Skip to content

Will it be a blue Monday for Starmer? Will Labour MPs impose a new order? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,174
edited May 11 in General
Will it be a blue Monday for Starmer? Will Labour MPs impose a new order? – politicalbetting.com

Today seems pivotal for the continued premiership of Sir Keir Starmer with his speech trying to save his job. Labour MPs are in shellshock with everything’s gone Green and Reform.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417
    edited May 11
    True Faith? Or Regret....

    Either way, plenty of Confusion.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    edited May 11
    Cancel the speech and go into bunker mode - dare them to make the challenge.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,194
    He’s Keir, there and everywhere.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268
    I'm away on holiday for two weeks and expect Starmer still to be here and Arsenal to win the Premiership. Or one of the two.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417

    He'll say we need to go further and faster, without saying where to.

    To confuse the 80's musical references...

    He's just a talking head, on the road to nowhere.
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 998
    It might be curtains for Starmer anyway. If I was him I would block Burnham and dare them to trigger the leadership election. Let the entitled shits bring down the first Labour Government in 14 years just because Andy Burnham chose to be on the outside when Government seemed a distant prospect. It won't do him any good.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    FPT
    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    MaxPB said:

    trukat said:

    kinabalu said:

    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 policy was popular with Lab MPs he would be fine getting it through commons. If a budget measure lords can't block.

    So I guess that points to a wealth tax plus (and this is important) some kind of tax cut to help with cost of living crisis.
    A really bold strategy would be a full council tax revaluation. Or its abolition and replacement with local income tax.

    It would have many losers but I suspect in the Labour areas it would have many more winners.
    It would be Reform areas that would be the biggest winners.

    Council tax is equivalent to 0.5% of property wealth in aggregate. Even if you increased it to a flat 1%, a majority of households would get a cut, and that cut would be enormous in places like Teesside, where the current rate can be as high as 5% depending on band.

    There was a lot of crap spouted on PB about people not caring about the WWC over the weekend. Well, this is the kind of policy that could hugely improve livelihoods in those areas, along with abolishing energy standing charges, quadrupling bus services (back to 2010 levels) and so on.
    So why has no one done it or advocated for it, if they care so much about these areas ?

    Because it would upset those who lose out and there’s no political courage to do it.
    The problem with a council tax revaluation is that the manpower to actually do a revaluation doesn't exist.

    the fix has to be based on sale prices attached to removal of stamp duty - but for Labour to see the benefit of that they needed to kick it off in August 2024 for implementation in April 2028..

    If they did it now you would be looking at 2030 at the earliest.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,435
    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    MaxPB said:

    trukat said:

    kinabalu said:

    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 policy was popular with Lab MPs he would be fine getting it through commons. If a budget measure lords can't block.

    So I guess that points to a wealth tax plus (and this is important) some kind of tax cut to help with cost of living crisis.
    A really bold strategy would be a full council tax revaluation. Or its abolition and replacement with local income tax.

    It would have many losers but I suspect in the Labour areas it would have many more winners.
    It would be Reform areas that would be the biggest winners.

    Council tax is equivalent to 0.5% of property wealth in aggregate. Even if you increased it to a flat 1%, a majority of households would get a cut, and that cut would be enormous in places like Teesside, where the current rate can be as high as 5% depending on band.

    There was a lot of crap spouted on PB about people not caring about the WWC over the weekend. Well, this is the kind of policy that could hugely improve livelihoods in those areas, along with abolishing energy standing charges, quadrupling bus services (back to 2010 levels) and so on.
    So why has no one done it or advocated for it, if they care so much about these areas ?

    Because it would upset those who lose out and there’s no political courage to do it.
    The problem with a council tax revaluation is that the manpower to actually do a revaluation doesn't exist.

    the fix has to be based on sale prices attached to removal of stamp duty - but for Labour to see the benefit of that they needed to kick it off in August 2024 for implementation in April 2028..

    If they did it now you would be looking at 2030 at the earliest.
    Which just underlines how little ambition they had back in 2024
  • FishingFishing Posts: 6,356

    He'll say we need to go further and faster, without saying where to.

    More and quicker U-turns?

    Or further and faster down the plughole?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    Hold on Prime Minister. It seems like the party is desperate to get Burnham in so they don't want to launch a challenge right now. They want you to say you'll go so Burnham can then announce he'll come in.

    Don't play that game. Show them if they want Burnham he has to get in first, and you'll bow to the inevitable and stand down IF he gets back in, not before.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,874
    Unpopular said:

    It might be curtains for Starmer anyway. If I was him I would block Burnham and dare them to trigger the leadership election. Let the entitled shits bring down the first Labour Government in 14 years just because Andy Burnham chose to be on the outside when Government seemed a distant prospect. It won't do him any good.

    Maybe it's just that Thatcher and Blair were the freaks and the system chews up and spits out Prime Ministerial authority after 2-3 years. (Dave was protected by the coalition, but forced into a stupid referendum pledge after three.)

    If so, is that a problem and is there an answer?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    What is it with Labour PMs ending up hated by most of the membership? Blair, Macdonald, Starmer.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,865
    Will Labour MPs put the World in Motion?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958
    kle4 said:

    What is it with Labour PMs ending up hated by most of the membership? Blair, Macdonald, Starmer.

    Completely unrealistic expectations.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,996
    Starmer should block Burnham.
    Deep down, the Left knows Rayner would be a disaster so they can’t risk her.
    That would leave them only one other option - Ed Miliband - and how much confidence do they have that he will save their seats?
    Whereas if he lets Burnham back he knows he’s definitely finished.
  • AbandonedHopeAbandonedHope Posts: 226
    Let’s play ‘What if…?’

    What if Sir Keir says “Sod it. If Andy Burnham wants to be an MP he can run at the General Election. By the way, I’m seeing The King shortly to dissolve Parliament…”

    Would Burnham want to run for Parliament knowing he may not be elected? Would he want to run knowing that if elected he may be Leader of the Opposition and face 5 years out of Government? And what if Burnham ran, didn’t win a seat but Labour won reelection because people thought Burnham would become an MP and replace Starmer but Starmer, in fact, remains PM?

    It won’t happen. But if it did, we’ll, I’m not really sure when I’d stop laughing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814

    Unpopular said:

    It might be curtains for Starmer anyway. If I was him I would block Burnham and dare them to trigger the leadership election. Let the entitled shits bring down the first Labour Government in 14 years just because Andy Burnham chose to be on the outside when Government seemed a distant prospect. It won't do him any good.

    Maybe it's just that Thatcher and Blair were the freaks and the system chews up and spits out Prime Ministerial authority after 2-3 years. (Dave was protected by the coalition, but forced into a stupid referendum pledge after three.)

    If so, is that a problem and is there an answer?
    It is a problem because some problems need concerted effort and cohesive vision to address and if we're at a point where 2-3 years is all they'll get it means nothing serious gets done with continual resets and fighting for political lives all the time.

    Although technically the average tenure is probably just over three years.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325
    edited May 11
    Burnham shouldn’t be rewarded for causing this psychodrama .

    He wasn’t willing to do the hard yards as in coming back into the Commons without an expectation of just being handed the leadership on a plate .
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,446
    edited May 11
    Mr Burnham's conviction that he's the one to save the party and the country suggests to me that, if he achieves his ambition, it will be disastrous for his character.

