Can Starmer survive? The wolves are circling in the Labour Party.

The important issues for me are the 2 child benefit cap and the existence of food banks. I am not really bothered about immigration.
I am not a fan of Starmer, because he has not followed up on the pledges he made to get himself elected as leader, but at the moment I can't see that any of his cabinet could do a better job, as they are on the same page as him and Rachel Reeves.
You are correct in that Reform is a major threat in electoral terms but I don't think that Starmer's Labour is going to beat them by aping them. They should be presenting an alternative view.
He also doesn't seem willing to listen to other views than his own, as when he dismissed the concerns of his back benchers when he wanted to take money away from disabled people as "noises off". Now we have been told that he ignored warnings from the security services about the appointment of Peter Mandelson.
Altogether he has been rather a disappointment to me, after I voted for him in the leadership election.

this has been touched on, on the Emily Thornberry thread and I posted a thread about Mainstream Labour (mentioned in the Guardian article), which, admittedly, hasn't generated a great deal of interest.

I don't see any point in replacing him from among the current Cabinet unless they were willing to ditch their close connections with wealthy corporate donors and private enterprise (notably health related entities).

And to take a fresh view of how to manage the economy. though that would be difficult as the Treasury and the Bank of England would fight hard to continue with the neoliberal economic policies which favour the wealthy and private industry and are draining money from the rest of the population.

I am, like many, horrified by the lurch to the right in an attempt to outdo Reform. According to the polls, and to political commentators, lot of the support that Labour has lost has gone to the left, not to the right; it's madness to chase a relatively few voters with an imitation Reform when they can go for the real thing.

Starmer may be a decent and honourable man with good intentions. One could forgive him being less than charismatic if he were competent and represented core Labour values. But he isn't.

I'm in favour of Andy Burnham

When talking this over with DH this morning he said 'What about Angela Rayner?' That exercised my imagination!

Interesting suggestion MaisieD . Angela Raynor is already an MP, unlike Andy Burnham. I am in two minds about Andy Burnham for the leadership, I do think he could do a better job than Starmer, and certainly have higher approval ratings, but I am loath to lose him as Manchester mayor, I think he is doing such a good job here in Manchester.

I think Starmer will hang on to the bitter end. He thinks he is doing a good job and anyone criticising him just doesn’t comprehend how very clever and talented he is.

Wouldn’t it be good if, for once, we could have a leader who not only leads, but actually knows how to? Since Mrs Thatcher, (she wasn’t popular, but did the job) we have had only wimps.

Starmer isn’t doing well but the thought of Rayner being PM or Andy Burnham either makes me gulp!
Starmer has time yet to make his mark but needs to stop blowing with the wind and be proactive not reactive.

I agree with the general tone of this thread so far. I am also disappointed with KS, although I also feel that he has suffered far more than most politicians from constant sniping by the press and news channels, and from plants on SM sites posting disinformation and stirring things up.

I think that the LP's own comms have been dreadful, which is such a major oversight these days that it beggars belief. I don't, personally, think that means-testing the WFP should have been so disastrous. Many people were saying they didn't need it, and when young people are struggling there is no reason to give away money based on age. But it was handled very badly. Means-testing is always unfair, and can be a disincentive to people on lower incomes to strive for a better standard of living when they can be better off falling below a threshold that would see them given money free. He should have realised that, brought in the withdrawal without a cliff edge, and given a year's notice so that people could plan. He should also have announced it outside of the budget, IMO, and given a proper explanation, with examples of how it would affect different groups of people (based on a sound impact assessment), so it was clear that it had been carefully considered. That may have stopped the sniping from those who claimed to be outraged on behalf of others, and from those manipulating figures to suggest that most pensioners would be cold in winter because of losing £200 - most would not. Decent Comms advice and messaging should have prevented the debacle that it all became.

I think that he should have stood by Angela Rayner, as I don't think she did anything (deliberately) wrong, and his judgement around Mandelson wouldn't have seemed so bad.

I voted for him as leader too, but left the LP when he refused to allow those with whom he disagreed to stand for office, and because of the party's views on so-called 'gender'. I voted Labour in the GE, and would do so again, but more because of an absence of anyone else. I think that a lot of what the government (in general, not KS in particular) have done is positive, and that in time the seeds they are sowing now will bear fruit, but maybe in three or four years one of the newer parties will have my support. I am interested in Majority, for instance, and Mainstream Labour could be interesting too. Four years is a long time off, and by then Reform may not be the threat it seems now. Farage has time and rope enough to hang himself by then.

Maybe KS should go. He would be excellent as foreign secretary, but I'm not sure who should be PM (if not Andy Burnham, which I realise is unlikely as things stand). I don't think the government should go the way of the Tories and keep replacing the PM until they are scraping the barrel and nobody gets what they voted for.

That's the long answer. The short one is that I don't know .

Labour will do what Labour always does - destroy itself from within.

If they worked together instead of against each other, they’d be a force to be reckoned with.

I’m a LP member and want to see some unity in my party.

I voted Starmer as leader, then Labour in the election. I’m pleased our M.P lives locally, uses our schools, supermarket and GP. She’s demonstrably active and I like her politics.

I’m increasingly concerned about poor communication between number 10 and back benchers and mismanagement of the way new policies are introduced. WFA the most obvious absolute unnecessary cause of rebellion within the party. I understand means testing is expensive and complicated. I expect if they’d significantly increased the level at which pension credit is given and linked that to the WFA they could have avoided the rebellion and climb down.

