Andrew Gwynne, Labour MP for Gorton and Denton is standing down because of ill health. Thus provoking a great deal of speculation as to who will stand in his place.

It is now in the public domain Starmer personally voted to block Burnham. Some or even many may feel his motivation was self preservation before party. Some or even many may feel it was an act of madness blocking the best positioned candidate to win the by-election for Labour.

All eyes will be on him as he manages the aftermath of his decision.

As a member of the Labour Party, I feel saddened and angered by the infighting within the party.

If the Labour Party is toast - and it may be - it will be of their own doing. Have the agitators within the party learnt nothing by watching the Tory revolving door at No 10?

The reason Labour historically does not win elections is because they fight amongst themselves - they hand power to their opponents on a plate.

I am so sick of this apparent inability by Labour MPs to work together for the good of the country. It’s pathetic! Stop navel gazing!

When Labour gives away its governance at the next election to a bunch of right wing extremists, I want every one of the back biting, self serving agitators to reflect on their own actions. They won’t of course!

Lizziedrip 16.26,

I understand your sentiment and in an ideal world it would be wonderful if all political parties work collaboratively and effectively with each other, with no infighting. That is not the norm however. Some parties worse than others- e.g Conservatives and Reform.

Do you think the reason for Labour's current low poll ratings and Starmer's personal ratings (now almost as low as that of Liz Truss) is predominantly because of "infighting within the party"? Surely not, the PM also carries accountability and responsibility for their party's fortunes and their ability to manage "factions' and "infighting". It can't be good to just accept the LP maybe "toast" but better to do something to change that? If so what are the realistic options open to Starmer and his cabinet?

I would like to see Starmer do/say/plan to turn things round. I am horrified to think that Reform might win the next election- so viable, strong, alternative, electable parties are imperative.

All political parties have ambitious cabinet members et al who want to be future leaders and vie for position. It was ever thus. That does not necessarily, in itself, mean there must be "infighting". Clever, confident, successful PMs nurture them, succession plan, make promises and alliances, ( e.g. Blair/Brown) and manages their cabinet team collaboratively. Those that are unable to be collegiate/collaborative, don't read the room- e.g. Thatcher- eventually are toppled. The Conservative Party more recent PM frequently changing PM fortunes arguably started after Cameron stepped down after the Brexit vote.

It won't be the 'agitators' who lose Labour the next GE. It will be the government's utter disregard for what most people actually want. It will because it has attacked immigrants, and people on welfare. It will be because they are promoting the welfare of the wealthy and the institutions that nurture them and telling the rest of us that we will have to endure more 'austerity' and belt tightening.

They potentially have the power and the tools to restore our crumbling infrastructure, to return utilities such as water to public ownership, to invest in the NHS, to support our debt ridden postgraduates, to lower interest rates so that mortgages don't absorb huge chunks of incomes, leaving little or nothing to spend into the economy once the basics are covered.

They won't do it because they are in thrall to the neoliberal economic 'orthodoxy' which is destroying more than just the UK (look at the US, victim of the same 'orthodoxy) as countries' wealth flows ever upwards out of the reach of the rest of the population.

I expected some vision and courage from them, but they have none.

(there are honourable exceptions in the government, but they have to fight hard for inadequate resources.)

DaisyAnneReturns

Galaxy

His authoritarian approach is Starmers fatal flaw, his version of Hamlets indecisiveness, to link to the Shakespeare thread. It will finish him in the end.
When he got rid of Jamie Driscoll that was the red flag that we or certainly I should have paid more attention to.

I think he's doing okay. Possibly a man for our times. But then I'm not a Labour Party supporter.

If he’s a man for our times it shows what a mess our times are in.

MaizieD

It won't be the 'agitators' who lose Labour the next GE. It will be the government's utter disregard for what most people actually want. It will because it has attacked immigrants, and people on welfare. It will be because they are promoting the welfare of the wealthy and the institutions that nurture them and telling the rest of us that we will have to endure more 'austerity' and belt tightening.

They potentially have the power and the tools to restore our crumbling infrastructure, to return utilities such as water to public ownership, to invest in the NHS, to support our debt ridden postgraduates, to lower interest rates so that mortgages don't absorb huge chunks of incomes, leaving little or nothing to spend into the economy once the basics are covered.

They won't do it because they are in thrall to the neoliberal economic 'orthodoxy' which is destroying more than just the UK (look at the US, victim of the same 'orthodoxy) as countries' wealth flows ever upwards out of the reach of the rest of the population.

I expected some vision and courage from them, but they have none.

(there are honourable exceptions in the government, but they have to fight hard for inadequate resources.)

I agree with every word.MaisieD

I agree it won't be 'agitators' who cause Labour to lose a future election. It will because the needs of those who voted for them last time are not being met, attacks on immigrants and welfare etc.

Burnham is the least of Starmer's worries.

I’m a LP member and Andy Burnham is my mayor. I voted Cooper and Burnham when Corbyn won. Andy Burnham is a good Mayor, I’d be sorry to lose him. I recognise the expense argument as well as the threat Reform could win a mayoral competition. I was unimpressed by Andy”s manoeuvring some months ago
I feel differently now. I’m very disappointed and cross that he’s been blocked. He could win Gorton, be an excellent M.P for his constituency and an asset in the government. Blocking him imo, makes Starmer look weak and a control freak. He and McSweeny haven’t impressed and this is more inability to read the room

It’s not over until the fat lady sings. The world will be a very different place in three and a half years time I suspect, and I think Labour will get a bashing in The Welsh and Scottish elections, as will the Tories. After that I can see the dynamics changing, and I anticipate a major resurgence from both before 2029.

I hope you’re right Casdon.