    I'm thinking of Michael Portillo, who became obnoxious in government and then human again after losing his seat.

    Mr Burnham is looking at the road not taken and regretting his choice.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958
    kle4 said:

    Unpopular said:

    It might be curtains for Starmer anyway. If I was him I would block Burnham and dare them to trigger the leadership election. Let the entitled shits bring down the first Labour Government in 14 years just because Andy Burnham chose to be on the outside when Government seemed a distant prospect. It won't do him any good.

    Maybe it's just that Thatcher and Blair were the freaks and the system chews up and spits out Prime Ministerial authority after 2-3 years. (Dave was protected by the coalition, but forced into a stupid referendum pledge after three.)

    If so, is that a problem and is there an answer?
    It is a problem because some problems need concerted effort and cohesive vision to address and if we're at a point where 2-3 years is all they'll get it means nothing serious gets done with continual resets and fighting for political lives all the time.

    Although technically the average tenure is probably just over three years.
    We don't just do this for PMs but cabinet ministers too. How many are in cabinet/shadow cabinet for a decade, ideally across no more than one or two departments?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,451
    edited May 11

    He'll say we need to go further and faster, without saying where to.

    To confuse the 80's musical references...

    He's just a talking head, on the road to nowhere.
    Duplicate
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958

    Will Labour MPs put the World in Motion?

    They think its all over.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,451

    He'll say we need to go further and faster, without saying where to.

    To confuse the 80's musical references...

    He's just a talking head, on the road to nowhere.
    Surely Angela vs Wes is Two Tribes Go To War? Unless Andie Goes To Westminster
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 9,134
    I see nothing in the trailed parts of the speech that will shift the dial. Unless he’ll pull something out of his hat - but that would be very un-Starmerlike.

    I do think that West might row back though. There’ll also have been a whipping operation to get some wavering MPs to come out afterwards and suggest it was better than the Gettysburg Address to try and dampen a challenge.

    Burnham’s machinations continue to make him look foolish.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,874

    kle4 said:

    What is it with Labour PMs ending up hated by most of the membership? Blair, Macdonald, Starmer.

    Completely unrealistic expectations.
    Ooh, good spot. Though can be true on the right as well. As for the centre, look what happened when they were in government.

    Theory: we mostly leave politics to two groups of people; idealists and those who want their popularity officially validated. The first are hopeless at the tradeoffs that are needed when all the low-hanging fruit has been picked and eaten. The second go bonkers when asked to do anything unpopular but necessary.

    Hence, all of this.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,188
    edited May 11
    nico67 said:

    Burnham shouldn’t be rewarded for causing this psychodrama .

    He wasn’t willing to do the hard yards as in coming back into the Commons without an expectation of just being handed the leadership on a plate .

    Good morning

    Burnham didn't cause this psyshodrama

    Starmer has achieved it all on his own
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,878

    nico67 said:

    Burnham shouldn’t be rewarded for causing this psychodrama .

    He wasn’t willing to do the hard yards as in coming back into the Commons without an expectation of just being handed the leadership on a plate .

    Good morning

    Burnham didn't cause this psyshodrama

    Starmer has achieved it all on his own
    He and his team have been out spraying psychopetrol on the psychoflames though.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417
    There's an obvious way to get Burnham into Parliament.

    Starmer gets out the Special Podium - and calls an election...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,828

    I see nothing in the trailed parts of the speech that will shift the dial. Unless he’ll pull something out of his hat - but that would be very un-Starmerlike.

    I do think that West might row back though. There’ll also have been a whipping operation to get some wavering MPs to come out afterwards and suggest it was better than the Gettysburg Address to try and dampen a challenge.

    Burnham’s machinations continue to make him look foolish.

    Both Starmer and Burnham are looking desperate.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958

    I see nothing in the trailed parts of the speech that will shift the dial. Unless he’ll pull something out of his hat - but that would be very un-Starmerlike.

    I do think that West might row back though. There’ll also have been a whipping operation to get some wavering MPs to come out afterwards and suggest it was better than the Gettysburg Address to try and dampen a challenge.

    Burnham’s machinations continue to make him look foolish.

    Surely he has to try something un Starmer like? Is anyone saying if only he did some more dull, uninspiring speeches without content that will fix things?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,874

    nico67 said:

    Burnham shouldn’t be rewarded for causing this psychodrama .

    He wasn’t willing to do the hard yards as in coming back into the Commons without an expectation of just being handed the leadership on a plate .

    Good morning

    Burnham didn't cause this pschodrama
    He did, at least in part. Starmer may have proved incapable of handling it well, but thwarted ambition is a tale as old as time. A classier individual would have used every bit of talent that have to make the boss look good.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,878
    Sweeney74 said:

    The Bants option is for a resignation in a safe seat to allow Burnham to stand, he then loses the by-election to the Greens and Reform takes the Mayoralty.

    With the "if he doesn't resign the Mayoralty *before* he stands, he looks like he isn't confident of winning" trap gaping in front of him.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689
    How does it feel, to be the most unpopular PM in a lifetime?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,188
    mwadams said:

    nico67 said:

    Burnham shouldn’t be rewarded for causing this psychodrama .

    He wasn’t willing to do the hard yards as in coming back into the Commons without an expectation of just being handed the leadership on a plate .

    Good morning

    Burnham didn't cause this psyshodrama

    Starmer has achieved it all on his own
    He and his team have been out spraying psychopetrol on the psychoflames though.
    Ultimately the failure here is Starmer who simply is not suited to be PM
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,601
    nico67 said:

    Burnham shouldn’t be rewarded for causing this psychodrama .

    He wasn’t willing to do the hard yards as in coming back into the Commons without an expectation of just being handed the leadership on a plate .

    Hang on.
    He applied for selection as candidate for Gorton and Denton.
    Harder yards running a major City rather than lounging on the back benches at Westminster.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 8,261
    Sweeney74 said:

    The Bants option is for a resignation in a safe seat to allow Burnham to stand, he then loses the by-election to the Greens and Reform takes the Mayoralty.

    Does he have to resign the Mayoralty to run as an MP? I know he can't be both, but can't he stand in a by election and then resign the Mayoralty if he wins? It's seems stupid to expect someone to resign from one job before applying for another when they are both at the whim of the electorate.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958
    Sandpit said:

    How does it feel, to be the most unpopular PM in a lifetime?

    Depends how you look at it.

    Yougov - Doing well as PM - Starmer 22% yes 70% no. Truss 11% yes 71% no.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 9,134

    I see nothing in the trailed parts of the speech that will shift the dial. Unless he’ll pull something out of his hat - but that would be very un-Starmerlike.

    I do think that West might row back though. There’ll also have been a whipping operation to get some wavering MPs to come out afterwards and suggest it was better than the Gettysburg Address to try and dampen a challenge.

    Burnham’s machinations continue to make him look foolish.

    Surely he has to try something un Starmer like? Is anyone saying if only he did some more dull, uninspiring speeches without content that will fix things?
    Agreed. But nothing in the speech suggests anything like that.

