Skip to content

The polling that shows even Starmer could beat Reform at the next general election

SystemSystem Posts: 13,169
edited May 15 in General
The polling that shows even Starmer could beat Reform at the next general election – politicalbetting.com

NEW from @Ipsos_in_the_UK / @itvpeston Who do the public prefer in a head to head vs Farage and Reform UK?– A Burnham led Labour govt +16– A Starmer led Labour govt +11– A Streeting led Labour govt +7– A Rayner led Labour govt +6 pic.twitter.com/atWTzMLnMh

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    edited May 15
    First

    Like Andy
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,131
    So this is a trading bet?
    Sell on the Burnham bounce before the Burnham belly flop?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,126
    Good news for those of us who do not want Farage anywhere near power
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,755
    Doctor Who international distribution rights

    AMC+ (a US-only streamer) has obtained the rights to stream Doctor Who (2005-2022). So that's Nine (Ecclestone) to Thirteen (Whittaker). Doctor Who (2023-2025) remains with Disney+. This is good in the sense that US people can still watch the show in the US, bad in the sense that the rights are now fragmented, thus:
    • Doctor Who (1963-1989): ?
    • Doctor Who (1995-1995): ?
    • Doctor Who (2005-2022): AMC+, US-only
    • Doctor Who (2023-2025): Disney+, worldwide ex UK
    • Doctor Who (2026-????): to be determined
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs9ZqoqTqB0

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    Having just witnessed the power of anti-Reform tactical voting on the island - at least among the non-Tories - I’d be confident that tactical voting next time will make 2024 voters look like amateurs. That’s assuming Reform hadn’t self-imploded by then. If Burnham does make it to the top, he’s likely to construct a big tent approach across the parties, anyway, and if a firm commitment to PR makes it into Labour’s manifesto, winning support across the spectrum becomes even easier
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,587
    That header is going to really upset Leondamus.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    viewcode said:

    Doctor Who international distribution rights

    AMC+ (a US-only streamer) has obtained the rights to stream Doctor Who (2005-2022). So that's Nine (Ecclestone) to Thirteen (Whittaker). Doctor Who (2023-2025) remains with Disney+. This is good in the sense that US people can still watch the show in the US, bad in the sense that the rights are now fragmented, thus:

    • Doctor Who (1963-1989): ?
    • Doctor Who (1995-1995): ?
    • Doctor Who (2005-2022): AMC+, US-only
    • Doctor Who (2023-2025): Disney+, worldwide ex UK
    • Doctor Who (2026-????): to be determined
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs9ZqoqTqB0

    Are we supposed to get excited about who gets to broadcast some children’s programme?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    Nigelb said:

    That header is going to really upset Leondamus.

    After his ignorance (or credulity, if he just believed what he was told) about English whisky, he’s probably in hiding
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564
    Dopermean said:

    So this is a trading bet?
    Sell on the Burnham bounce before the Burnham belly flop?

    Yup.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 22,024
    No chance Starmer beats Reform with the Greens as a serious challenger.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,872
    The Burnham bounce is quite modest isn't it? 5% ahead of Starmer, I mean come on. What this polling shows is that those who do not like Reform really don't like them and anyone else would be better, even Rayner.

    Which is completely irrelevant. In our kaleidoscope politics what is much more important is how many like them and 30% is enough to be the largest party for sure, very possibly a majority.

    Betting on most seats for Labour makes sense from a variety of perspectives, they have a huge incumbency advantage for a start. They can lose 150 seats, which is a hell of a lot historically, and still very comfortably have a plurality with the others scattered in a similar way to what we saw in Scotland. But the reasons for betting on this do not, in my view, include this polling.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564
    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,131
    IanB2 said:

    Having just witnessed the power of anti-Reform tactical voting on the island - at least among the non-Tories - I’d be confident that tactical voting next time will make 2024 voters look like amateurs. That’s assuming Reform hadn’t self-imploded by then. If Burnham does make it to the top, he’s likely to construct a big tent approach across the parties, anyway, and if a firm commitment to PR makes it into Labour’s manifesto, winning support across the spectrum becomes even easier

    I think you may be guilty, like many others, of projecting what you hope for onto the mythical King of the North, as I understand it his big policy has been to synchronise bus and rail services. Not exactly groundbreaking, beggars belief it wasn't a given, but credit for getting it done.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,925

    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


    The comments yesterday from a supporter about bond markets conforming to Burnham's policies do not inspire confidence.
  • AnthonyTAnthonyT Posts: 259
    Don't understand the love for Burnham on here: useless over Staffordshire Hospitals, Operation Augusta and the GMP and VAWG. I'd say more but we can't apparently so a political discussion forum can't properly discuss the track record of the man who thinks he is entitled to be PM because - well, who knows why.

    I'm not a Starmer fan by any means but am even less of a fan of leadership psychodramas and the Labour Party talking to itself. As it is, Labour barely pays any attention to the voters. Now its main priority is Burnham's ego. It's pathetic. No idea if Burnham will win any by-election but it would serve him - and Labour - right if the voters blew him a raspberry.
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,726
    DavidL said:

    The Burnham bounce is quite modest isn't it? 5% ahead of Starmer, I mean come on. What this polling shows is that those who do not like Reform really don't like them and anyone else would be better, even Rayner.

    Which is completely irrelevant. In our kaleidoscope politics what is much more important is how many like them and 30% is enough to be the largest party for sure, very possibly a majority.

    Betting on most seats for Labour makes sense from a variety of perspectives, they have a huge incumbency advantage for a start. They can lose 150 seats, which is a hell of a lot historically, and still very comfortably have a plurality with the others scattered in a similar way to what we saw in Scotland. But the reasons for betting on this do not, in my view, include this polling.

    The Brown bounce was only three months or so long. I'm not sure the Burnham bounce is going to be much longer.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    edited May 15
    Yes as Ipsos shows you would expect Labour to squeeze LD and Green votes in Labour held marginal seats to beat Reform as the poll shows Labour would with any potential leadership contender and even Starmer head to head with Farage but most of all with Burnham,

    What willl worry Farage though is while the Labour vote surges on a forced choice of Labour or Farage, the Reform vote is barely up from its headline voteshare. Which suggests Reform won't be able to squeeze the Tory vote in the same way
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424

    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


    Another reason why, after the by-election, Labour will realise a quick coronation is preferable to months of infighting
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,858
    DavidL said:

    The Burnham bounce is quite modest isn't it? 5% ahead of Starmer, I mean come on. What this polling shows is that those who do not like Reform really don't like them and anyone else would be better, even Rayner.

    Which is completely irrelevant. In our kaleidoscope politics what is much more important is how many like them and 30% is enough to be the largest party for sure, very possibly a majority.

    Betting on most seats for Labour makes sense from a variety of perspectives, they have a huge incumbency advantage for a start. They can lose 150 seats, which is a hell of a lot historically, and still very comfortably have a plurality with the others scattered in a similar way to what we saw in Scotland. But the reasons for betting on this do not, in my view, include this polling.

    It does show the danger for Labour as well.

    However poor Starmer's image, Rayner and Streeting do worse. If the Makerfield gamble doesn't come off, the consequences aren't great.

    Talking of stopping Reform, what the Jimminy is Badenoch playing at in Worcestershire?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,319
    If Burnham wins then what’s the point of anyone bothering to enter a leadership campaign ? Starmer won’t fight a campaign so maybe we’ll get a token effort where some others will put their names forward and then withdraw before it goes to the members .

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,579
    Was messaging an acquaintance who lives in the constituency last night. He's a solid Reform voter but said he thinks it's will be a very close race because Burnham is quite popular even though Labour are extremely unpopular. He thinks they have a good shot at winning but it depends on the candidate, if they put up someone not local or a "celebrity" candidate then he thinks Labour will win.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,281
    Not convinced. Labour need to persuade people to get off their arse to vote and no amount of scare stories about Reform are going to do that to the extent needed - there needs to be a positive case too.