How can they resurge, Casdon?. without changing the leadership?

I’ve stayed with Starmer despite feeling increasingly disappointed by such poor management of comms and back benchers

I was uneasy by Burnham’s early manoevers. I’ve changed in response to events and I’m now angry at the way Burnham has been blocked. I can’t see how Starmer can remain leader.

MaizieD

How can they resurge, Casdon?. without changing the leadership?

I didn’t say they wouldn’t change the leadership MaizieD? I think there will be a lot of disruption and surprises this year, from all angles, not just in the Labour camp.

MaizieD

How can they resurge, Casdon?. without changing the leadership?

I get that there’s frustration with Keir Starmer's leadership, especially from those on the far-left who feel disconnected from his more centrist approach. But the reality is, the Labour Party can’t only focus on its current members. The key to electoral success, especially in a general election, is expanding the base beyond party insiders.

Starmer's approach might not be ideal for everyone, but he has been careful to position Labour as a credible alternative for voters who may have turned away from the party under Corbyn, or even from other parties like the Conservatives. The goal isn’t just about pleasing the hard-left or the loyalists who are already on board; it's about attracting people who might be disillusioned with the Tories but are looking for a government that feels more stable, responsible, and capable of addressing their everyday concerns.

Think about it. There are plenty of potential voters out there who want change but aren’t necessarily aligned with and may actually oppose the far-left’s ideals. Starmer's moderation could actually be an advantage in winning over people who are tired of extremes, whether that’s on the left or the right. These voters may want social justice and climate action, but they also want a government that can handle the economy sensibly and make pragmatic decisions. It’s about offering a balance, an approach that appeals to both traditional Labour voters and those who might lean more centrist or even swing voters.

LemonJam

I agree it won't be 'agitators' who cause Labour to lose a future election. It will because the needs of those who voted for them last time are not being met, attacks on immigrants and welfare etc.

Burnham is the least of Starmer's worries.

You are right LemonJam.

Cost of living (affordability) often swings votes. This is a forum fir older (and old) posters. A great many people don't think as the older generations do. This video contains an interesting graph. www.youtube.com/watch?v=trQUinuhMxo

You can see that those over 50 hold very different collective views to younger people on this. I think that opinion may have changed by the time of the next election. Not greatly, but enough. I don't think this naturally conservative group would necessarily be swayed by an attempt to move to a further left position.

DAR, your summary of why Starmer might appeal to a broad electorate is exactly why I voted for him to be leader. it’s why I’ve suppprted him to other Labour members and voters. This latest decisions about Burnham has made me question the leadership teams ability to read the room.

I'd like to know where Moorhouse got his chart from. It is certainly bizarre.

My interpretation could be different.

1) I think that the under 50s have, on the whole, only experienced high property prices, high personal debt and financial precarity during their adult lives, whereas the over 50s have had rather more financial security and are better able to see the adverse effects of the current situation.

2) Perhaps the over 50s tendency to read the mainstream media makes them more aware of how economic policies translate into reality.

It may also make them more aware of how the stock market works and the fact that the AI bubble threatens to burst and the current geopolitical uncertainty could seriously adversely affect the global financial world and global trade.

3) The over 50s are better pessimists

You can ask him MaizieD, as he does respond to comments on his YouTube channel?

Casdon

You can ask him MaizieD, as he does respond to comments on his YouTube channel?

Unfortunately I can't because I'm not subscribed to his channel. I can't subscribe because another member of my family who was using my laptop some time ago, registered with Youtube on a separate profile and I can't find out how to unregister him or register myself. So, while I can view anything on Youtube I can never comment 😕

Iam64

I’m a LP member and Andy Burnham is my mayor. I voted Cooper and Burnham when Corbyn won. Andy Burnham is a good Mayor, I’d be sorry to lose him. I recognise the expense argument as well as the threat Reform could win a mayoral competition. I was unimpressed by Andy”s manoeuvring some months ago
I feel differently now. I’m very disappointed and cross that he’s been blocked. He could win Gorton, be an excellent M.P for his constituency and an asset in the government. Blocking him imo, makes Starmer look weak and a control freak. He and McSweeny haven’t impressed and this is more inability to read the room

There will be other opportunities for him coming up, am certain he will be back as an MP and a leadership contender.

The decision was taken by a number not a solitary person , Starmer has given an explanation for his decision and I think it sensible,

Iam64

DAR, your summary of why Starmer might appeal to a broad electorate is exactly why I voted for him to be leader. it’s why I’ve suppprted him to other Labour members and voters. This latest decisions about Burnham has made me question the leadership teams ability to read the room.

As a lifelong Labour voter I would leave the party if Burnham became leader. I didn’t like Corbyn but I still voted for him and, even now trust him more than I trust Burnham.

Annie, yes as I said, I acknowledge the reasons given as valid. I voted and have supported Keir Starmer. I still feel this was the wrong decision. Burnham would have won Gorton, a constituency now likely to be lost by Labour. Burnham would bring many more positives to Westminster than any worries about his leadership ambitions

Keir is excellent internationally imo. He isn’t impressing on the home front. Even long term supporters like me are finding it difficult to defend his apparent inability to work effectively with back benchers and read the room (ie the electorate).

I’m in a so called red wall constituency. We have been one of those areas where our vote predicts the election. We have a good Labour mp. I won’t bore you with the feedback from constituents but I will say reform is very active and organised …..

Iam64 if Burnham had been successful what are your views about the danger of the Manchester mayoralty being lost to Reform?

I know you weren't asking me, but I don't think it is a good idea for Labour to make decisions based on how that will impact Reform if you see what I mean.
The problem as I see it is too much reactive behaviour rather than a clear vision