    If we’re being honest, what could he really announce or do that would be a game changer? I can think of one thing - a rejoin referendum, probably for after the next GE - but that will cause all sorts of unknowns and it’s uncertain quite what the effect will be.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,451
    @Gallowgate FPT

    @CorrectHorseBattery said he thought a specific statement was unclear. I disagreed and explained what I thought it meant.

    I’m not quite sure why that warranted such an intemperate reply from you
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,918

    He'll say we need to go further and faster, without saying where to.

    To confuse the 80's musical references...

    He's just a talking head, on the road to nowhere.
    To where the street(ings) have no name.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,692
    I wonder if he'll get around to announcing funding for the defence review ?

    It's been nearly a year now, and some UK defence contractors, particularly the smaller businesses, are planning to (or already have) decamp to the US or Europe, as they can't exist on nothing.

    This during a once in a generation opportunity due defence businesses, as Europe rearms while developing new technology.

    Which remind me of another Brexit benefit - our partner in GCAP, Italy, can borrow long term from the €150bn European defence loan facility at around 3%.

    The UK 20 year gilt yield is nearly double that, at around 5.5%.
    (That's what the fantasy scheme to decouple defence spending from UK borrowing requirements was about.)
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958

    I see nothing in the trailed parts of the speech that will shift the dial. Unless he’ll pull something out of his hat - but that would be very un-Starmerlike.

    I do think that West might row back though. There’ll also have been a whipping operation to get some wavering MPs to come out afterwards and suggest it was better than the Gettysburg Address to try and dampen a challenge.

    Burnham’s machinations continue to make him look foolish.

    Surely he has to try something un Starmer like? Is anyone saying if only he did some more dull, uninspiring speeches without content that will fix things?
    Agreed. But nothing in the speech suggests anything like that.

    If we’re being honest, what could he really announce or do that would be a game changer? I can think of one thing - a rejoin referendum, probably for after the next GE - but that will cause all sorts of unknowns and it’s uncertain quite what the effect will be.
    I'd back odds on closer ties with Europe will be the main policy proposal, just because we can't afford anything else he'd like to do. It probably won't be rejoin or another referendum at this stage, so has the danger of just being more words without substance.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 636

    I see nothing in the trailed parts of the speech that will shift the dial. Unless he’ll pull something out of his hat - but that would be very un-Starmerlike.

    I do think that West might row back though. There’ll also have been a whipping operation to get some wavering MPs to come out afterwards and suggest it was better than the Gettysburg Address to try and dampen a challenge.

    Burnham’s machinations continue to make him look foolish.

    Both Starmer and Burnham are looking desperate.
    Indeed, it's not a good look in anyone, especially those who seek to lead.

    It's also hugely entitled of Burnham and his pushers, the king over the water, that he's basically the next PM in waiting. Forget that he's currently ineligible, that a sitting MP needs to step aside, that the by-election is a foregone conclusion, that the leadership election is in-the-bag...

    I hope he does get a by-election
    I hope he loses
    I hope Labour also lose the Mayoralty of GM
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689
    Andrew Neil’s preview - mark your bingo cards!

    There’s recently been a rule of thumb among Westminster wags that there’s no situation so bad that a speech by Keir Starmer can’t make it worse. From the overnight briefing of what the PM plans to say at 10:00 this morning that adage looks like being proved again.
    ‘Strength through fairness’ (meaningless)
    ‘Putting Britain at the heart of Europe’ (they talk of nothing else at the Dog and Duck).
    ‘Hope, urgency’ (whatever)
    ‘Incremental change won’t cut it’ (said it before — so what really big change, rupture do you have in mind?).
    Ho hum. Tumbleweed already blowing through Downing Street.


    https://x.com/afneil/status/2053730703720796204
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268

    There's an obvious way to get Burnham into Parliament.

    Starmer gets out the Special Podium - and calls an election...

    Makes sense to at least offer the Party that option.

    My working (betting) hypothesis* is that Kemi is a drag on the Tories (sorry Big G); Polanski is a flash in the pan; and Reform have a ceiling of about 25%-30%. The next government will be a Labour minority with Farage as LOTO. The choice for Labour is who is best placed to face such a LOTO. So if it is Burnham, then call the election now.

    *Other theories available over the period to the next GE.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 636

    Sweeney74 said:

    The Bants option is for a resignation in a safe seat to allow Burnham to stand, he then loses the by-election to the Greens and Reform takes the Mayoralty.

    Does he have to resign the Mayoralty to run as an MP? I know he can't be both, but can't he stand in a by election and then resign the Mayoralty if he wins? It's seems stupid to expect someone to resign from one job before applying for another when they are both at the whim of the electorate.
    mwadams said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    The Bants option is for a resignation in a safe seat to allow Burnham to stand, he then loses the by-election to the Greens and Reform takes the Mayoralty.

    With the "if he doesn't resign the Mayoralty *before* he stands, he looks like he isn't confident of winning" trap gaping in front of him.
    ^^

    He can't have a boot in both camps.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    She again says she wants "to be fair" to Keir Starmer, but "if the speech fails to satisfy" her, she will try to launch her own challenge. "We are in sort of the last chance saloon here," she says. "We need a really good communicator to take the fight to Nigel Farage." Asked what it would take from this morning's speech to convince her, West says she wants Starmer "to explain how he people's lives better".

    What the chances she finds Starmer does enough to convince her to back down.
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,363
    edited May 11
    -2.2C at the vineyard last night and likely colder tonight. Coldest May night since I started recording in 2022. That probably means well over 50% crop loss, depending on how much the cold was concentrated at the bottom of the slope (there the weather station is).
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922

    Sweeney74 said:

    The Bants option is for a resignation in a safe seat to allow Burnham to stand, he then loses the by-election to the Greens and Reform takes the Mayoralty.

    Does he have to resign the Mayoralty to run as an MP? I know he can't be both, but can't he stand in a by election and then resign the Mayoralty if he wins? It's seems stupid to expect someone to resign from one job before applying for another when they are both at the whim of the electorate.
    Yes because this Labour Government changed the rules to ensure Burnham was stuck as Manchester mayor.

    Previously you had to resign after winning a Parliamentary seat now you need to resign before hand
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    edited May 11
    Sandpit said:

    Andrew Neil’s preview - mark your bingo cards!

    There’s recently been a rule of thumb among Westminster wags that there’s no situation so bad that a speech by Keir Starmer can’t make it worse. From the overnight briefing of what the PM plans to say at 10:00 this morning that adage looks like being proved again.
    ‘Strength through fairness’ (meaningless)
    ‘Putting Britain at the heart of Europe’ (they talk of nothing else at the Dog and Duck).
    ‘Hope, urgency’ (whatever)
    ‘Incremental change won’t cut it’ (said it before — so what really big change, rupture do you have in mind?).
    Ho hum. Tumbleweed already blowing through Downing Street.


    https://x.com/afneil/status/2053730703720796204

    I am....Spartacus....I mean the change....
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 5,542
    Sweeney74 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    The Bants option is for a resignation in a safe seat to allow Burnham to stand, he then loses the by-election to the Greens and Reform takes the Mayoralty.

    Does he have to resign the Mayoralty to run as an MP? I know he can't be both, but can't he stand in a by election and then resign the Mayoralty if he wins? It's seems stupid to expect someone to resign from one job before applying for another when they are both at the whim of the electorate.
    mwadams said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    The Bants option is for a resignation in a safe seat to allow Burnham to stand, he then loses the by-election to the Greens and Reform takes the Mayoralty.