    Reform have pivoted towards pensioners since July ‘24 (including a direct attack on people my age), and they will have zero qualms about making unfunded promises about triple lock, WFP etc etc. This will be highly effective and the “stop Labour” will be just as potent as “stop Reform”.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,905

    DavidL said:

    The Burnham bounce is quite modest isn't it? 5% ahead of Starmer, I mean come on. What this polling shows is that those who do not like Reform really don't like them and anyone else would be better, even Rayner.

    Which is completely irrelevant. In our kaleidoscope politics what is much more important is how many like them and 30% is enough to be the largest party for sure, very possibly a majority.

    Betting on most seats for Labour makes sense from a variety of perspectives, they have a huge incumbency advantage for a start. They can lose 150 seats, which is a hell of a lot historically, and still very comfortably have a plurality with the others scattered in a similar way to what we saw in Scotland. But the reasons for betting on this do not, in my view, include this polling.

    It does show the danger for Labour as well.

    However poor Starmer's image, Rayner and Streeting do worse. If the Makerfield gamble doesn't come off, the consequences aren't great.

    Talking of stopping Reform, what the Jimminy is Badenoch playing at in Worcestershire?
    Not a clue - the Tories find a way to be in power and she suspends them because the coalition includes with the Green party.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    edited May 15
    HYUFD said:

    Yes as Ipsos shows you would expect Labour to squeeze LD and Green votes in Labour held marginal seats to beat Reform as the Ipsos poll shows Labour would with any potential leadership contender and even Starmer but most of all with Burnham,

    What willl worry Farage though is while the Labour vote surges on a forced choice of Labour or Farage, the Reform vote is barely up from its headline voteshare. Which suggests Reform won't be able to squeeze the Tory vote in the same way

    The locals here suggest that a fair few Tory voters are willing to vote Indy, LibDem, Green - even Labour, since their one seat was held with a brand new candidate against all expectations - to keep out Reform. It’s just that not many other party supporters will return the favour by voting Tory, likely a combination of remembering what the Tories were actually like in power, and fear that the Tories are too close to Reform and might well put them in power if it came to it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842

    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


    No as long as he increases tax to fund any spending rises he won't be, Truss' problem was she cut tax but did not cut spending
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564
    Nigelb said:

    That header is going to really upset Leondamus.

    Why? He voted for Starmer.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,462
    This header is just trolling Leon. Not that I disapprove.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,281

    DavidL said:

    The Burnham bounce is quite modest isn't it? 5% ahead of Starmer, I mean come on. What this polling shows is that those who do not like Reform really don't like them and anyone else would be better, even Rayner.

    Which is completely irrelevant. In our kaleidoscope politics what is much more important is how many like them and 30% is enough to be the largest party for sure, very possibly a majority.

    Betting on most seats for Labour makes sense from a variety of perspectives, they have a huge incumbency advantage for a start. They can lose 150 seats, which is a hell of a lot historically, and still very comfortably have a plurality with the others scattered in a similar way to what we saw in Scotland. But the reasons for betting on this do not, in my view, include this polling.

    It does show the danger for Labour as well.

    However poor Starmer's image, Rayner and Streeting do worse. If the Makerfield gamble doesn't come off, the consequences aren't great.

    Talking of stopping Reform, what the Jimminy is Badenoch playing at in Worcestershire?
    If Reform win Makerfield it’s catastrophic for Labour. They’ve lost to Reform, they’ve lost a seat, they’ve lost their most popular politician. I think this particular seat is borne from desperation not guts and it’s a damned stupid gamble.

    3 years till the GE and the economy is growing - they should try for some patience.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,755
    IanB2 said:

    viewcode said:

    Doctor Who international distribution rights

    AMC+ (a US-only streamer) has obtained the rights to stream Doctor Who (2005-2022). So that's Nine (Ecclestone) to Thirteen (Whittaker). Doctor Who (2023-2025) remains with Disney+. This is good in the sense that US people can still watch the show in the US, bad in the sense that the rights are now fragmented, thus:

    • Doctor Who (1963-1989): ?
    • Doctor Who (1995-1995): ?
    • Doctor Who (2005-2022): AMC+, US-only
    • Doctor Who (2023-2025): Disney+, worldwide ex UK
    • Doctor Who (2026-????): to be determined
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs9ZqoqTqB0

    Are we supposed to get excited about who gets to broadcast some children’s programme?
    No. It's entirely optional.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,826
    IanB2 said:

    Having just witnessed the power of anti-Reform tactical voting on the island - at least among the non-Tories - I’d be confident that tactical voting next time will make 2024 voters look like amateurs. That’s assuming Reform hadn’t self-imploded by then. If Burnham does make it to the top, he’s likely to construct a big tent approach across the parties, anyway, and if a firm commitment to PR makes it into Labour’s manifesto, winning support across the spectrum becomes even easier

    The dificulty is that the header implies that in X vs Farage most people would prefer X, but that isn't how our elections work. That X vs Reform is down to 630 odd individual contests where very often it isn't clear who that X is.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,281
    HYUFD said:

    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


    No as long as he increases tax to fund any spending rises he won't be, Truss' problem was she cut tax but did not cut spending
    That’s absolutely true - but he’s been making Truss-like noises about the bond market. Not good.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564
    DougSeal said:

    This header is just trolling Leon. Not that I disapprove.

    I would never troll on a thread with betting advice.
  • Is there anywhere we can bet on a Labour poll lead by the end of this year? There’s got to be value in that now surely.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,442
    edited May 15
    Labour are poling (sic) their own punt. Or something.

    Actually (e) I reckon the much more serious threat may well be Restore, because Rupert Lowe is an entirely different kettle of fish to Nigel Farage and so far everyone mainstream is ignoring them.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564
    edited May 15

    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


    The comments yesterday from a supporter about bond markets conforming to Burnham's policies do not inspire confidence.
    My theory is that Marie Rimmer is actually a Wes Streeting supporter who said that to damage Andy Burnham.

    After the Liz Truss mishanter nobody can be that dumb?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 41,035
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes as Ipsos shows you would expect Labour to squeeze LD and Green votes in Labour held marginal seats to beat Reform as the Ipsos poll shows Labour would with any potential leadership contender and even Starmer but most of all with Burnham,

    What willl worry Farage though is while the Labour vote surges on a forced choice of Labour or Farage, the Reform vote is barely up from its headline voteshare. Which suggests Reform won't be able to squeeze the Tory vote in the same way

    The locals here suggest that a fair few Tory voters are willing to vote Indy, LibDem, Green - even Labour, since their one seat was held with a brand new candidate against all expectations - to keep out Reform. It’s just that not many other party supporters will return the favour by voting Tory, likely a combination of remembering what the Tories were actually like in power, and fear that the Tories are too close to Reform and might well put them in power if it came to it
    The locals mostly show that outside of London, the Conservative vote collapsed, in favour of Reform, in places where Reform were best placed to beat Labour.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    edited May 15
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes as Ipsos shows you would expect Labour to squeeze LD and Green votes in Labour held marginal seats to beat Reform as the Ipsos poll shows Labour would with any potential leadership contender and even Starmer but most of all with Burnham,

    What willl worry Farage though is while the Labour vote surges on a forced choice of Labour or Farage, the Reform vote is barely up from its headline voteshare. Which suggests Reform won't be able to squeeze the Tory vote in the same way

    The locals here suggest that a fair few Tory voters are willing to vote Indy, LibDem, Green - even Labour, since their one seat was held with a brand new candidate against all expectations - to keep out Reform. It’s just that not many other party supporters will return the favour by voting Tory, likely a combination of remembering what the Tories were actually like in power, and fear that the Tories are too close to Reform and might well put them in power if it came to it
    That isn't entirely true, in Broxbourne for example the Tories almost certainly held the council last week with Labour anti Reform tactical votes.

    In Harlow too the Tories held the council with the Labour vote down 30% and their vote up 13% on 2024 and Reform on 20%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Harlow_District_Council_election

    There is very little evidence though last week of Tory voters voting Labour to keep out Reform or even LD, except maybe in patches of London
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,550
    This is a distinctly unimportant point FPT, but:

    Sean_F said:

    Heathener said:

    dixiedean said:

    Reading now from multiple sources it’s going to be a Burnham coronation.