I was sorry to lose Angela Rayner, I approved of Starmer’s support for her. Allowing her to resign leaves the door open for her return. I see the tax issue as a mistake not tax avoidance

I’ve posted on other threads about my anger about Mandelson. I was shocked to hear Starmer’s support for Mandelson at PMQ’s. I believed Starmer genuinely cares about the protection of women and girls. We don’t yet know what advice no 10 was given by the security services about Mandelson’s appointment. We do know that journalists found damning information by using the internet. I know Starmer is very busy but he’s surrounded by help. Was it beyond McSweeney to use natural curiosity to ask google or, did he believe he could wing it and the public and press would move on.

So, poor comms, poor management and questions raised for me about Keir Starmer’s judgement. I don’t want a new leader, I want Keir Starmer to shape up. He isn’t incompetent and needs to front this with honesty, confidence, even recognition he got thus wrong

Ilovecheese

Interesting suggestion MaisieD . Angela Raynor is already an MP, unlike Andy Burnham. I am in two minds about Andy Burnham for the leadership, I do think he could do a better job than Starmer, and certainly have higher approval ratings, but I am loath to lose him as Manchester mayor, I think he is doing such a good job here in Manchester.

Ilovecheese - you have just answered a question I posed on another thread I opened earlier- if Andy Burnham has committed to being Mayor until 2028 then it isn’t possible for him to abandon his post and especially as he is doing such a grand job in Manchester
If Starmer steps down or is ousted then there would be a GE.

I do believe Andy Burnham’s heart is in his job, him being a local lad from just up the road will have helped.
However it is a massive leap into Starmer’s shoes, which at the moment do not seem to be walking out anyway.

It is actually unusual for the labour party to turn on their leader, in a way it is one of their failings, they hang on way too long, the Tories seem to be more efficient at it.

The Tories are masters of the knife in the back, could have taught Brutus a thing or two.

Wes Streeting is often mentioned as a possible successor, he is doing a good job of bringing down NHS waiting lists so I suppose he might be thought suitable, not sure of his popularity though.
Darren Jones is a good speaker.

Grandmaofone I don’t think there would be a General Election just because Starmer stepped down. The Tories managed to replace their leader a few times without calling a General Election.
With a huge Labour majority in the Commons, the next General Election is nearly four years away, in theory.

mostlyharmless - you are right and there should have been
a question mark at the end of my sentence.

Yes, in theory.

But then, as Billy Connolly advised us -
“ Don’t Vote, it only encourages them!”

If we don't vote it encourages extremists to persuade their followers to get them in.

I think that he should have stood by Angela Rayner, as I don't think she did anything (deliberately) wrong, and his judgement around Mandelson wouldn't have seemed so bad.

Words fail me.
AR was caught out because she did do something wrong, yet failing to meet the highest code of conduct when holding high office apparently does not matter; Give her another go.

Mandelson was known to have been disgraced twice yet was deemed suitable as an Ambassador; He will form a good relationship with Trump.

Labour is responsible for these people.

I did not say that failing to meet the highest code of conduct doesn't matter. I said that IMO (as none of us knows what is in someone else's head) AR did not do it deliberately. The rules are convoluted, or there would be no need for those with money to pay experts to look after it for them and avoid paying taxes. I wouldn't have a clue about paying SDLT on a house because I didn't own another one. Few people would know the intricacies of liability in those circumstances.

What I said, for avoidance of doubt, was that KS should have stood by her as I don't think that she did anything deliberately wrong. Please don't twist my words.

Mandelson is another matter.

Sorry, that was badly worded. I meant that I wouldn't have a clue about paying SDLT on a house when I didn't own another one (as it was in trust), In other words I understand AR's confusion.

Doodledog

Sorry, that was badly worded. I meant that I wouldn't have a clue about paying SDLT on a house when I didn't own another one (as it was in trust), In other words I understand AR's confusion.

The Deputy PM and Housing Secretary should never have been in such a mighty position if she got “confused” so easily.

There were no excuses for Rayner and she had to go.Starmer did the right thing for once.

Doodledog

Sorry, that was badly worded. I meant that I wouldn't have a clue about paying SDLT on a house when I didn't own another one (as it was in trust), In other words I understand AR's confusion.

But being Deputy Prime Minister, or even an MP for that matter, meant she should have got herself unconfused.

Even Joe Bloggs [in her financial postion], should be doing better.

The Country has and should have high expectiations of an MP's financial affairs. Thankfully.

Doodledog

I did not say that failing to meet the highest code of conduct doesn't matter. I said that IMO (as none of us knows what is in someone else's head) AR did not do it deliberately. The rules are convoluted, or there would be no need for those with money to pay experts to look after it for them and avoid paying taxes. I wouldn't have a clue about paying SDLT on a house because I didn't own another one. Few people would know the intricacies of liability in those circumstances.

What I said, for avoidance of doubt, was that KS should have stood by her as I don't think that she did anything deliberately wrong. Please don't twist my words.

Mandelson is another matter.

I agree with you. AR made an error. Mandelson should never have been appointed in the first place. My guess is that Starmer was looking for somebody who is as much slimey and dodgy as Trump.

I think you’re right growstuff, and woukd also add somebody who had something on Trump, which Mandelson undoubtedly does, unfortunately there is no stronger bargaining tool - it makes me feel sick to think about it.

If Starmer is forced out in due course, my preferred PM option is still David Milliband, who sadly also is no longer an MP.