    With the "if he doesn't resign the Mayoralty *before* he stands, he looks like he isn't confident of winning" trap gaping in front of him.
    ^^

    He can't have a boot in both camps.
    Didn't 2 SNP MPs test that out last week?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689
    Sweeney74 said:

    I see nothing in the trailed parts of the speech that will shift the dial. Unless he’ll pull something out of his hat - but that would be very un-Starmerlike.

    I do think that West might row back though. There’ll also have been a whipping operation to get some wavering MPs to come out afterwards and suggest it was better than the Gettysburg Address to try and dampen a challenge.

    Burnham’s machinations continue to make him look foolish.

    Both Starmer and Burnham are looking desperate.
    Indeed, it's not a good look in anyone, especially those who seek to lead.

    It's also hugely entitled of Burnham and his pushers, the king over the water, that he's basically the next PM in waiting. Forget that he's currently ineligible, that a sitting MP needs to step aside, that the by-election is a foregone conclusion, that the leadership election is in-the-bag...

    I hope he does get a by-election
    I hope he loses
    I hope Labour also lose the Mayoralty of GM
    Are there any truly safe by-election seats, for Burnham to do a chicken run back to Parliament? That’s the sort of thing that really pisses-off the electorate when the government is unpopular.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 9,134

    She again says she wants "to be fair" to Keir Starmer, but "if the speech fails to satisfy" her, she will try to launch her own challenge. "We are in sort of the last chance saloon here," she says. "We need a really good communicator to take the fight to Nigel Farage." Asked what it would take from this morning's speech to convince her, West says she wants Starmer "to explain how he people's lives better".

    What the chances she finds Starmer does enough to convince her to back down.

    I think its about 80% likely she will. The Burnham backers will have got to her.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,918
    I’m trying to see this from Streetings pov. If Burnham gets back his chances of being PM ever are massively diminished. It’s not as if Burnham is an old fogie. Would he even get a major job from Burnham? I don’t get the impression that they are particularly matey.

    OTOH he has a serious job right now. The UK state is not much more than a health service with a pensions office these days. Other than maybe Chancellor ( and that depends on the occupant as Reeves shows) there isn’t a bigger job in government, short of PM. Does he really want to give that up?

    It’s a tough call. He runs the risk he misses his chance and Starmer sacks him anyway. Sacking people is Starmer’s idea of action, after all. My guess is that he will duck it. But he may regret that for the rest of his career.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,188
    Battlebus said:

    There's an obvious way to get Burnham into Parliament.

    Starmer gets out the Special Podium - and calls an election...

    Makes sense to at least offer the Party that option.

    My working (betting) hypothesis* is that Kemi is a drag on the Tories (sorry Big G); Polanski is a flash in the pan; and Reform have a ceiling of about 25%-30%. The next government will be a Labour minority with Farage as LOTO. The choice for Labour is who is best placed to face such a LOTO. So if it is Burnham, then call the election now.

    *Other theories available over the period to the next GE.
    No need to apolgise to me

    I am well used to Kemi being underestimated

    After last week she is going to surprise on the upside, and at least she can look on with a smile as labour tears itself apart
  • scampi25scampi25 Posts: 581
    Nigelb said:

    I wonder if he'll get around to announcing funding for the defence review ?

    It's been nearly a year now, and some UK defence contractors, particularly the smaller businesses, are planning to (or already have) decamp to the US or Europe, as they can't exist on nothing.

    This during a once in a generation opportunity due defence businesses, as Europe rearms while developing new technology.

    Which remind me of another Brexit benefit - our partner in GCAP, Italy, can borrow long term from the €150bn European defence loan facility at around 3%.

    The UK 20 year gilt yield is nearly double that, at around 5.5%.
    (That's what the fantasy scheme to decouple defence spending from UK borrowing requirements was about.)

    The whole MO of this govt seems to be about announcing goals, etc but doing nothing or reversing other things. I'm basically saying it's shambolic.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268
    MelonB said:

    -2.2C at the vineyard last night and likely colder tonight. Coldest May night since I started recording in 2022. That probably means well over 50% crop loss, depending on how much the cold was concentrated at the bottom of the slope (there the weather station is).

    Eiswein?
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,363
    Battlebus said:

    MelonB said:

    -2.2C at the vineyard last night and likely colder tonight. Coldest May night since I started recording in 2022. That probably means well over 50% crop loss, depending on how much the cold was concentrated at the bottom of the slope (there the weather station is).

    Eiswein?
    Wrong end of the season. Eisleaf.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,695
    Morning all :)

    I can't get too excited about the machinations of the Labour Party when oil remains close to $100 a barrel.

    I don't share the general contempt for Starmer though I do share the disappointment. Oddlly enough, three of the last four Prime Ministers, for all they might have coveted the job, have proved completely unfit to do the job once they got it.

    In politics, it's fair to say your opponents will always be loud and your friends quiet but what the latter say matters and what the former say doesn't. Reading Sir Graham Brady's excellent book I'm reminded most Prime Ministers initially resolve to fight on, to weather the storm but at some point they either talk to people whose opinion counts or have a personal revelation (or epiphany) and decide for whatever reason it's time to go.

    Outside an election, it's incredibly hard to shift a Prime Minister from any party who doesn't want to go so it comes down ultimately to the personal decision and all the ranting and raving from opponents matters much less then the view of a trusted friend.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,918
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    I can't get too excited about the machinations of the Labour Party when oil remains close to $100 a barrel.

    I don't share the general contempt for Starmer though I do share the disappointment. Oddlly enough, three of the last four Prime Ministers, for all they might have coveted the job, have proved completely unfit to do the job once they got it.

    In politics, it's fair to say your opponents will always be loud and your friends quiet but what the latter say matters and what the former say doesn't. Reading Sir Graham Brady's excellent book I'm reminded most Prime Ministers initially resolve to fight on, to weather the storm but at some point they either talk to people whose opinion counts or have a personal revelation (or epiphany) and decide for whatever reason it's time to go.

    Outside an election, it's incredibly hard to shift a Prime Minister from any party who doesn't want to go so it comes down ultimately to the personal decision and all the ranting and raving from opponents matters much less then the view of a trusted friend.

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    I can't get too excited about the machinations of the Labour Party when oil remains close to $100 a barrel.

    I don't share the general contempt for Starmer though I do share the disappointment. Oddlly enough, three of the last four Prime Ministers, for all they might have coveted the job, have proved completely unfit to do the job once they got it.

    In politics, it's fair to say your opponents will always be loud and your friends quiet but what the latter say matters and what the former say doesn't. Reading Sir Graham Brady's excellent book I'm reminded most Prime Ministers initially resolve to fight on, to weather the storm but at some point they either talk to people whose opinion counts or have a personal revelation (or epiphany) and decide for whatever reason it's time to go.

    Outside an election, it's incredibly hard to shift a Prime Minister from any party who doesn't want to go so it comes down ultimately to the personal decision and all the ranting and raving from opponents matters much less then the view of a trusted friend.

    Or a spouse.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,640
    Nigelb said:

    I wonder if he'll get around to announcing funding for the defence review ?