    I don’t think it will even go to the members.

    He hasn't been selected yet, let alone won a by election which hasn't been called. So hold your horses.

    However. It is fascinating the differing opinions those with connections to the NW and those outwith the area have about Andy Burnham.

    He's never off TV and radio phone ins locally.
    Let me say that I don’t like Burnham at all, I think he’s a weathervane and was a poor minister.

    However, the public clearly sees something I don’t see and so I am admitting defeat and jumping on the Burnham train.

    It would also be nice to have a PM not from the south. I say as a southerner.

    But I stand by what I said and I’ve bet on the outcome too. He will be the next PM and I suspect he will be coronated.
    I really like Andy Burnham and he's the ONLY reason that I would EVER consider voting Labour again. He's down to earth, speaks straight, has good northern roots with considerable talent in rugby league, football, and cricket. He sticks to his principles and he's soft Left. He doesn't dress like a Metropolitan pillock either.

    And I know a lot of people like me, including Conservative voters, who think the same about him. Someone I know, a pub owner in Manchester, tory-voter with a lot of money, really likes him, thinks he's done a fantastic job in the city, and desperately did not want to lose him as mayor.

    I sense some vitriol on here, and I suspect some of it if you examine yourselves is because he's a threat. Even if that's not true, you'd better believe it: that Andy Burnham reaches parts no other current Labour politiician can reach.

    He is the only one who can stop a Reform or Reform-Tory Government.

    If they don't elect Burnham as leader and de facto PM then Labour are certainly finished next GE.
    He has principles in the sense of:

    “These are my principles and if you don’t like them, I have others.”

    He was an enthusiast for Blair, when that was the coming thing. And, he was an enthusiast for Corbyn, when that was the coming thing.
    And an Evertonian who became an enthusiast for Manchester.
    Good morning

    Maybe the most important unifying fact is they are all very anti Liverpool
    This is Burnham's othet blindspot. I have seen him speak many times, and without fail he will start with some quip about the previous weekend's football results which rest on the mistaken assumption that a) his audience are as deeply aware of the weekend's football results as he is, and b) care. Every single time he speaks there is this awkward fumbling start which fails to land. But he is usually so pleased with it he doesn't notice. After that he gets going and he's usually quite good.
  • A woman said on an interview last night it was Starmer that people hate, not Labour.

    We will find out but right now I think Labour’s polling is somewhat of an illusion because of how hated Starmer is.

    Burnham at least won’t start off that way and I suspect at least initially Labour will tick up.

    It’s clearly possible for them to poll between 32% and 40% as they have in an election. With both Farage and Polanski on the way down in approval, Burnham is fortunate in his timing.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,858
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    The Burnham bounce is quite modest isn't it? 5% ahead of Starmer, I mean come on. What this polling shows is that those who do not like Reform really don't like them and anyone else would be better, even Rayner.

    Which is completely irrelevant. In our kaleidoscope politics what is much more important is how many like them and 30% is enough to be the largest party for sure, very possibly a majority.

    Betting on most seats for Labour makes sense from a variety of perspectives, they have a huge incumbency advantage for a start. They can lose 150 seats, which is a hell of a lot historically, and still very comfortably have a plurality with the others scattered in a similar way to what we saw in Scotland. But the reasons for betting on this do not, in my view, include this polling.

    It does show the danger for Labour as well.

    However poor Starmer's image, Rayner and Streeting do worse. If the Makerfield gamble doesn't come off, the consequences aren't great.

    Talking of stopping Reform, what the Jimminy is Badenoch playing at in Worcestershire?
    If Reform win Makerfield it’s catastrophic for Labour. They’ve lost to Reform, they’ve lost a seat, they’ve lost their most popular politician. I think this particular seat is borne from desperation not guts and it’s a damned stupid gamble.

    3 years till the GE and the economy is growing - they should try for some patience.
    And the road over the next few months is bumpy, to say the least. Insane not to let the incumbent take the hit.

    However, a combination of personal ambition and impatience driven by Permanews means that Labour are where they are.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,949
    edited May 15
    New Health Secretary, James Murray, PPE at Oxford, local councillor, advisor to Sadiq Khan, MP, shadow minister, minister.

    Same old same old.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,905
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Having just witnessed the power of anti-Reform tactical voting on the island - at least among the non-Tories - I’d be confident that tactical voting next time will make 2024 voters look like amateurs. That’s assuming Reform hadn’t self-imploded by then. If Burnham does make it to the top, he’s likely to construct a big tent approach across the parties, anyway, and if a firm commitment to PR makes it into Labour’s manifesto, winning support across the spectrum becomes even easier

    The dificulty is that the header implies that in X vs Farage most people would prefer X, but that isn't how our elections work. That X vs Reform is down to 630 odd individual contests where very often it isn't clear who that X is.
    This is why our politics is now a mess. It's 630 odd individual contests where 1 big factor is the leader of the policies you can choose from.

    And Farage - I got £5m, bought a house with it while lying about what the money was for is the leader of one of those parties.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 629
    At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
    I hope he loses.
    The sense of entitlement on display by Burnham and his team is breathtaking.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    nico67 said:

    If Burnham wins then what’s the point of anyone bothering to enter a leadership campaign ? Starmer won’t fight a campaign so maybe we’ll get a token effort where some others will put their names forward and then withdraw before it goes to the members .

    Yes if Burnham won this by election and beat Reform in an area they won the local elections, he can clearly say he is the Messiah Labour are looking for
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,858
    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    The Burnham bounce is quite modest isn't it? 5% ahead of Starmer, I mean come on. What this polling shows is that those who do not like Reform really don't like them and anyone else would be better, even Rayner.

    Which is completely irrelevant. In our kaleidoscope politics what is much more important is how many like them and 30% is enough to be the largest party for sure, very possibly a majority.

    Betting on most seats for Labour makes sense from a variety of perspectives, they have a huge incumbency advantage for a start. They can lose 150 seats, which is a hell of a lot historically, and still very comfortably have a plurality with the others scattered in a similar way to what we saw in Scotland. But the reasons for betting on this do not, in my view, include this polling.

    It does show the danger for Labour as well.

    However poor Starmer's image, Rayner and Streeting do worse. If the Makerfield gamble doesn't come off, the consequences aren't great.

    Talking of stopping Reform, what the Jimminy is Badenoch playing at in Worcestershire?
    Not a clue - the Tories find a way to be in power and she suspends them because the coalition includes with the Green party.
    Suspect the answer is that she sees Greens (and probably Labour) as enemies, whereas Reform are unfortunately estranged siblings.

    Which is a strong hint to lapsed Conservative wets.
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,726
    From a quick eyeballing of the polling there wasn't a Macmillan bounce, there wasn't Alec D-H bounce, there wasn't Callaghan bounce, there was a short Major bounce, there was a short Brown bounce, there was a sustained May bounce that didn't do much for her in 2017, the Johnson bounce was large and delivered him the election.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    edited May 15
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes as Ipsos shows you would expect Labour to squeeze LD and Green votes in Labour held marginal seats to beat Reform as the Ipsos poll shows Labour would with any potential leadership contender and even Starmer but most of all with Burnham,

    What willl worry Farage though is while the Labour vote surges on a forced choice of Labour or Farage, the Reform vote is barely up from its headline voteshare. Which suggests Reform won't be able to squeeze the Tory vote in the same way

    The locals here suggest that a fair few Tory voters are willing to vote Indy, LibDem, Green - even Labour, since their one seat was held with a brand new candidate against all expectations - to keep out Reform. It’s just that not many other party supporters will return the favour by voting Tory, likely a combination of remembering what the Tories were actually like in power, and fear that the Tories are too close to Reform and might well put them in power if it came to it
    That isn't entirely true, in Broxbourne for example the Tories almost certainly held the council last week with Labour anti Reform tactical votes.

