The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Gloucester Saint]

2 hours ago, rooney said:

I can remember when Harold Wilson found a safe labour seat for Patrick Walker as he wanted him for Foreign Secretary, and the voters did not elect him.

Only a 5k majority last time, far from certain I agree.

Burnham is popular up there though and suspect he would win.

His comments about the economy worry me as much as Farage, Tice and Polanski, but he’s bound to appeal to Labour’s core and if they win much of that back, they might end up as the largest party in a 5-way race because the wheels are starting to come off for Farage.

Shit for the country but that’s been true for 10 years now. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

5 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Only a 5k majority last time, far from certain I agree.

Burnham is popular up there though and suspect he would win.

His comments about the economy worry me as much as Farage, Tice and Polanski, but he’s bound to appeal to Labour’s core and if they win much of that back, they might end up as the largest party in a 5-way race because the wheels are starting to come off for Farage.

Shit for the country but that’s been true for 10 years now. 

Picking up on your worries about the economy: It took a flexible centrist to get them into office.

Once there, due to the size of the majority, there were still large blocks of interest in areas on the left too. 

This is just a takeover of the electable part by the unelectable part (although there are even more unelectable parts still in there)

As you say, Burnham may attract a core support. And certainly the unions and left. If he gets to implement them all, it's going to cost. They didn't say much before getting into office. But one thing they repeated was that everything had been costed.

Throwing that out the window is going to leave them back in the wilderness again. 

For balance, a reform person praised Burnham for reaching out to hear different views. He was complimentary about him having values that made the contest with reform good for politics.

Edited yesterday at 13:38 by Holmes_and_Watson

[egg]

The markets are not liking the idea of Burnham. Pound and FTSE down, and gilts up to 2008 levels, ie worse than Truss levels. Not ideal. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr2pl5lj84o

[iansums]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

The markets are not liking the idea of Burnham. Pound and FTSE down, and gilts up to 2008 levels, ie worse than Truss levels. Not ideal. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr2pl5lj84o

Burnham comes across very well and seems to have some charisma, unlike Starmer. I do though worry about his economic policies and perhaps most worrying of all, he wears a T-shirt with a jacket, horrible look.

[egg]

Just now, iansums said:

Burnham comes across very well and seems to have some charisma, unlike Starmer. I do though worry about his economic policies and perhaps most worrying of all, he wears a T-shirt with a jacket, horrible look.

He comes across as a Gallagher who couldn't make the band to me, so had a crack at politics instead. I don't see an appeal far beyond his own doorstep, and I share your concern about economic policy. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

It's Josh Simons stepping aside.

Director of Labour Together. That was Morgan McSweeney's (with mentoring by Epstein best pal Mandelson's) vehicle to get shot of Corbyn by any means, and get Starmer in as Labour leader.

Labour together, funded by the traditional left of venture capitalism, and hedge fund managers, that they got in trouble for not declaring.

And the organisation that looked to dig dirt on journalists that found them out/ revealed their inner workings. I remember interviews with those involved pleading that investigators had gone beyond their brief. Only for places like Private Eye to be reporting that they couldn't keep their mouths shut about all the things they'd found out, and knew all about what was going on.

I think they pretended they were looking for leaks. For that, they could have just asked Josh Simons. Before he was McSweeney's pal, he was a policy advisor for Corbyn, before getting fired for leaking information.

Simons seems to have been happy moving from one part of the party to the other when it suited. He's clearly not bothered about little things like free speech or being front and centre of now tarnished organisations. Went to McSweeney because Corbyn dumped him. Went to Burnham because McSweeney got dumped. 

Somehow, his "best for the party and country" reasons for stepping down aren't very believable. I wonder what deal he's struck, and where he'll reappear next.

Unless voters look at that record, look at Burnham making a deal with it, and decide to vote elsewhere.

[Dr Who?]

10 hours ago, egg said:

The markets are not liking the idea of Burnham. Pound and FTSE down, and gilts up to 2008 levels, ie worse than Truss levels. Not ideal. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr2pl5lj84o

He has to win the by-election first, and then the leadership race, but I can see everything taking shape already. He already has the support and Kier is on the rocks. But it will all hinge on the by-election in June. 

For me he is a great local leader, but nationwide and on key policies I think he will fall very short and be out of his depth. 

[The Kraken]

11 hours ago, Dr Who? said:

He has to win the by-election first, and then the leadership race, but I can see everything taking shape already. He already has the support and Kier is on the rocks. But it will all hinge on the by-election in June. 

For me he is a great local leader, but nationwide and on key policies I think he will fall very short and be out of his depth. 

The electorate also historically don’t take too kindly to new leaders being parachuted in without being voted for at a general.  Blair and Brown’s deal looked grubby. Truss was a complete and utter head case but nobody apart from a few Tory nutters wanted anything to do with her, Sunak did a poor job and was tainted by all that went before him.

I think the visuals of getting Burnham in aren’t good at all.

Edited 13 hours ago by The Kraken

[Dr Who?]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

The electorate also historically don’t take too kindly to new leaders being parachuted in without being voted for at a general.  Blair and Brown’s deal looked grubby. Truss was a complete and utter head case but nobody apart from a few Tory nutters wanted anything to do with her, Sunak did a poor job and was tainted by all that went before him.

I think the visuals of getting Burnham in aren’t good at all.

Also Labour are coming well off of their mandate that got them voted into government. Well I know a big part was a vote against the Tories that also help, but you get my point. The people will want another go at voting… well it’s been a couple of years! 

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, Dr Who? said:

The people will want another go at voting…

Apart from IanSums.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

The electorate also historically don’t take too kindly to new leaders being parachuted in without being voted for at a general.  Blair and Brown’s deal looked grubby.

Brown would probably have won an election had he called one earlier. Jim Callaghan was also popular prior to The Winter of discontent & Maggie wasn’t as formidable, I guess having 2 General elections in ‘74 put him of calling one early ‘76
 

I think the Tories got too carried away with Major not calling one and winning the subsequent election. However, had he called one early, he’d probably have got a bigger majority than he ended up getting. 
 

There’s no doubt in my mind that if Burnham wins the leadership and then goes to the country for another mandate, he’ll win (maybe a reduced majority, but still a decent working one). Obviously he doesn’t need to, and I’m not saying he morally should do (I don’t believe he should). But tactically it makes absolute sense. 

[iansums]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Apart from IanSums.

I want to vote, just not allowed 🥺

[The Kraken]

8 hours ago, iansums said:

I want to vote, just not allowed 🥺

And nor should you be. You just remember that.