    The technological and strategic factors are moving more quickly than they can move the photos of rugged looking squaddies around in the .docx

    A lot of vaches sacrées/wastes of money/cherished national institutions should be going in the bin but SKS has neither the political capital nor the courage required to do it.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,434
    dixiedean said:

    nico67 said:

    Burnham shouldn’t be rewarded for causing this psychodrama .

    He wasn’t willing to do the hard yards as in coming back into the Commons without an expectation of just being handed the leadership on a plate .

    Hang on.
    He applied for selection as candidate for Gorton and Denton.
    Harder yards running a major City rather than lounging on the back benches at Westminster.
    Fair point but that's not how political career succession works. You have to be an MP. The belief that Reform might win a Manchester mayor by election should be a sufficient barrier to a loyal Labour person. His chance comes in May 2028 when he can quite legit stand down in pursuit of a career as MP. By which time Starmer's successor (my long shot tip is Yvette) will be the most unpopular PM ever etc......

  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    I can't get too excited about the machinations of the Labour Party when oil remains close to $100 a barrel.

    I don't share the general contempt for Starmer though I do share the disappointment. Oddlly enough, three of the last four Prime Ministers, for all they might have coveted the job, have proved completely unfit to do the job once they got it.

    In politics, it's fair to say your opponents will always be loud and your friends quiet but what the latter say matters and what the former say doesn't. Reading Sir Graham Brady's excellent book I'm reminded most Prime Ministers initially resolve to fight on, to weather the storm but at some point they either talk to people whose opinion counts or have a personal revelation (or epiphany) and decide for whatever reason it's time to go.

    Outside an election, it's incredibly hard to shift a Prime Minister from any party who doesn't want to go so it comes down ultimately to the personal decision and all the ranting and raving from opponents matters much less then the view of a trusted friend.

    I'm at a loss as to which one of Bozo, Truss, Sunak and Starmer did a decent job?

    I suspect we need to go back to Cameron to find someone capable of doing the job, May is close but she created an impossible situation for herself via the Death tax so it's hard to put her in the fit to do the job list.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958
    edited May 11
    eek said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    I can't get too excited about the machinations of the Labour Party when oil remains close to $100 a barrel.

    I don't share the general contempt for Starmer though I do share the disappointment. Oddlly enough, three of the last four Prime Ministers, for all they might have coveted the job, have proved completely unfit to do the job once they got it.

    In politics, it's fair to say your opponents will always be loud and your friends quiet but what the latter say matters and what the former say doesn't. Reading Sir Graham Brady's excellent book I'm reminded most Prime Ministers initially resolve to fight on, to weather the storm but at some point they either talk to people whose opinion counts or have a personal revelation (or epiphany) and decide for whatever reason it's time to go.

    Outside an election, it's incredibly hard to shift a Prime Minister from any party who doesn't want to go so it comes down ultimately to the personal decision and all the ranting and raving from opponents matters much less then the view of a trusted friend.

    I'm at a loss as to which one of Bozo, Truss, Sunak and Starmer did a decent job?

    I suspect we need to go back to Cameron to find someone capable of doing the job, May is close but she created an impossible situation for herself via the Death tax so it's hard to put her in the fit to do the job list.
    May did the job with great dignity and to an extent even gravitas, but was strategically hopeless. Cameron the last decent PM and he cocked up his biggest call! Arguably as did Blair. And Thatcher went mad by the end.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,920
    Starmer certainly needs a good speech today to secure his job at least for the next year. However it is the NEC who decides whether to allow Burnham to be an approved Labour parliamentary candidate or not again not just him
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,342
    One thing is clear - Starmer is done.

    We now have multiple camps competing for who ends up winning:

    BURNHAM: Needs a delay of 4-5 weeks to allow for a byelection to be held
    RAYNER: Thinks the tax thing isn't that big an issue now
    STREETING: Already declared he'll stand if someone else challenges
    MILLIBAND: Encouraged to run as the Stop Streeting candidate
    WEST: The horse of stalking
    BURGON: Bound to be one of the nutters running and its his turn

    Its absolutely possible that Starmer survives a while due to timing issues. But the consensus is a new leader is needed, its just a question of who. So he can say whatever he likes later, they're already past him. And the Kings Speech on Wednesday? If he is having to hastily redraft and redraft the speech tonight then what are they doing for the Kings Speech? Making it up in the back of a car as they drive to parliament?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    I wonder if he'll get around to announcing funding for the defence review ?



    The technological and strategic factors are moving more quickly than they can move the photos of rugged looking squaddies around in the .docx

    A lot of vaches sacrées/wastes of money/cherished national institutions should be going in the bin but SKS has neither the political capital nor the courage required to do it.
    I watched a load of the videos from Daily Mail bod who has been on the front lines with Ukraine for past 2-3 years and completely changed even in the past year the technology, how they fight and what the dangers they are facing.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,188
    DavidL said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    I can't get too excited about the machinations of the Labour Party when oil remains close to $100 a barrel.

    I don't share the general contempt for Starmer though I do share the disappointment. Oddlly enough, three of the last four Prime Ministers, for all they might have coveted the job, have proved completely unfit to do the job once they got it.

    In politics, it's fair to say your opponents will always be loud and your friends quiet but what the latter say matters and what the former say doesn't. Reading Sir Graham Brady's excellent book I'm reminded most Prime Ministers initially resolve to fight on, to weather the storm but at some point they either talk to people whose opinion counts or have a personal revelation (or epiphany) and decide for whatever reason it's time to go.

    Outside an election, it's incredibly hard to shift a Prime Minister from any party who doesn't want to go so it comes down ultimately to the personal decision and all the ranting and raving from opponents matters much less then the view of a trusted friend.

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    I can't get too excited about the machinations of the Labour Party when oil remains close to $100 a barrel.

    I don't share the general contempt for Starmer though I do share the disappointment. Oddlly enough, three of the last four Prime Ministers, for all they might have coveted the job, have proved completely unfit to do the job once they got it.

    In politics, it's fair to say your opponents will always be loud and your friends quiet but what the latter say matters and what the former say doesn't. Reading Sir Graham Brady's excellent book I'm reminded most Prime Ministers initially resolve to fight on, to weather the storm but at some point they either talk to people whose opinion counts or have a personal revelation (or epiphany) and decide for whatever reason it's time to go.

    Outside an election, it's incredibly hard to shift a Prime Minister from any party who doesn't want to go so it comes down ultimately to the personal decision and all the ranting and raving from opponents matters much less then the view of a trusted friend.

    Or a spouse.
    That was very true in Biden's case and look what followed
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    Sandpit said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    I see nothing in the trailed parts of the speech that will shift the dial. Unless he’ll pull something out of his hat - but that would be very un-Starmerlike.

    I do think that West might row back though. There’ll also have been a whipping operation to get some wavering MPs to come out afterwards and suggest it was better than the Gettysburg Address to try and dampen a challenge.

    Burnham’s machinations continue to make him look foolish.

    Both Starmer and Burnham are looking desperate.
    Indeed, it's not a good look in anyone, especially those who seek to lead.

    It's also hugely entitled of Burnham and his pushers, the king over the water, that he's basically the next PM in waiting. Forget that he's currently ineligible, that a sitting MP needs to step aside, that the by-election is a foregone conclusion, that the leadership election is in-the-bag...