    In Harlow too the Tories held the council with the Labour vote down 30% and their vote up 13% on 2024 and Reform on 20%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Harlow_District_Council_election

    There is very little evidence though last week of Tory voters voting Labour to keep out Reform or even LD, except maybe in patches of London
    Here the Tories only held 2 out of 18 seats, whereas all the other parties held most of theirs
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,872
    Foss said:

    DavidL said:

    The Burnham bounce is quite modest isn't it? 5% ahead of Starmer, I mean come on. What this polling shows is that those who do not like Reform really don't like them and anyone else would be better, even Rayner.

    Which is completely irrelevant. In our kaleidoscope politics what is much more important is how many like them and 30% is enough to be the largest party for sure, very possibly a majority.

    Betting on most seats for Labour makes sense from a variety of perspectives, they have a huge incumbency advantage for a start. They can lose 150 seats, which is a hell of a lot historically, and still very comfortably have a plurality with the others scattered in a similar way to what we saw in Scotland. But the reasons for betting on this do not, in my view, include this polling.

    The Brown bounce was only three months or so long. I'm not sure the Burnham bounce is going to be much longer.
    I tend to agree. We will have another period of delusion where his supporters believe that "austerity" (otherwise known as living somewhere close to your means) was a Tory and Starmer/Reeves choice, rather than the real world. As the real world intrudes disillusionment will set in once again.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,905
    edited May 15

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    The Burnham bounce is quite modest isn't it? 5% ahead of Starmer, I mean come on. What this polling shows is that those who do not like Reform really don't like them and anyone else would be better, even Rayner.

    Which is completely irrelevant. In our kaleidoscope politics what is much more important is how many like them and 30% is enough to be the largest party for sure, very possibly a majority.

    Betting on most seats for Labour makes sense from a variety of perspectives, they have a huge incumbency advantage for a start. They can lose 150 seats, which is a hell of a lot historically, and still very comfortably have a plurality with the others scattered in a similar way to what we saw in Scotland. But the reasons for betting on this do not, in my view, include this polling.

    It does show the danger for Labour as well.

    However poor Starmer's image, Rayner and Streeting do worse. If the Makerfield gamble doesn't come off, the consequences aren't great.

    Talking of stopping Reform, what the Jimminy is Badenoch playing at in Worcestershire?
    Not a clue - the Tories find a way to be in power and she suspends them because the coalition includes with the Green party.
    Suspect the answer is that she sees Greens (and probably Labour) as enemies, whereas Reform are unfortunately estranged siblings.

    Which is a strong hint to lapsed Conservative wets.
    In which case she's got a problem because Reform is toxic to many people and the reform leader in Worcestershire is seemingly toxic to anyone who has spent 5 minutes in his company.

    If the Tories work with Reform, the question becomes - why would vote Tory when you can vote for their sister party who have a better chance of winning.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,131
    AnthonyT said:

    Don't understand the love for Burnham on here: useless over Staffordshire Hospitals, Operation Augusta and the GMP and VAWG. I'd say more but we can't apparently so a political discussion forum can't properly discuss the track record of the man who thinks he is entitled to be PM because - well, who knows why.

    I'm not a Starmer fan by any means but am even less of a fan of leadership psychodramas and the Labour Party talking to itself. As it is, Labour barely pays any attention to the voters. Now its main priority is Burnham's ego. It's pathetic. No idea if Burnham will win any by-election but it would serve him - and Labour - right if the voters blew him a raspberry.

    I could recommend a Mayor who's good on public transport, air pollution and police failings, but I think there is a determination to have a Northerner as PM
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,319
    Regardless of what happens in Makerfield Starmer is going .

    So I doubt the champagne corks will be popping for too long in No 10 if Burnham loses. I still think Rayner is Labours best communicator and I’m a bit disappointed that we won’t get our first female Labour MP if Burnham wins .
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,925

    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


    The comments yesterday from a supporter about bond markets conforming to Burnham's policies do not inspire confidence.
    My theory is that Marie Rimmer is actually a Wes Streeting supporter who said that to damage Andy Burnham.

    After the Liz Truss mishanter nobody can be that dumb?
    The human capacity for stupidity and repeating obvious mistakes of the past ought not be underestimated.

    See also leftwingers trying to make Communism work.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,872
    Sweeney74 said:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
    I hope he loses.
    The sense of entitlement on display by Burnham and his team is breathtaking.

    I am wondering how many of our readers have actual experience of a broken record stuck on a particular groove and repeating itself. My guess would be increasingly few although I accept vinyl has made a bit of a come back.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 2,027
    nico67 said:

    If Burnham wins then what’s the point of anyone bothering to enter a leadership campaign ? Starmer won’t fight a campaign so maybe we’ll get a token effort where some others will put their names forward and then withdraw before it goes to the members .

    I mean I'm in favour of coronations of new Prime Ministers mid-term based on who MPs prefer, rather than going to party members.

    MPs are least have a broad array of constituents they represent. Party members are an incredibly narrow and unrepresentative subset of the population to choose the PM, which the candidates then have to appeal to. As we saw with Truss. It also creates a sustained period of political paralysis for the government that is unhelpful for the country as a whole.

    This is obviously different in opposition when you are choosing a candidate to go before the public to vote on, not inserting a Prime Minister directly. And you can take all the time in the world at no cost.

    So have a poll of Labour MPs: Burnham (if he wins) or Starmer. The winner is PM and no need for a drawn out leadership contest.
  • It should say a lot for Burnham’s political skill perhaps that he has managed to engineer a solution which I’ll be honest, I thought was extremely unlikely.

    Or perhaps it’s just how terrible Starmer is.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,579

    DavidL said:

    The Burnham bounce is quite modest isn't it? 5% ahead of Starmer, I mean come on. What this polling shows is that those who do not like Reform really don't like them and anyone else would be better, even Rayner.

    Which is completely irrelevant. In our kaleidoscope politics what is much more important is how many like them and 30% is enough to be the largest party for sure, very possibly a majority.

    Betting on most seats for Labour makes sense from a variety of perspectives, they have a huge incumbency advantage for a start. They can lose 150 seats, which is a hell of a lot historically, and still very comfortably have a plurality with the others scattered in a similar way to what we saw in Scotland. But the reasons for betting on this do not, in my view, include this polling.

    It does show the danger for Labour as well.

    However poor Starmer's image, Rayner and Streeting do worse. If the Makerfield gamble doesn't come off, the consequences aren't great.

    Talking of stopping Reform, what the Jimminy is Badenoch playing at in Worcestershire?
    I think most Tories absolutely don't want to be part of some lefty grand bargain to keep the right out of power. I'd absolutely rather vote for Reform than Labour or Green. If the Lib Dems keep acting like mini Labour then I'd probably pick Reform over them too. The stop Labour and Green motivation among the right will be as strong as stop Reform among the left.
  • Ratters said:

    nico67 said:

    If Burnham wins then what’s the point of anyone bothering to enter a leadership campaign ? Starmer won’t fight a campaign so maybe we’ll get a token effort where some others will put their names forward and then withdraw before it goes to the members .

    I mean I'm in favour of coronations of new Prime Ministers mid-term based on who MPs prefer, rather than going to party members.

    MPs are least have a broad array of constituents they represent. Party members are an incredibly narrow and unrepresentative subset of the population to choose the PM, which the candidates then have to appeal to. As we saw with Truss. It also creates a sustained period of political paralysis for the government that is unhelpful for the country as a whole.

    This is obviously different in opposition when you are choosing a candidate to go before the public to vote on, not inserting a Prime Minister directly. And you can take all the time in the world at no cost.

    So have a poll of Labour MPs: Burnham (if he wins) or Starmer. The winner is PM and no need for a drawn out leadership contest.
    As a Labour member I don’t want to be asked. It’s clear if Burnham is running he’s the one people want.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    edited May 15
    Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes as Ipsos shows you would expect Labour to squeeze LD and Green votes in Labour held and marginal seats to beat Reform as the Ipsos poll shows Labour would with any potential leadership contender and even Starmer but most of all with Burnham,

    What willl worry Farage though is while the Labour vote surges on a forced choice of Labour or Farage, the Reform vote is barely up from its headline voteshare. Which suggests Reform won't be able to squeeze the Tory vote in the same way

    The locals here suggest that a fair few Tory voters are willing to vote Indy, LibDem, Green - even Labour, since their one seat was held with a brand new candidate against all expectations - to keep out Reform. It’s just that not many other party supporters will return the favour by voting Tory, likely a combination of remembering what the Tories were actually like in power, and fear that the Tories are too close to Reform and might well put them in power if it came to it
    The locals mostly show that outside of London, the Conservative vote collapsed, in favour of Reform, in places where Reform were best placed to beat Labour.
    Maybe in Barnsley, which Reform won and where the Tory vote halved and Sunderland where Reform also gained the council and Wales where there was a big Tory to Reform swing and Labour lost power and a few other places the Tories didn't even win in 2019 or which were historically normally Labour.

