Andy Burnham has plan to return to Westminster ‘within weeks’. Allies sayGreater Manchester mayor said to have identified seats where MPs would step aside to allow leadership bid.

Spinnaker

Allira

Unfortunately Starmer is proving to be very unpopular so Burnham might be the only one who can save the Labour Party from sinking and becoming a minor political party.

What a damning indictment of the Labour Party when out of 400 plus MPs there isn't a competent replacement for Starmer. I agree with MayBee70 that Burnham is only in it for his own ends.

I don't think there are many MPs in any party in the whole of Parliament who would make a competent PM.

fancythat

FriedGreenTomatoes2

It won't matter who Labour have as PM, they're finished.

They are definitely disappearing with Sir Keir.

I doubt whether they're disappearing. Undoubtedly, many current Labour MPs won't hang on to their seats in the next election. However, many others will and any who have shown any potential might be able to find a safe seat in the future. That's how it works. The senior MPs who lose their seats will undoubtedly find a new role in life - they might even start presenting programmes about railways like Michael Portillo! They definitely aren't disappearing.

Iam64

LemonJam, I’m guessing, maybe incorrectly, you. Might be a Gtr Manchester resident like me. I m also aLP member, met Andy and saw him at Nustings in his previous leadership campaigns,
My view is he’s grown in stature and experience since then. We need him in Westminster and he’d be my top choice as leader

Iam64, I'm Gtr Manchester born, in Salford, by the docks when it wasn't posh! I've worked at Greater Manchester General and did rotations to the Northern, Jewish, Ancoats and Booth Hall Children's hospitals. I still have family there but I moved away some years ago now.

I fleetingly met Burnham when he was Secretary of State for Health. I thought he was good for the NHS then (compared to some that have been dire) and agree he's grown in stature and experience. He would be my PM choice, if and when Starmer steps down.

North Manchester General thats is- was called Crumpsall Hospital back in the day...

I don’t seem to remember people talking about the downfall of the Conservative Party three years before another election. Having said that, if Labour end up changing to an unelected leader in the near future I’m afraid that, in my eyes they have just morphed into the party they have replaced. And it will appear that MP’s only become MP’s because they want the top job, not because they want to serve the community. And that really saddens me. Especially as they may be replaced by a party that is in it purely to serve the needs of their rich paymasters . The very people that gave us Brexit are now giving us Reform and if people really think they’ll be better off for it then they’re turkeys voting for Christmas.

NotSpaghetti

Casdon yes I know about this but I was talking about the pre-Blair period when John Major pushed the sale of British Rail through (and sold shares too cheaply.

I think they knew they were likely to lose the election but by breaking BR into over 100 separate companies (track, rolling stock, and franchises) and then signing long-term contracts, they made renationalisation difficult (and expensive) for a future government to undo. I don't think it was the collapse of the infrastructure that made ig impossible but the deliberately messy way the Tories chopped it up.

After the Hatfield rail crash Labour did replace Railtrack with Network Rail of course, because that wasn't broken into lots of pieces.

I wasn't blaming Labour upthread. I did blame Blair at the time because, as I said upthread, I thought he was moving too far to the right...
but I still feel that selling off of assets is almost always going to be a bad thing.
Water,
Rail
Housing,
Energy...

Of course we also made the wrong choices re oil in the 1970s/80s, The UK and Norway took diametrically opposed paths and now they are reaping the rewards. Thatcher made tax cuts - Norway developed a massive Pension Fund - now worth £1.2 trillion.

Let's hope we come back to fund development of renewable energy. We started off very well with this until the funding of researchin the field started to dtop off. ... 🤞

Good post, NotSpaghetti but I fear that while ever the greater mass of voters prefer to ignore the fact that economic policy is the key to how a government acts and responds to pressure we will get absolutely nowhere and will continue to decline.

It's interesting that there is a surge to the right, when it was the right, under Thatcher, which introduced what has now become economic orthodoxy (but which was 'new' at the time ); an economic system which worked to destroy all the gains made by post WW2 governments. It is Thatcher's 'economics' pursued by successive governments which has produced the conditions which are driving voters to right wing Reform (and worse) with the belief that Reform can change their lives for the better. Yet Reform will implement the Thatcherite economic inheritance with a vengeance.

Yet any attempt to point out that there a different way of managing the economy, that the current orthodoxy is inherently wrong, is met with scorn, derision and disbelief.