    I hope he does get a by-election
    I hope he loses
    I hope Labour also lose the Mayoralty of GM
    Are there any truly safe by-election seats, for Burnham to do a chicken run back to Parliament? That’s the sort of thing that really pisses-off the electorate when the government is unpopular.
    For a chance of being elected it's needs to be a massive Labour majority with demographics that are 50/50 WWC (tending Reform) and wealthy (so tending Green) - to split the anti-Labour vote.

    There aren't many constituencies like that nowadays.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 8,908
    DavidL said:

    I’m trying to see this from Streetings pov. If Burnham gets back his chances of being PM ever are massively diminished. It’s not as if Burnham is an old fogie. Would he even get a major job from Burnham? I don’t get the impression that they are particularly matey.

    OTOH he has a serious job right now. The UK state is not much more than a health service with a pensions office these days. Other than maybe Chancellor ( and that depends on the occupant as Reeves shows) there isn’t a bigger job in government, short of PM. Does he really want to give that up?

    It’s a tough call. He runs the risk he misses his chance and Starmer sacks him anyway. Sacking people is Starmer’s idea of action, after all. My guess is that he will duck it. But he may regret that for the rest of his career.

    Would be nice, whilst they are having their internal issues, the govt could get on with agreeing funds for defence projects. As per the article below and elsewhere UK defence companies are in limbo and deciding whether they need to quit the UK, the next Gen jet is at risk and we are getting further behind getting the military up to scratch.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/10/defence-sovereignty-europe-builds-low-cost-weapons-drones

    I’m convinced Starmer and Reeves would do anything not to have to spend on defence as it’s not in their worldview but they need to crack on with this now.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,434

    She again says she wants "to be fair" to Keir Starmer, but "if the speech fails to satisfy" her, she will try to launch her own challenge. "We are in sort of the last chance saloon here," she says. "We need a really good communicator to take the fight to Nigel Farage." Asked what it would take from this morning's speech to convince her, West says she wants Starmer "to explain how he people's lives better".

    What the chances she finds Starmer does enough to convince her to back down.

    I think its about 80% likely she will. The Burnham backers will have got to her.
    I think the % is higher. She has already changed the terms of her pledge. It was obvious she did this in order to renege on it. She has, IMO, had a full and frank meeting with some of the bigger boys in the playground. We shall see.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958

    One thing is clear - Starmer is done.

    We now have multiple camps competing for who ends up winning:

    BURNHAM: Needs a delay of 4-5 weeks to allow for a byelection to be held
    RAYNER: Thinks the tax thing isn't that big an issue now
    STREETING: Already declared he'll stand if someone else challenges
    MILLIBAND: Encouraged to run as the Stop Streeting candidate
    WEST: The horse of stalking
    BURGON: Bound to be one of the nutters running and its his turn

    Its absolutely possible that Starmer survives a while due to timing issues. But the consensus is a new leader is needed, its just a question of who. So he can say whatever he likes later, they're already past him. And the Kings Speech on Wednesday? If he is having to hastily redraft and redraft the speech tonight then what are they doing for the Kings Speech? Making it up in the back of a car as they drive to parliament?

    If we get PM Burgon, then at least we will solve the net migration issue. A few million will be seeking a quick exit!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,920

    Unpopular said:

    It might be curtains for Starmer anyway. If I was him I would block Burnham and dare them to trigger the leadership election. Let the entitled shits bring down the first Labour Government in 14 years just because Andy Burnham chose to be on the outside when Government seemed a distant prospect. It won't do him any good.

    Maybe it's just that Thatcher and Blair were the freaks and the system chews up and spits out Prime Ministerial authority after 2-3 years. (Dave was protected by the coalition, but forced into a stupid referendum pledge after three.)

    If so, is that a problem and is there an answer?
    Macmillan, Churchill, Attlee, Wilson, even John Major also all lasted longer than 3 years as PM, it is just Brexit unleashed constant waves if populist backlash against what the government of the day proposed or did if it was remotely difficult but unpopular
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,342
    Also, has anyone been watching the bonds market? I know that they prefer Reeves to potential alternatives, but they're still putting the rate up. And up. And up.

    Surely what's good for Truss is good for Starmer...
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958
    HYUFD said:

    Unpopular said:

    It might be curtains for Starmer anyway. If I was him I would block Burnham and dare them to trigger the leadership election. Let the entitled shits bring down the first Labour Government in 14 years just because Andy Burnham chose to be on the outside when Government seemed a distant prospect. It won't do him any good.

    Maybe it's just that Thatcher and Blair were the freaks and the system chews up and spits out Prime Ministerial authority after 2-3 years. (Dave was protected by the coalition, but forced into a stupid referendum pledge after three.)

    If so, is that a problem and is there an answer?
    Macmillan, Churchill, Attlee, Wilson, even John Major also all lasted longer than 3 years as PM, it is just Brexit unleashed constant waves if populist backlash against what the government of the day proposed or did if it was remotely difficult but unpopular
    Or did social media unleash both Brexit and constant populist discontent?
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922

    Also, has anyone been watching the bonds market? I know that they prefer Reeves to potential alternatives, but they're still putting the rate up. And up. And up.

    Surely what's good for Truss is good for Starmer...

    How is it going relative to say the EU - because there are external (Iran) factors in play here as well as local ones.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,920
    edited May 11
    Battlebus said:

    There's an obvious way to get Burnham into Parliament.

    Starmer gets out the Special Podium - and calls an election...

    Makes sense to at least offer the Party that option.

    My working (betting) hypothesis* is that Kemi is a drag on the Tories (sorry Big G); Polanski is a flash in the pan; and Reform have a ceiling of about 25%-30%. The next government will be a Labour minority with Farage as LOTO. The choice for Labour is who is best placed to face such a LOTO. So if it is Burnham, then call the election now.

    *Other theories available over the period to the next GE.
    Kemi certainly isn't a drag on the Tories in London, the Tories had their best London results last week in terms of seats won since Theresa May was leader in 2018 and made gains in areas like Westminster and Barnet and Hillingdon where they lost parliamentary seats at the last general election. In the rest of the country though she isn't making many waves
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,918

    DavidL said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    I can't get too excited about the machinations of the Labour Party when oil remains close to $100 a barrel.

    I don't share the general contempt for Starmer though I do share the disappointment. Oddlly enough, three of the last four Prime Ministers, for all they might have coveted the job, have proved completely unfit to do the job once they got it.

    In politics, it's fair to say your opponents will always be loud and your friends quiet but what the latter say matters and what the former say doesn't. Reading Sir Graham Brady's excellent book I'm reminded most Prime Ministers initially resolve to fight on, to weather the storm but at some point they either talk to people whose opinion counts or have a personal revelation (or epiphany) and decide for whatever reason it's time to go.

    Outside an election, it's incredibly hard to shift a Prime Minister from any party who doesn't want to go so it comes down ultimately to the personal decision and all the ranting and raving from opponents matters much less then the view of a trusted friend.

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    I can't get too excited about the machinations of the Labour Party when oil remains close to $100 a barrel.

    I don't share the general contempt for Starmer though I do share the disappointment. Oddlly enough, three of the last four Prime Ministers, for all they might have coveted the job, have proved completely unfit to do the job once they got it.