    In London and places like Hampshire and even Harlow (which on the polling should have been a straight Labour v Reform battle) the Tories vote held up better and even saw gains from Labour by the Tories
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,949
    HMRC closed its investigation into Angela Rayner’s £40,000 tax bill just 24 hours after her lawyers demanded a decision, in a move that cleared her path to challenge Sir Keir Starmer.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/14/rayner-cleared-tax-inquiry-24-hours-after-lawyer-letter/

    I need to find out who see uses...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,949
    edited May 15

    It should say a lot for Burnham’s political skill perhaps that he has managed to engineer a solution which I’ll be honest, I thought was extremely unlikely.

    Or perhaps it’s just how terrible Starmer is.

    Its not Burnham genius, remember he tried exactly this stunt a few months ago and crashed the clown car. It is the later.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,131
    DavidL said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
    I hope he loses.
    The sense of entitlement on display by Burnham and his team is breathtaking.

    I am wondering how many of our readers have actual experience of a broken record stuck on a particular groove and repeating itself. My guess would be increasingly few although I accept vinyl has made a bit of a come back.
    I think they still stream the music, but have the record to look at the cover :)
  • It should say a lot for Burnham’s political skill perhaps that he has managed to engineer a solution which I’ll be honest, I thought was extremely unlikely.

    Or perhaps it’s just how terrible Starmer is.

    Its not Burnham genius, remember he tried exactly this stunt a few months ago and crashed the clown car. It is the later.
    I think him and Streeting agreed a deal before he did it. The timing is just incredibly coincidental.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    The Burnham bounce is quite modest isn't it? 5% ahead of Starmer, I mean come on. What this polling shows is that those who do not like Reform really don't like them and anyone else would be better, even Rayner.

    Which is completely irrelevant. In our kaleidoscope politics what is much more important is how many like them and 30% is enough to be the largest party for sure, very possibly a majority.

    Betting on most seats for Labour makes sense from a variety of perspectives, they have a huge incumbency advantage for a start. They can lose 150 seats, which is a hell of a lot historically, and still very comfortably have a plurality with the others scattered in a similar way to what we saw in Scotland. But the reasons for betting on this do not, in my view, include this polling.

    It does show the danger for Labour as well.

    However poor Starmer's image, Rayner and Streeting do worse. If the Makerfield gamble doesn't come off, the consequences aren't great.

    Talking of stopping Reform, what the Jimminy is Badenoch playing at in Worcestershire?
    I think most Tories absolutely don't want to be part of some lefty grand bargain to keep the right out of power. I'd absolutely rather vote for Reform than Labour or Green. If the Lib Dems keep acting like mini Labour then I'd probably pick Reform over them too. The stop Labour and Green motivation among the right will be as strong as stop Reform among the left.
    Against Starmer and Rayner and the Greens maybe, Burnham and Streeting poll significantly better with Tory and Reform voters though than Farage does with Labour, LD and Green voters
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564
    edited May 15
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    That header is going to really upset Leondamus.

    After his ignorance (or credulity, if he just believed what he was told) about English whisky, he’s probably in hiding
    I don't drink but even I know there's more than one English whisky distillery.

    Which reminds me, next time I am in Ireland I am visiting here.

    The Muff Liquor Company.

    https://themuffliquorcompany.com/pages/our-story?srsltid=AfmBOopB8kEedmPTgj-mMBF4knNjT88tO52NEr66nUHHme0G8vGzg8sn
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,550

    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


    The comments yesterday from a supporter about bond markets conforming to Burnham's policies do not inspire confidence.
    My theory is that Marie Rimmer is actually a Wes Streeting supporter who said that to damage Andy Burnham.

    After the Liz Truss mishanter nobody can be that dumb?
    The human capacity for stupidity and repeating obvious mistakes of the past ought not be underestimated.

    See also leftwingers trying to make Communism work.
    Going back up the nested comments: just read the headline about the pound plummeting and, with alarm, checked the financial pages.
    It hasn't really plumetted, has it? 'Dips slightly' might be more honest.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes as Ipsos shows you would expect Labour to squeeze LD and Green votes in Labour held marginal seats to beat Reform as the Ipsos poll shows Labour would with any potential leadership contender and even Starmer but most of all with Burnham,

    What willl worry Farage though is while the Labour vote surges on a forced choice of Labour or Farage, the Reform vote is barely up from its headline voteshare. Which suggests Reform won't be able to squeeze the Tory vote in the same way

    The locals here suggest that a fair few Tory voters are willing to vote Indy, LibDem, Green - even Labour, since their one seat was held with a brand new candidate against all expectations - to keep out Reform. It’s just that not many other party supporters will return the favour by voting Tory, likely a combination of remembering what the Tories were actually like in power, and fear that the Tories are too close to Reform and might well put them in power if it came to it
    That isn't entirely true, in Broxbourne for example the Tories almost certainly held the council last week with Labour anti Reform tactical votes.

    In Harlow too the Tories held the council with the Labour vote down 30% and their vote up 13% on 2024 and Reform on 20%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Harlow_District_Council_election

    There is very little evidence though last week of Tory voters voting Labour to keep out Reform or even LD, except maybe in patches of London
    Here the Tories only held 2 out of 18 seats, whereas all the other parties held most of theirs
    Where is here? More importantly, what did the voteshare swings show?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 28,781
    Sweeney74 said:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
    I hope he loses.
    The sense of entitlement on display by Burnham and his team is breathtaking.

    You keep saying this, but what sense of entitlement?

    He is putting his career on the line facing election in a seat which is no longer safe and in any other by-election circumstances I expect Labour would lose it right now.

    That is brave, not entitled.

    I expect he will win, both because he is genuinely popular locally and Starmer is loathed nationally, but that is politics not entitlement.

    Politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. People who only ever play it safe are how we end up with failed leaders like Starmer who only walked in to Downing Street with his Ming Vase because everyone else imploded.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,452
    As an aside, the last time Labour engineered a by-election to allow a prominent politician to return to parliament was in Leyton in 1965, and they lost it! The politician in question was foreign secretary Patrick Gordon Walker, who had lost his previous seat of Smethwick to the Tories who ran a notoriously racist campaign in the seat. The Tory victor in that contest, Peter Griffiths, was later an MP in Portsmouth until 1997. I wonder what he would make of his party being led by a black woman?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,452

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    That header is going to really upset Leondamus.

    After his ignorance (or credulity, if he just believed what he was told) about English whisky, he’s probably in hiding
    I don't drink but even I know there's more than one English whisky distillery.

    Which reminds me, next time I am in Ireland I am visiting here.

    The Muff Liquor Company.

    https://themuffliquorcompany.com/pages/our-story?srsltid=AfmBOopB8kEedmPTgj-mMBF4knNjT88tO52NEr66nUHHme0G8vGzg8sn
    My friends and I once met some young women from Muff. Oh, the hilarity than ensued.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    edited May 15

    As an aside, the last time Labour engineered a by-election to allow a prominent politician to return to parliament was in Leyton in 1965, and they lost it! The politician in question was foreign secretary Patrick Gordon Walker, who had lost his previous seat of Smethwick to the Tories who ran a notoriously racist campaign in the seat. The Tory victor in that contest, Peter Griffiths, was later an MP in Portsmouth until 1997. I wonder what he would make of his party being led by a black woman?

    I expect Griffiths would now be in Reform or even Restore.

