaire conceded that “I’ve certainly picked that up on the doorstep, yes.”
“It’s not that Starmer is viscerally hated by some people – that can be said of other prime ministers like Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Boris Johnson – but that he seems to be viscerally hated across the board. Once, the spited Corbyn wing of the Labour party – victim of Starmer’s anti-left purges – was alone in its anger. Now you would be hard-pressed to say which constituency hates Starmer the most. For a prime minister who seems desperate to appear inoffensive above all else, it is quite the achievement.”
Edit to add. I forgot the link, and I should put it in. The whole essay is worth reading. It’s intelligent
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/10/britain-hatred-keir-starmer-prime-minister
In good times that's exactly who you'd want. Someone who'd efficiently keep things ticking over.
Without any agenda or ideas.
I give it 50/50 - many MPs and 100% of the commentariat are desperate for him to announce he is going sometime this week, but they cannot keep that up forever, and if the plan is for Burnham to be The One then things might even go briefly quiet until he pulls the trigger.
Lab - 12816 - 31.3%
Grn - 12640 - 30.9%
LD - 9776 - 23.9%
Con - 2529 - 6.2%
Ref - 2252 - 5.5%
Ind - 704 - 1.7%
Oth - 236 - 0.6%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3ko9uAwekA