    In politics, it's fair to say your opponents will always be loud and your friends quiet but what the latter say matters and what the former say doesn't. Reading Sir Graham Brady's excellent book I'm reminded most Prime Ministers initially resolve to fight on, to weather the storm but at some point they either talk to people whose opinion counts or have a personal revelation (or epiphany) and decide for whatever reason it's time to go.

    Outside an election, it's incredibly hard to shift a Prime Minister from any party who doesn't want to go so it comes down ultimately to the personal decision and all the ranting and raving from opponents matters much less then the view of a trusted friend.

    Or a spouse.
    That was very true in Biden's case and look what followed
    That’s what I had in mind. Victoria will have a much bigger say than anyone in the cabinet, let alone the opposition. She must see her husband under immense strain but determined. Which way will she call it?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,588
    Yay, people have spotted the subtle New Order references.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268
    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    There's an obvious way to get Burnham into Parliament.

    Starmer gets out the Special Podium - and calls an election...

    Makes sense to at least offer the Party that option.

    My working (betting) hypothesis* is that Kemi is a drag on the Tories (sorry Big G); Polanski is a flash in the pan; and Reform have a ceiling of about 25%-30%. The next government will be a Labour minority with Farage as LOTO. The choice for Labour is who is best placed to face such a LOTO. So if it is Burnham, then call the election now.

    *Other theories available over the period to the next GE.
    Kemi certainly isn't a drag on the Tories in London, the Tories had their best London results last week in terms of seats won since May 2018 and made gains in areas like Westminster and Barnet and Hillingdon where they lost parliamentary seats at the last general election. In the rest of the country though she isn't making many waves
    Kemi effect must stop outside the M25 as on the South Coast they have had major losses. My very safe Conservative seat looks gone now as well as neighbouring Tory seats.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,692
    scampi25 said:

    Nigelb said:

    I wonder if he'll get around to announcing funding for the defence review ?

    It's been nearly a year now, and some UK defence contractors, particularly the smaller businesses, are planning to (or already have) decamp to the US or Europe, as they can't exist on nothing.

    This during a once in a generation opportunity due defence businesses, as Europe rearms while developing new technology.

    Which remind me of another Brexit benefit - our partner in GCAP, Italy, can borrow long term from the €150bn European defence loan facility at around 3%.

    The UK 20 year gilt yield is nearly double that, at around 5.5%.
    (That's what the fantasy scheme to decouple defence spending from UK borrowing requirements was about.)

    The whole MO of this govt seems to be about announcing goals, etc but doing nothing or reversing other things. I'm basically saying it's shambolic.
    It is.
    What, though, would you propose to get our borrowing costs down to European levels ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,918
    boulay said:

    DavidL said:

    I’m trying to see this from Streetings pov. If Burnham gets back his chances of being PM ever are massively diminished. It’s not as if Burnham is an old fogie. Would he even get a major job from Burnham? I don’t get the impression that they are particularly matey.

    OTOH he has a serious job right now. The UK state is not much more than a health service with a pensions office these days. Other than maybe Chancellor ( and that depends on the occupant as Reeves shows) there isn’t a bigger job in government, short of PM. Does he really want to give that up?

    It’s a tough call. He runs the risk he misses his chance and Starmer sacks him anyway. Sacking people is Starmer’s idea of action, after all. My guess is that he will duck it. But he may regret that for the rest of his career.

    Would be nice, whilst they are having their internal issues, the govt could get on with agreeing funds for defence projects. As per the article below and elsewhere UK defence companies are in limbo and deciding whether they need to quit the UK, the next Gen jet is at risk and we are getting further behind getting the military up to scratch.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/10/defence-sovereignty-europe-builds-low-cost-weapons-drones

    I’m convinced Starmer and Reeves would do anything not to have to spend on defence as it’s not in their worldview but they need to crack on with this now.
    It’s a particularly sharp example but it’s also a part of the general picture. We had this with the last government, an obsession with internal politics and positioning when there was actually a country to run. We are seeing it again now. Months of dithering while the King over the water takes the slow train to Westminster is really not what the country needs.
  • Catherine West needs to hold firm.

    She claims she might “abandon” the challenge if the speech is amazing but we’ve already seen it and…it’s not.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,188
    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    There's an obvious way to get Burnham into Parliament.

    Starmer gets out the Special Podium - and calls an election...

    Makes sense to at least offer the Party that option.

    My working (betting) hypothesis* is that Kemi is a drag on the Tories (sorry Big G); Polanski is a flash in the pan; and Reform have a ceiling of about 25%-30%. The next government will be a Labour minority with Farage as LOTO. The choice for Labour is who is best placed to face such a LOTO. So if it is Burnham, then call the election now.

    *Other theories available over the period to the next GE.
    Kemi certainly isn't a drag on the Tories in London, the Tories had their best London results last week in terms of seats won since May 2018 and made gains in areas like Westminster and Barnet and Hillingdon where they lost parliamentary seats at the last general election. In the rest of the country though she isn't making many waves
    Kemi effect must stop outside the M25 as on the South Coast they have had major losses. My very safe Conservative seat looks gone now as well as neighbouring Tory seats.
    Our conservative am was returned to the Senedd and there is a long way to go to 2029
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    edited May 11

    Catherine West needs to hold firm.

    She claims she might “abandon” the challenge if the speech is amazing but we’ve already seen it and…it’s not.

    Even if she wants to back out - this speech is so nothingy that she cant back out
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,146
    Sandpit said:

    Andrew Neil’s preview - mark your bingo cards!

    There’s recently been a rule of thumb among Westminster wags that there’s no situation so bad that a speech by Keir Starmer can’t make it worse. From the overnight briefing of what the PM plans to say at 10:00 this morning that adage looks like being proved again.
    ‘Strength through fairness’ (meaningless)
    ‘Putting Britain at the heart of Europe’ (they talk of nothing else at the Dog and Duck).
    ‘Hope, urgency’ (whatever)
    ‘Incremental change won’t cut it’ (said it before — so what really big change, rupture do you have in mind?).
    Ho hum. Tumbleweed already blowing through Downing Street.


    https://x.com/afneil/status/2053730703720796204

    I hope nobody is laying "bland and pointless" on the markets.
  • Fpt for @StillWaters, worried by my World Drinks Collection

    “Why is the wine standing up?

    And why is it in the heat cone from the lamp?”

    None of it is wine I’m ever likely to drink. Except maybe a couple of sweets. They can cope. 95% is spirits and sherries and weird beers from Russia, Greenland, Svalbard

    There is no heat. LED bulb

    Next
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,920
    edited May 11

    HYUFD said:

    Unpopular said:

    It might be curtains for Starmer anyway. If I was him I would block Burnham and dare them to trigger the leadership election. Let the entitled shits bring down the first Labour Government in 14 years just because Andy Burnham chose to be on the outside when Government seemed a distant prospect. It won't do him any good.

    Maybe it's just that Thatcher and Blair were the freaks and the system chews up and spits out Prime Ministerial authority after 2-3 years. (Dave was protected by the coalition, but forced into a stupid referendum pledge after three.)