    To be fair to Burnham he hasn't asked for a safe as houses for Labour seat to stand in like Walker, he is looking to stand in a seat in an area where Reform won the local elections. So if he wins the by election he can say clearly he is the man to save Labour
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,925
    Cookie said:

    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


    The comments yesterday from a supporter about bond markets conforming to Burnham's policies do not inspire confidence.
    My theory is that Marie Rimmer is actually a Wes Streeting supporter who said that to damage Andy Burnham.

    After the Liz Truss mishanter nobody can be that dumb?
    The human capacity for stupidity and repeating obvious mistakes of the past ought not be underestimated.

    See also leftwingers trying to make Communism work.
    Going back up the nested comments: just read the headline about the pound plummeting and, with alarm, checked the financial pages.
    It hasn't really plumetted, has it? 'Dips slightly' might be more honest.
    Unfortunately, Mr. Cookie, newspapers are a bit like many YouTube channels: if you can annoy or panic people then more engagement and sharing occurs.

    Not universal, of course. I've recently been really enjoying the History of China channel which talks a very calm and engaging approach to history, as does, of course, The Histories. [NB not associated in any way, but links below if anyone wants to see for themselves].

    https://www.youtube.com/@History_of_China/videos

    https://www.youtube.com/@JustAnotherHistoryChannel/videos
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 28,781

    It should say a lot for Burnham’s political skill perhaps that he has managed to engineer a solution which I’ll be honest, I thought was extremely unlikely.

    Or perhaps it’s just how terrible Starmer is.

    Its not Burnham genius, remember he tried exactly this stunt a few months ago and crashed the clown car. It is the later.
    How exactly did he crash the clown car?

    Starmer blocked him from running in the NEC which discredited Starmer by making him look frit, made Burnham look like he was trying but Starmer is the one blocking him, meant he faced no actual jeopardy of losing the by-election, and making the failure in Gorton entirely Starmer's fault.

    It also meant that Starmer had played his ace of veto in the NEC so that he had lost the credibility to do it again now.

    It was quite clever rope-a-dope, not a crash.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,452
    HYUFD said:

    As an aside, the last time Labour engineered a by-election to allow a prominent politician to return to parliament was in Leyton in 1965, and they lost it! The politician in question was foreign secretary Patrick Gordon Walker, who had lost his previous seat of Smethwick to the Tories who ran a notoriously racist campaign in the seat. The Tory victor in that contest, Peter Griffiths, was later an MP in Portsmouth until 1997. I wonder what he would make of his party being led by a black woman?

    I expect Griffiths would now be in Reform or even Restore.

    To be fair to Burnham he hasn't asked for a safe as houses for Labour seat to stand in like Walker, he is looking to stand in a seat in an area where Reform won the local elections. So if he wins the by election he can say clearly he is the man to save Labour
    Yes that was my thought too, he seems to have been pretty Reform adjacent in his views. I was surprised to learn he was an MP right up to 1997, I had always assumed whoever won in the notorious Smethwick election must have faded into well earned obscurity.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,949
    edited May 15

    It should say a lot for Burnham’s political skill perhaps that he has managed to engineer a solution which I’ll be honest, I thought was extremely unlikely.

    Or perhaps it’s just how terrible Starmer is.

    Its not Burnham genius, remember he tried exactly this stunt a few months ago and crashed the clown car. It is the later.
    How exactly did he crash the clown car?

    Starmer blocked him from running in the NEC which discredited Starmer by making him look frit, made Burnham look like he was trying but Starmer is the one blocking him, meant he faced no actual jeopardy of losing the by-election, and making the failure in Gorton entirely Starmer's fault.

    It also meant that Starmer had played his ace of veto in the NEC so that he had lost the credibility to do it again now.

    It was quite clever rope-a-dope, not a crash.
    If Burnham had pulled this move now, Starmer would have been too weak to block him anyway. In fact, his allies like Rayner and Powell (and perhaps Streeting) could have threatened Starmer that more of the cabinet would go if he tried any funny business with the NEC. Instead he lost Labour a by election.

    Also, he has blown what should have been a home run seat for him to get back into parliament, and had to scramble around and only been offered a much more competitive race. It could really blow up in his face. Where as if he had kept his powder dry he would have walked Gorton and Denton.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 629

    Sweeney74 said:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
    I hope he loses.
    The sense of entitlement on display by Burnham and his team is breathtaking.

    You keep saying this, but what sense of entitlement?

    He is putting his career on the line facing election in a seat which is no longer safe and in any other by-election circumstances I expect Labour would lose it right now.

    That is brave, not entitled.

    I expect he will win, both because he is genuinely popular locally and Starmer is loathed nationally, but that is politics not entitlement.

    Politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. People who only ever play it safe are how we end up with failed leaders like Starmer who only walked in to Downing Street with his Ming Vase because everyone else imploded.
    You see it as brave, I see it as entitled. The whole Labour leadership question has effectively been put into suspended animation waiting for the prince over the water to return and rescue the party.

    Yes, politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. He did. He stood for Mayor of Greater Manchester repeatedly and was repeatedly elected. That cuts both ways. At some point there is also a duty to the office and to the voters who elected him to do the job rather than treating it as a holding pattern for Westminster.

    What grates is not Burnham standing for Parliament per se, but the assumption from parts of Labour and the media that there is a throne waiting for him the moment he chooses to reclaim it. That is where the sense of entitlement comes in for me.

    If he wants to come back and fight his way through a leadership contest on merit, fair enough. But the constant “waiting for Andy” psychodrama around Labour has become faintly absurd.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,858
    HYUFD said:

    As an aside, the last time Labour engineered a by-election to allow a prominent politician to return to parliament was in Leyton in 1965, and they lost it! The politician in question was foreign secretary Patrick Gordon Walker, who had lost his previous seat of Smethwick to the Tories who ran a notoriously racist campaign in the seat. The Tory victor in that contest, Peter Griffiths, was later an MP in Portsmouth until 1997. I wonder what he would make of his party being led by a black woman?

    I expect Griffiths would now be in Reform or even Restore.

    To be fair to Burnham he hasn't asked for a safe as houses for Labour seat to stand in like Walker, he is looking to stand in a seat in an area where Reform won the local elections. So if he wins the by election he can say clearly he is the man to save Labour
    If the rumours are to be believed, he did ask around quite a lot of considerably safer seats first.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 22,024
    Sweeney74 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
    I hope he loses.
    The sense of entitlement on display by Burnham and his team is breathtaking.

    You keep saying this, but what sense of entitlement?

    He is putting his career on the line facing election in a seat which is no longer safe and in any other by-election circumstances I expect Labour would lose it right now.

    That is brave, not entitled.

    I expect he will win, both because he is genuinely popular locally and Starmer is loathed nationally, but that is politics not entitlement.

    Politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. People who only ever play it safe are how we end up with failed leaders like Starmer who only walked in to Downing Street with his Ming Vase because everyone else imploded.
    You see it as brave, I see it as entitled. The whole Labour leadership question has effectively been put into suspended animation waiting for the prince over the water to return and rescue the party.

    Yes, politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. He did. He stood for Mayor of Greater Manchester repeatedly and was repeatedly elected. That cuts both ways. At some point there is also a duty to the office and to the voters who elected him to do the job rather than treating it as a holding pattern for Westminster.

    What grates is not Burnham standing for Parliament per se, but the assumption from parts of Labour and the media that there is a throne waiting for him the moment he chooses to reclaim it. That is where the sense of entitlement comes in for me.

    If he wants to come back and fight his way through a leadership contest on merit, fair enough. But the constant “waiting for Andy” psychodrama around Labour has become faintly absurd.
    I can’t speak for them but I imagine that a lot of Manc voters would prefer Burnham as PM - it would be their man at the top at the end of the day.
  • IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    That header is going to really upset Leondamus.