Or a refusal to even acknowledge that economics plays a key part in the situation we find ourselves in.

We can see its effects globally, for the 'orthodoxy' has spread worldwide, notably in the US, but also in poor countries encumbered with foreign debt and with their resources exploited by international companies to enrich their shareholders with no benefit to the country being exploited.

Let's hope we come back to fund development of renewable energy. We started off very well with this until the funding of research in the field started to drop off

It won't happen because, thanks to Thatcher's 'running a country's economy is like running a household economy' myth the cry comes "We can't afford it".

I can't see a way out...

It won't happen because, thanks to Thatcher's 'running a country's economy is like running a household economy' myth the cry comes "We can't afford it".

We are locked into this now I fear.

Where are the respected academic economists calling this out? Have they given up too?

Agree with Maybee. The electorate needs to move away from wanting to change prime minister every time the weather changes, and there’s no doubt that things were beginning to move in the right direction, albeit slowly, before the Iran war.

It made my blood boil yesterday when Kemi Badanoch kept saying: We’re coming back. This is just the beginning. Early days. Not a lot can be done in two years but we’re coming back, when for the last month her constant refrain has been: The Prime Minister has had two years to fix this.

Where are the respected academic economists calling this out? Have they given up too?

They haven't given up, they're beavering away at trying to change the orthodoxy, but it's a bit like being an early christian...(if you'll excuse the analogy).

They have just given Gordon Brown a job, my guess is that won't thrill you Maizie

So far, there is no immediate outright challenge to stage a leadership bid. Senior Labour MPs and some Union leaders are calling for Starmer to step down within a year, by setting out a timeline for his departure with some warning him to change course or risk electoral oblivion.

This is because Labour had lost control of more than 25 councils and more than 1,000 council seats in England by Friday night, many to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, which made large gains across the Midlands and the north as well as taking seats from the Tories in the south. This has understandably raised questions about Starmer’s leadership. He finds himself in a nudge situation that at any time could become a push situation.

Starmer has a stark choice to resist or engage in succession planning. Some options:
1) Resist the pressure and state he is going nowhere- his current chosen position
2) Plan another “reset” and schedule a a meeting to communicate his “reset”- likely in the coming week
3) Rearrange the deck chairs in a cabinet reshuffle- possible in the coming week- but to what end or benefit in the short term as he needs turnaround before the Autumn party conference
4) Be watchful for a “smoking horse”- at any moment- ie where a candidate with little intention of winning, throws their cap into the ring in an effort to trigger a leadership challenge- thus smoking out the real contenders and a leadership vote ensues
5) Pray for an improvement in his public approval ratings
6) Accept the nudge situation and explore, i.e. discuss possible scenarios with all possible/likely successors- what government role might be available for Starmer if he supports their leadership in a planned succession
7) Stick it out and take his chances day by day over the coming turbulent months till the Autumn party conference, facing a leadership vote if it emerges beforehand.

Politics is littered with frequent such scenarios during a PM term. Margaret Thatcher responded to her 1990 leadership challenge with steely defiance, followed by shock and ultimate resignation after she realised she had lost the support of her cabinet.

Blair and Brown had a pact, following the sudden death of Labour Leader John Smith in 1994. The deal was to secure a unified leadership transition, ensuring Blair would become leader, with Brown’s support, in exchange for a future handover of PM power from Blair to Brown.

Liz Truss provides a turbo charged example of her response to loss of confidence in her leadership- she initially responded "I’m a fighter not a quitter”, then apologised for her mistakes, then made some cabinet changes, but still resigned within a couple of days from her 44 day PM term of office, the shortest in history.

All this chopping and changing is so bad for the country.

Galaxy

They have just given Gordon Brown a job, my guess is that won't thrill you Maizie

Along with Harriet Harman, they are to be our PMs advisors …

Changing the deck chairs- by getting in some new advisors in territory and making it publicly known. One of the traditional options....

Galaxy

They have just given Gordon Brown a job, my guess is that won't thrill you Maizie

I like his politics but I don't like his economics.

I always liked Harman but she disappointed me when she was acting leader and made MPs abstain on the tory welfare bill. Her economics are 'orthodox' too. As normal. People don't get to positions of power by opposing the ruling economic theory.