    If so, is that a problem and is there an answer?
    Macmillan, Churchill, Attlee, Wilson, even John Major also all lasted longer than 3 years as PM, it is just Brexit unleashed constant waves if populist backlash against what the government of the day proposed or did if it was remotely difficult but unpopular
    Or did social media unleash both Brexit and constant populist discontent?
    Heath and Callaghan only lasted 4 and 3 years respectively and faced much populist discontent in the 1970s as did Wilson who only lasted 2 years in his second stint as PM but there wasn't social media then no
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,704
    Toolmaker
    Change
    Renewal
    Fixing the foundations
    14 years
    £22 billion black hole
    Far right
    Division
    Reform
    Farage
    Not our war
    Brexit
    Breakfast clubs
    Lifting children out of poverty

    What an orator this man is they would be mad to replace him!!
  • CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 607
    "Although Starmer has insisted he will not drop his “red line” promises not to rejoin the EU single market or customs union, his speech has left some of his supporters thinking the lines could be softened at the next general election."


    https://www.ft.com/content/99c8774e-e6ba-408a-82a8-9ab8ab5138ff?syn-25a6b1a6=1

    This isn't gonna cut the mustard for me. He has to drop the red lines. This is the essence of Starmer's political incompetence. You CANNOT complain about brexit and make deals all the while insisting with your dying breath on red lines. This is political suicide: The brexiteers will hate you for any deal and any complaint about brexit. And the rejoiners will hate you for keeping us out. It is british politics 101: divide and conquer and Starmer just doesn't get it.

    For me, the red lines go or Starmer goes. End of story.

  • boulayboulay Posts: 8,908
    DavidL said:

    boulay said:

    DavidL said:

    I’m trying to see this from Streetings pov. If Burnham gets back his chances of being PM ever are massively diminished. It’s not as if Burnham is an old fogie. Would he even get a major job from Burnham? I don’t get the impression that they are particularly matey.

    OTOH he has a serious job right now. The UK state is not much more than a health service with a pensions office these days. Other than maybe Chancellor ( and that depends on the occupant as Reeves shows) there isn’t a bigger job in government, short of PM. Does he really want to give that up?

    It’s a tough call. He runs the risk he misses his chance and Starmer sacks him anyway. Sacking people is Starmer’s idea of action, after all. My guess is that he will duck it. But he may regret that for the rest of his career.

    Would be nice, whilst they are having their internal issues, the govt could get on with agreeing funds for defence projects. As per the article below and elsewhere UK defence companies are in limbo and deciding whether they need to quit the UK, the next Gen jet is at risk and we are getting further behind getting the military up to scratch.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/10/defence-sovereignty-europe-builds-low-cost-weapons-drones

    I’m convinced Starmer and Reeves would do anything not to have to spend on defence as it’s not in their worldview but they need to crack on with this now.
    It’s a particularly sharp example but it’s also a part of the general picture. We had this with the last government, an obsession with internal politics and positioning when there was actually a country to run. We are seeing it again now. Months of dithering while the King over the water takes the slow train to Westminster is really not what the country needs.
    I honestly get the gut feel that Starmer/Reeves are still hoping something comes along to remove the urgent need to throw money at defence. I’m sure Starmer is hoping somehow the Ukraine war ends and he can hide behind that.

    The crazy thing is that these innovative defence companies are all potential growth streams for the country and so backing them should be worthwhile in multiple respects.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,704

    Toolmaker
    Change
    Renewal
    Fixing the foundations
    14 years
    £22 billion black hole
    Far right
    Division
    Reform
    Farage
    Not our war
    Brexit
    Breakfast clubs
    Lifting children out of poverty

    What an orator this man is they would be mad to replace him!!

    oh no that was of the 6 previous relaunches
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325
    eek said:

    Also, has anyone been watching the bonds market? I know that they prefer Reeves to potential alternatives, but they're still putting the rate up. And up. And up.

    Surely what's good for Truss is good for Starmer...

    How is it going relative to say the EU - because there are external (Iran) factors in play here as well as local ones.
    France is around 3.6 and Germany around 3.0 compared to the UKs 5.0 % .

    Even Greek gilts are less at 3.7.

    Because of the weight of the ECB as lender of last resort Eurozone countries have generally lower gilts.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,918

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    There's an obvious way to get Burnham into Parliament.

    Starmer gets out the Special Podium - and calls an election...

    Makes sense to at least offer the Party that option.

    My working (betting) hypothesis* is that Kemi is a drag on the Tories (sorry Big G); Polanski is a flash in the pan; and Reform have a ceiling of about 25%-30%. The next government will be a Labour minority with Farage as LOTO. The choice for Labour is who is best placed to face such a LOTO. So if it is Burnham, then call the election now.

    *Other theories available over the period to the next GE.
    Kemi certainly isn't a drag on the Tories in London, the Tories had their best London results last week in terms of seats won since May 2018 and made gains in areas like Westminster and Barnet and Hillingdon where they lost parliamentary seats at the last general election. In the rest of the country though she isn't making many waves
    Kemi effect must stop outside the M25 as on the South Coast they have had major losses. My very safe Conservative seat looks gone now as well as neighbouring Tory seats.
    Our conservative am was returned to the Senedd and there is a long way to go to 2029
    Oh she can. If none of the unhappy groups are willing to back her she gets nowhere near 80 followers and she can recognise that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689
    boulay said:

    DavidL said:

    I’m trying to see this from Streetings pov. If Burnham gets back his chances of being PM ever are massively diminished. It’s not as if Burnham is an old fogie. Would he even get a major job from Burnham? I don’t get the impression that they are particularly matey.

    OTOH he has a serious job right now. The UK state is not much more than a health service with a pensions office these days. Other than maybe Chancellor ( and that depends on the occupant as Reeves shows) there isn’t a bigger job in government, short of PM. Does he really want to give that up?

    It’s a tough call. He runs the risk he misses his chance and Starmer sacks him anyway. Sacking people is Starmer’s idea of action, after all. My guess is that he will duck it. But he may regret that for the rest of his career.

    Would be nice, whilst they are having their internal issues, the govt could get on with agreeing funds for defence projects. As per the article below and elsewhere UK defence companies are in limbo and deciding whether they need to quit the UK, the next Gen jet is at risk and we are getting further behind getting the military up to scratch.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/10/defence-sovereignty-europe-builds-low-cost-weapons-drones

    I’m convinced Starmer and Reeves would do anything not to have to spend on defence as it’s not in their worldview but they need to crack on with this now.
    Indeed so.

    It does appear to have passed them by that there’s a lot of conflict in the world right now, military technology in moving forward at an extraordinary pace, and for at least the next couple of years the Americans seem determined to do their own thing irrespective of what their allies think.

    Not that the last lot were much better, but pretty much the whole of Europe has been riding on US coat-tails for decades now.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,692
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    I wonder if he'll get around to announcing funding for the defence review ?



    The technological and strategic factors are moving more quickly than they can move the photos of rugged looking squaddies around in the .docx

    A lot of vaches sacrées/wastes of money/cherished national institutions should be going in the bin but SKS has neither the political capital nor the courage required to do it.
    That is also true, and likely the only way that the UK government can start to square the funding circle is to chuck some programs in the bin.

    The problem is that there aren't enough things that can be dispensed with in order to fund everything else. An increase in defence spend is necessary simply in order to avoid losing a large slice of our defence industry. Once gone, we won't get it back.
This discussion has been closed.