    After his ignorance (or credulity, if he just believed what he was told) about English whisky, he’s probably in hiding
    I’m sitting in the Hotel Tempus having Eggs Benedict, gazing across the rolling hills of the Hepple Estate in the Northumbrian sun

    Also, thinking about the recent BMG poll in inews, which directly contradicts the above and says Farage beats everyone
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,193
    HYUFD said:

    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


    No as long as he increases tax to fund any spending rises he won't be, Truss' problem was she cut tax but did not cut spending
    He is talking about extra borrowing to fund Defence, though, and he certainly has more spending promises than ideas on tax rises to fund them. I think he is the most likely to be Labour's Truss, though he doesn't seem to be a true believer like Truss is, so perhaps these are just promises to be PM, and he'll deal with reality once he becomes PM.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,319
    I had to laugh at Nick Watts reporting . He originally suggested that Burnham went out of his way to find a difficult seat as a means of proving he was the right man to lead Labour ! It was pointed out to him that he ended up in Makerfield because that’s the only seat that became available.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,949
    edited May 15
    Tice promises a "great candidate" who is "known locally" who has a "cracking" chance of winning.

    So another southerner who once visited Manchester to go to an Oasis gig?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,193

    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


    The comments yesterday from a supporter about bond markets conforming to Burnham's policies do not inspire confidence.
    My theory is that Marie Rimmer is actually a Wes Streeting supporter who said that to damage Andy Burnham.

    After the Liz Truss mishanter nobody can be that dumb?
    I think they really can be. Truss was Tory mishandling of the bond market - completely different when Labour overrules the Treasury to borrow to invest. There is plenty of evidence of that way of thinking.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 28,781
    Sweeney74 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
    I hope he loses.
    The sense of entitlement on display by Burnham and his team is breathtaking.

    You keep saying this, but what sense of entitlement?

    He is putting his career on the line facing election in a seat which is no longer safe and in any other by-election circumstances I expect Labour would lose it right now.

    That is brave, not entitled.

    I expect he will win, both because he is genuinely popular locally and Starmer is loathed nationally, but that is politics not entitlement.

    Politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. People who only ever play it safe are how we end up with failed leaders like Starmer who only walked in to Downing Street with his Ming Vase because everyone else imploded.
    You see it as brave, I see it as entitled. The whole Labour leadership question has effectively been put into suspended animation waiting for the prince over the water to return and rescue the party.

    Yes, politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. He did. He stood for Mayor of Greater Manchester repeatedly and was repeatedly elected. That cuts both ways. At some point there is also a duty to the office and to the voters who elected him to do the job rather than treating it as a holding pattern for Westminster.

    What grates is not Burnham standing for Parliament per se, but the assumption from parts of Labour and the media that there is a throne waiting for him the moment he chooses to reclaim it. That is where the sense of entitlement comes in for me.

    If he wants to come back and fight his way through a leadership contest on merit, fair enough. But the constant “waiting for Andy” psychodrama around Labour has become faintly absurd.
    Yes and he has served time as Mayor and done the job, people are allowed to change roles or jobs if another opportunity arises that they think would suit them

    As for your penultimate paragraph, he is coming back and fighting his way through a leadership contest on merit.

    Psychodrama is as much the media's need to be talking 24/7 as anything else, there is always psychodrama in politics.

    As far as his actions though, he is doing what you said "fair enough" to - and he is doing it the hard way, seeking a midterm by-election to do so.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    That header is going to really upset Leondamus.

    After his ignorance (or credulity, if he just believed what he was told) about English whisky, he’s probably in hiding
    I’m sitting in the Hotel Tempus having Eggs Benedict, gazing across the rolling hills of the Hepple Estate in the Northumbrian sun

    Also, thinking about the recent BMG poll in inews, which directly contradicts the above and says Farage beats everyone
    But Ipsos are the gold standard when it comes to these types of questions.

    Secondly best PM questions are inherently flawed, these questions are asking something different.

    See the polling for the 2015 GE election.

    Also 1987 and 1992 too.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498
    edited May 15

    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


    The comments yesterday from a supporter about bond markets conforming to Burnham's policies do not inspire confidence.
    My theory is that Marie Rimmer is actually a Wes Streeting supporter who said that to damage Andy Burnham.

    After the Liz Truss mishanter nobody can be that dumb?
    I think they really can be. Truss was Tory mishandling of the bond market - completely different when Labour overrules the Treasury to borrow to invest. There is plenty of evidence of that way of thinking.
    It was Tory Boom And Bust that Brown abolished. He forgot that other kinds were available.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    edited May 15

    HYUFD said:

    He is Labour's Liz Truss.


    No as long as he increases tax to fund any spending rises he won't be, Truss' problem was she cut tax but did not cut spending
    He is talking about extra borrowing to fund Defence, though, and he certainly has more spending promises than ideas on tax rises to fund them. I think he is the most likely to be Labour's Truss, though he doesn't seem to be a true believer like Truss is, so perhaps these are just promises to be PM, and he'll deal with reality once he becomes PM.
    Burnham is proposing a 50% top rate of income tax and new revalued bands for council tax for high value properties and land value tax so he certainly has more tax rise plans than Truss had spending cut plans
  • Sweeney74 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
    I hope he loses.
    The sense of entitlement on display by Burnham and his team is breathtaking.

    You keep saying this, but what sense of entitlement?

    He is putting his career on the line facing election in a seat which is no longer safe and in any other by-election circumstances I expect Labour would lose it right now.

    That is brave, not entitled.

    I expect he will win, both because he is genuinely popular locally and Starmer is loathed nationally, but that is politics not entitlement.

    Politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. People who only ever play it safe are how we end up with failed leaders like Starmer who only walked in to Downing Street with his Ming Vase because everyone else imploded.
    You see it as brave, I see it as entitled. The whole Labour leadership question has effectively been put into suspended animation waiting for the prince over the water to return and rescue the party.

    Yes, politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. He did. He stood for Mayor of Greater Manchester repeatedly and was repeatedly elected. That cuts both ways. At some point there is also a duty to the office and to the voters who elected him to do the job rather than treating it as a holding pattern for Westminster.

    What grates is not Burnham standing for Parliament per se, but the assumption from parts of Labour and the media that there is a throne waiting for him the moment he chooses to reclaim it. That is where the sense of entitlement comes in for me.

    If he wants to come back and fight his way through a leadership contest on merit, fair enough. But the constant “waiting for Andy” psychodrama around Labour has become faintly absurd.
    He is massively entitled and nobody can deny it.

    However, Labour is desperate. And for once they’ve looked at the polling and chosen the only man who seems to be a genuine improvement on Starmer from the data they have available.

    They do seem to want to do something with that massive majority.
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,363
    Underrated possibility that Burnham wins the by-election, seizes the leadership and becomes PM, then becomes the first sitting prime minister to lose his seat at the next election.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,428
    As the next GE gets closer it seems clear that the question will distil into a fairly simple one of 'Reform government or Not Reform Government', and that this is really the subtext for non activists, who are mostly not very political social democrat centrists with better things to do than post on PB.

    For the majority who don't want a Reform government this will become a more urgent than usual question. Reform is tied up with Trumpism, dog whistle ethnocentrism, noisy nationalism, 'ICE UK', plutocratic cash from abroad, people who post vile stuff on X and scapegoating. In addition offering belief in simple answers to complex problems. It is different in kind from the older knockabout of Tory v Labour etc.

    Avoiding Reform government at this stage involves other more or less house trained parties getting strong support. Refinements come later.

    Burnham, who I don't personally care much for, looks like being the best prospect of Labour beating Reform in actual seats, such as mine.

    The greatest danger if he succeeds in the current project is a repeat of the ludicrous messianism we have seen before with Boris, Corbyn, Truss and of course Farage.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,624

    Tice promises a "great candidate" who is "known locally" who has a "cracking" chance of winning.

    So another southerner who once visited Manchester to go to an Oasis gig?

    Candidates really matter in a by-election. Particularly this one, where they are up against Vinnie Dingle. They almost certainly will go for somebody more appealling than jug eared eugenicist MattGPT. Levi Bellfield?

    Big Roop could really fuck the Fukkers here if he chooses to contest the seat and stand one of his undiagnosed dementia stricken militia.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498

    Sweeney74 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
    I hope he loses.
    The sense of entitlement on display by Burnham and his team is breathtaking.

    You keep saying this, but what sense of entitlement?