Starmer wrote a statement piece for the Guardian newspaper late last night- a short extract:

“……..frustration led to today’s political fragmentation. Because beneath the surface, the concerns expressed across different communities have more in common than some would like to admit. The struggle with the cost of living unites voters of all parties. They want strong and vibrant communities that people can feel pride in. They want strong and secure borders. And they want opportunity for the next generation – something that every parent, grandparent and young person hopes for
They are the majority, no matter which party they vote for. And Labour should not turn its back on any of them. On the contrary, our job is to convince them that we have progressive answers to the problems and challenges that they face.

At the general election, we earned the mandate to deliver change, but we have not sustained the public’s trust that we are doing enough. And we have made unnecessary mistakes. While it was important to level with people about the legacy we inherited and the scale of the challenges this country faces, we did not do enough to convince them that their lives can improve, that their future can get better – to give them hope.
While we must respond to the message that voters have sent us, that doesn’t mean tacking right or left. It means bringing together a broad political movement, being assertive about our values, bold in our vision and addressing people’s demands. Unifying rather than dividing. That is the right approach for our party and, more importantly, it is the right approach for our country…….”

In the context of the leadership pressure Starmer is facing I think he’s missed a trick in how he has positioned his statement. He says it is OUR job to convince the public, WE have not done enough to sustain the public’s trust, WE have made mistakes. I get that the Government is a collective. However I was hoping for more personal I statements, showing his understanding of where HE might have got things wrong and what HE intends to do in a different way to win back trust across the board. I have yet to see from where this BOLD vision will emerge- will it be from Starmer or will a credible, vision emerge from others in the party? That surely will be route to retain or gain the PM crown. Otherwise I fear it’s more of the same for the next three years - but I hope for more.

I was also disapointed in Harriet Harman over the welfare bill.

Have just seen that Starmer has appointed Harman as "an advisor on women and girls".
That will not go down well with women who want private spaces.

That was how I read it, Lemonjam, far too much 'we/our'; collective responsibility; no admission of his personal failure as a leader.
The references to a 'broad political movement', 'assertive in our values' suggest more of the same, showing a complete lack of understanding that he does not have the public with him; he has lost the trust of party members.

I think Gordon Brown is a good man, I think his behaviour after office is a good demonstration of that. However neither of those appointments are going to save them.
I don't think it is just the economics that are 'orthodox'.
I can predict what the approach to women and girls will be;
Boys are the problem education in schools, Social media controls, Andrew Tate, etc etc - as predictable as the seasons changing. And will make no difference whatsoever.

If a sitting MP decides/offers to abandon their seat mid-term, the result is a by-election at which any party can submit candidates. No guarantee Labour/Burnham would win.

There is no procedure by which an unelected person can step into the vacancy.

If I my elected MP I'd chosen to represent me, decided to abandon his post to further the secret ambitions of some unelected wheeler-dealer I'd be furious at the abuse of my democratic right .

I would cast my by- election vote for any other party but Labour.

We read it and thought the same easybee 🤲 Our view may or may be the majority view?

I feel this is less about stitching up Starmer and more the need for him to read the room in his current position. That is to acknowledge what appears to be the public mood in respect of his performance as PM for nearly 2 years, his leadership style and the decisions he has made to date.

Being a criminal defence lawyer, for so many years, understandably results in Starmer's very measured, dispassionate, analytical, defensive, verbal advocacy style- forensically structured to win an issue of a discreet 2 sided argument. He was focussed and good at it- it worked and delivered his success and high level promotion. But this style, once in PM office, has not captured the hearts, minds and trust of the public most importantly but also (as currently reported) the majority of labour members and various trade union leaders. Leaving aside ambitious leadership contenders and competitors (Starmer has the ability to deal with those ruthlessly and with determination) he is going to need to get the former on board to survive as PM for the duration in order to lead the party into the next GE.

Ilovecheese

Have just seen that Starmer has appointed Harman as "an advisor on women and girls".
That will not go down well with women who want private spaces.

However, it just might go down well with all the women who are concerned about the many other women's issues.

If you are unable to define women it is quite difficult to tackle womens issues I would have thought.
But bless them I am sure it will go well.

Galaxy

If you are unable to define women it is quite difficult to tackle womens issues I would have thought.
But bless them I am sure it will go well.

HH and her then husband were part of what is now called Liberty

Very strange views on women, and age of consent