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

The mayor of Manchester is at least someone that might relate to the working class and labour voters

Why is Shawn Woodward on GB news with Farage ? He was a Labour MP of a northern town years ago He wasn't appropriate kind of MP needed in the town out of touch with working class and not often in the town Why is he now seen by GB news as some kind of spokesperson He Shawn can't be getting back into politics surely

However considering the latest announcement I will now be personally driving Burnham to the doors of number 10.

I agree. Pointless and lengthy definitions of the use of the term 'agency' seemed like a personal attack.

I'm pleased you understood 😀. I was beginning to think I was going mad.

I understood what you meant and it was me you were 'disagreeing' with. I thought it was a good point but ( and don't take this the wrong way!) not necessarily needing pages of discussion.

DaisyAnneReturns

^Are you picking holes in the way I expressed myself, or making a point that is relevant to the discussion? I can't work it out from your post.^ [Doodledog]

The idea that someone is suggesting that chosing to vote in one particular way is a loss of agency is, an attack, intentional or otherwise, on that person's perception of their own deliberate choice (their agency). So, on an N & P thread, it would be reasonable to assume, even if you are struggling to understand as you suggest, that it is intentional.

Eh?

I have read that out to three people in the room with me, and none of them have a clue what you mean. I do understand what I said, as do they, so I'm happy with that 🤷‍♀️.

For the benefit of those who don't know what I meant, for the third and final time I will say that I would support AB, and that those saying that doing so would just be a vote against KS would, in my case, be wrong. I am capable of thinking for myself, and would actively approve of an AB attempt at being PM (if he makes such an attempt) rather than passively seeing him as no more than better than the alternative.

If that's not clear enough to be understood, I'm not sure how else I can say it, but as it's just my opinion and not important in the grand scheme of things, I won't be losing sleep.

True.

fancythat

Increible really, that Starmer has taken less than 18 months for people to be looking for a new Leader.

Only because you can’t turn the tv on without being told that Reform ( just remind me of how many MP’s they have or how many councillors have already been discredited for various misdemeanours) are going to form the next government. Say it enough times and people believe it.

Are you picking holes in the way I expressed myself, or making a point that is relevant to the discussion? I can't work it out from your post. [Doodledog]

The idea that someone is suggesting that chosing to vote in one particular way is a loss of agency is, an attack, intentional or otherwise, on that person's perception of their own deliberate choice (their agency). So, on an N & P thread, it would be reasonable to assume, even if you are struggling to understand as you suggest, that it is intentional.

I'm in favour of Burnham, too. I like the principles of Mainstream Labour, Burnham has made a success of his Mayoralty and, I think, would be his own man, not so swayed by advisors and party movers and shakers...

Mind you, Rachel Reeves has to go, too. She's ridiculous as chancellor with her daft 'fiscal rules'. but I can't think of anyone to succeed her...

Ladyleftfieldlover

I’ve always had a bit of a crush on Andy Burnham.

Is it the eyelashes?😄

Glad it wasn't just me, I couldn't make head nor tail of it.
I was going to say do we know he will be less authoritarian than Starmer, it seems to be the go to stance at the moment. Starmers authoritarian approach was there from the beginning and I for one certainly chose to ignore some if it at the early stages, I won't do that again.

DaisyAnneReturns

Doodledog

Galaxy

I don't know what I feel about this.
I think Starmer became PM due to a rejection of the Tories rather than an endorsement of what he stood for. I am hoping this isn't more of the same - a rejection of Starmer rather than an endorsement of Burnham.

Well I, for one, would endorse Burnham. I suspect that most voters have more agency than you seem to credit us with, Galaxy. Of course we can only vote for who is available, so there is more than an element of that at play, but I do feel that AB would be good at offering a real alternative to both the authoritarian stance that KS has taken and to the terrifying prospect of a Reform government because he has both the personality and the principles that I can relate to.

Surely a lack of agency would be being unable to vote Doodledog.

Chosing to vote against an MP of one party rather than for the MP of another party in order to get the political outcome nearest to your thinking means that knowledge of our systems complexities have given us a greater feeling of our sense of control, our capacity to influence and our faith in our ability to chose. That is our sense of agency.

I think Andy Burnam would lose them the election.

Are you picking holes in the way I expressed myself, or making a point that is relevant to the discussion? I can't work it out from your post.

Nor me. He often has politicians from Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems on his GB News programme and he treats them all respectfully. Usually they all end up having a good laugh together.

Doodledog

Galaxy

I don't know what I feel about this.
I think Starmer became PM due to a rejection of the Tories rather than an endorsement of what he stood for. I am hoping this isn't more of the same - a rejection of Starmer rather than an endorsement of Burnham.

Well I, for one, would endorse Burnham. I suspect that most voters have more agency than you seem to credit us with, Galaxy. Of course we can only vote for who is available, so there is more than an element of that at play, but I do feel that AB would be good at offering a real alternative to both the authoritarian stance that KS has taken and to the terrifying prospect of a Reform government because he has both the personality and the principles that I can relate to.

Surely a lack of agency would be being unable to vote Doodledog.

Chosing to vote against an MP of one party rather than for the MP of another party in order to get the political outcome nearest to your thinking means that knowledge of our systems complexities have given us a greater feeling of our sense of control, our capacity to influence and our faith in our ability to chose. That is our sense of agency.

I think Andy Burnam would lose them the election.

This is not convincing me

I’ve always had a bit of a crush on Andy Burnham.

Try following his daily proclamations nanna8.

I don’t see delusions of grandeur in him. I would be wary of him because he is such an unknown but he is certainly a very good speaker and he can engage easily with people. Whether he ever gets to be PM is very much up in the air, I somehow doubt it. Someone like him is needed to voice what many are thinking . The next step is for those in power to actually listen and change - he would disappear pretty quickly if they did.

Not really fancythat, because it’s happened with the last three PMs too. I think the days of a single leader for a whole parliamentary term could be in the past. It’s becoming more like football management every day.

Increible really, that Starmer has taken less than 18 months for people to be looking for a new Leader.

I’m not sure that little in this context refers to Farage’s height Allira, isn’t it more about his delusions of grandeur?

Farage might be average height but why is the word little constantly being used in a disparaging way as an insult?

that was to friendlygingercat.

You think Farage has Hit ler-like ambitions?