    He is putting his career on the line facing election in a seat which is no longer safe and in any other by-election circumstances I expect Labour would lose it right now.

    That is brave, not entitled.

    I expect he will win, both because he is genuinely popular locally and Starmer is loathed nationally, but that is politics not entitlement.

    Politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. People who only ever play it safe are how we end up with failed leaders like Starmer who only walked in to Downing Street with his Ming Vase because everyone else imploded.
    You see it as brave, I see it as entitled. The whole Labour leadership question has effectively been put into suspended animation waiting for the prince over the water to return and rescue the party.

    Yes, politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. He did. He stood for Mayor of Greater Manchester repeatedly and was repeatedly elected. That cuts both ways. At some point there is also a duty to the office and to the voters who elected him to do the job rather than treating it as a holding pattern for Westminster.

    What grates is not Burnham standing for Parliament per se, but the assumption from parts of Labour and the media that there is a throne waiting for him the moment he chooses to reclaim it. That is where the sense of entitlement comes in for me.

    If he wants to come back and fight his way through a leadership contest on merit, fair enough. But the constant “waiting for Andy” psychodrama around Labour has become faintly absurd.
    I can’t speak for them but I imagine that a lot of Manc voters would prefer Burnham as PM - it would be their man at the top at the end of the day.
    Is it not the case, that even quite unpopular PMs have managed to "resist the tide" in their constituencies?

    On the entitlement - is there evidence that Burnham shares the view that it's his crown, waiting for him?
  • There’s definitely something in the idea that Manchester choose to elect a Manchester man for the PM. That will be very appetising IMHO.

    Green vote already looks like it’s on the way to collapse. So Burnham needs to make a push on immigration.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 41,035
    Dura_Ace said:

    Tice promises a "great candidate" who is "known locally" who has a "cracking" chance of winning.

    So another southerner who once visited Manchester to go to an Oasis gig?

    Candidates really matter in a by-election. Particularly this one, where they are up against Vinnie Dingle. They almost certainly will go for somebody more appealling than jug eared eugenicist MattGPT. Levi Bellfield?

    Big Roop could really fuck the Fukkers here if he chooses to contest the seat and stand one of his undiagnosed dementia stricken militia.
    Big Roop will win about 100 votes.
  • algarkirk said:

    As the next GE gets closer it seems clear that the question will distil into a fairly simple one of 'Reform government or Not Reform Government', and that this is really the subtext for non activists, who are mostly not very political social democrat centrists with better things to do than post on PB.

    For the majority who don't want a Reform government this will become a more urgent than usual question. Reform is tied up with Trumpism, dog whistle ethnocentrism, noisy nationalism, 'ICE UK', plutocratic cash from abroad, people who post vile stuff on X and scapegoating. In addition offering belief in simple answers to complex problems. It is different in kind from the older knockabout of Tory v Labour etc.

    Avoiding Reform government at this stage involves other more or less house trained parties getting strong support. Refinements come later.

    Burnham, who I don't personally care much for, looks like being the best prospect of Labour beating Reform in actual seats, such as mine.

    The greatest danger if he succeeds in the current project is a repeat of the ludicrous messianism we have seen before with Boris, Corbyn, Truss and of course Farage.

    I am still of the view that Reform only looks popular because of Starmer.

    We know Labour has the total capability to poll 32 to 40%. Their vote is currently split but how much of that is genuine hatred of Labour or just “get Starmer out”?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,624
    Sean_F said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Tice promises a "great candidate" who is "known locally" who has a "cracking" chance of winning.

    So another southerner who once visited Manchester to go to an Oasis gig?

    Candidates really matter in a by-election. Particularly this one, where they are up against Vinnie Dingle. They almost certainly will go for somebody more appealling than jug eared eugenicist MattGPT. Levi Bellfield?

    Big Roop could really fuck the Fukkers here if he chooses to contest the seat and stand one of his undiagnosed dementia stricken militia.
    Big Roop will win about 100 votes.
    100 votes less for the Fukkers and the whole thing is going to be tighter than Streeting's bussy.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498

    My photo of the day is a still from a video of the huge fire engulfing Ryazan oil refinery, one of the largest refineries in Russia, after a massive Ukrainian drone attack last night. Fingers crossed that this refinery will be hit repeatedly over the next week, as was Tuapse recently, compounding the damage caused in this strike.


    https://t.me/noel_reports/46352

    It's notable that a number of members of the Trump administration have started to say positive things about how Ukraine is fighting the war. Just yesterday the Army Secretary Dan O'Driscoll was talking favourably about how one of the Ukrainian command and control systems integrated data from the battlefield more effectively than US systems. I take this as a sign that the US can see that the war is trending in Ukraine's direction, and they want to be associated with that success.

    "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse"

    The MAGA thing is all about Power Worship. Russia *used* to be STONK!

    I would imagine the parade thing hit home with MAGA - they love their parades and displays.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,193

    Sweeney74 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
    I hope he loses.
    The sense of entitlement on display by Burnham and his team is breathtaking.

    You keep saying this, but what sense of entitlement?

    He is putting his career on the line facing election in a seat which is no longer safe and in any other by-election circumstances I expect Labour would lose it right now.

    That is brave, not entitled.

    I expect he will win, both because he is genuinely popular locally and Starmer is loathed nationally, but that is politics not entitlement.

    Politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. People who only ever play it safe are how we end up with failed leaders like Starmer who only walked in to Downing Street with his Ming Vase because everyone else imploded.
    You see it as brave, I see it as entitled. The whole Labour leadership question has effectively been put into suspended animation waiting for the prince over the water to return and rescue the party.

    Yes, politicians are supposed to put themselves forward for elections. He did. He stood for Mayor of Greater Manchester repeatedly and was repeatedly elected. That cuts both ways. At some point there is also a duty to the office and to the voters who elected him to do the job rather than treating it as a holding pattern for Westminster.

    What grates is not Burnham standing for Parliament per se, but the assumption from parts of Labour and the media that there is a throne waiting for him the moment he chooses to reclaim it. That is where the sense of entitlement comes in for me.

    If he wants to come back and fight his way through a leadership contest on merit, fair enough. But the constant “waiting for Andy” psychodrama around Labour has become faintly absurd.
    I can’t speak for them but I imagine that a lot of Manc voters would prefer Burnham as PM - it would be their man at the top at the end of the day.
    Is it not the case, that even quite unpopular PMs have managed to "resist the tide" in their constituencies?

    On the entitlement - is there evidence that Burnham shares the view that it's his crown, waiting for him?
    John Major, for example, increased his share of the vote in his constituency in 1992. So did Gordon Brown in 2010. Given the chance to make Tony Blair PM in 1997, the Labour share of the vote increased by more than the national average in his constituency of Sedgefield. In 1979 Callaghan increased his share of the vote in his constituency by 7.3pp, even while the national Labour vote share declined by 2.3pp.

    Voters *love* to have the opportunity to vote directly for the Prime Minister in their constituency.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 10,134
    Burnham - really? Twice leadership election loser, mixed (at best) record in government. Doing well/ok as a mayor is not quite the same thing. If Labour can't do any better then it's not a great advert for the 2024 intake.

    Better than Starmer? Possibly - he can hardly be a worse communicator, he may have a clearer idea of what he wants to achieve. He may also veer further left and scare off the more centrist current voters like myself (though that would probably require either Ed Davey to come up with a more convincing reason to vote Lib Dem than keeping badgers off banknotes or Badenoch to both have some interesting ideas and put very clear blue water between the Conservatives and Reform and explicitly rule out any support to or from Reform to form a government).

    Communication wise, Streeting is... well... Streets ahead, but I'm not sure he actually has a policy agenda. He'd be the most interesting though and the only one that might actually enthuse me to vote Labour, if he has a vision.

    As for a coronation, Streeting's resignation letter was very clear about the need for a wide contest. He's going to look a right numpty if he rows in behind a Burnham coronation.

    I do, in many ways, hope Burnham manages to lose the by election. For the lolz, but maybe also so that Labour take a good long look at themselves and do actually have a proper contest that involves setting out some ideas for governing before someone takes the top job.
This discussion has been closed.