Makerfield By Election

I agree. Burnham may be a good politician/Mayor but gambling with the electorate like this is not a good look.
All this turmoil in the Labour Party is playing into Reform’s hands rather than stopping them.
I really feel quite disgusted that members of the Labour Party are capitalising on a rough patch for Starmer and the government rather than pulling together and trying to present a united front.

I never heard of Josh Simons but wonder what his constituents really think about this?

I used to admire Burnham but this farce is only serving me to think less of him and more of Starmer.

keepingquiet

I never heard of Josh Simons but wonder what his constituents really think about this?

I used to admire Burnham but this farce is only serving me to think less of him and more of Starmer.

Me too.

I don’t know how Starmer has the strength of character to just continue doing his job as usual with all this going on around him.

Caroline Lucas says that, for the sake of the country, the Greens need to stand aside at this by election to stop Reform winning. I think all parties need to be doing this although, unfortunately Labour have always said that they will contest every seat. By the time of the next election, if Reform are still favourites to win ( how and why is beyond me given that it is full of faceless people yet to be recruited) this is what needs to be done.

MayBee70

I don’t know how Starmer has the strength of character to just continue doing his job as usual with all this going on around him.

I have to say the man has mettle, standing up to Trump and now standing up to those against him in the party.

Isn’t it Makerfield?
Perhaps get that right 🥴

(Ashton-in-Makerfield, if we’re being pedantic, which I imagine residents would like us to be, perhaps?)

I hope this by election does not repeat whaat happened in a similar situation back in 1964 when Patrick Gordon Walker, one of Harold Wilson's closest colleagues who Wilson intended to appoint as Foreign Secretary lost his seat in the 1964 election.

The decision was made to give a Labour MP with a large majority a peerage and PGW would stand for Labour in the ensuing by election. However the voters rebelled and instead voted Conservative as a protest vote. So PGW was defeated again and he and Wilson had to accept that his political career was over and he would not be Foreign Secretary.

Andy Burnham needs to be very very sure that the votes will not rebel again.

Andy Burnham should just continue to do the job which he calims he is so good at. Why he would give it up and take such a risk is beyond me, but I learned at cost what a dirty game politics can be...

I’m in Makerfield. General feeling is that Josh Simon’s despite being parachuted in has done a really good job so sad to see him go. He would make a good Mayor of Manchester.

Andy Burnham went to school locally. His children went to school locally. He lives within walking distance from my house. He would be a good local MO I think but he has to wake up to the reality of why reform are popular and took the local council seats in Wigan and St Helens.

What would you say to him if he knocks on my door ?

Wetnosewheatie

I’m in Makerfield. General feeling is that Josh Simon’s despite being parachuted in has done a really good job so sad to see him go. He would make a good Mayor of Manchester.

Andy Burnham went to school locally. His children went to school locally. He lives within walking distance from my house. He would be a good local MO I think but he has to wake up to the reality of why reform are popular and took the local council seats in Wigan and St Helens.

What would you say to him if he knocks on my door ?

I would ask him if there is a vacancy for a job in finance in the Falklands Islands and send Rachel Reeves there on a one-way ticket. To my mind she has done just as much, if not more, damage than Starmer.

I'd say I hope you win and become PM.

I'm in the Labour Party and we had a constituency "do' last night and discussed everything we possibly could.

We are not rabid lefties, my little branch within the constituency are mostly pretty senior citizens who prefer continuity and stability wherever possible.

The main reason we felt there was a need for a challenge is because Starmer has not the gift of inspiring or enthusing people. He comes across as wooden and lacking a quality that is essential to take people through dark times. A sense of being impassioned?

Many people interviewed mention him not the L Party.

I have often blamed the press for the very considerable numbers of good things the party has done post taking over the dire situation we found ourselves in in 2024, but it's not just that. We need a leader who is a good communicator whom people actually really warm to

Interviews with the public show he just hasn't reached hearts- they don't view Starmer personally as someone they can back

I have of course struggled since the elections with the "why now" question.

"We should pull together now until the world situation has settled and a transition can be gradual" was my initial POV.

But the point is, not only can we not know when it will be settled, but with Trump still in power and the Middle East situation so complex and likely to continue a long time

I don't think things will be settled for this "ideal time".

I think Burnham does have qualities that people warm to, and a great deal of respect.

I see no reason why he can't make the transition to Party leader. No one we could elect has "prior experience".

It is a very high risk strategy.

Agreed.

And there are further hoops to jump through, as in a proper LP election process it not like the conservatives which is put a couple or a few people up and vote directly. It's a testing process and may bring other people into the ring.

This is politics, GN's - we don't always get what we want, sometimes we get what we need, and we need a capable experienced figure who can inspire as well as have the support of the wider Labour Party. Remember Starmer, although we respect him, is not at all felt by all to be the right person after these 2 years.

Correction in this paragraph, sorry:

I have often blamed the press for the very considerable numbers of good things the party has done post taking over the dire situation we found ourselves in in 2024,

that are not known or remembered
but its not must the press

. We need a leader who is a good communicator whom people actually really warm to...etc

If I were a constituent of Makerfield, I would feel I was being used as a stepping stone for Andy Burnham's political aspirations, which wouldn't make me want to vote for him at all.

Maybe Josh Simmons stepped aside as he recently resigned as a Cabinet Minister accused of a smear campaign against certain journalists falsely linking them to Russian propaganda.

Anyway bored of it all already and we're only a week or so in with calls for the PM's resignation. I'm not for replacing Starmer, disappointing as he's been.

I agree with M0nica that this has huge capacity to backfire, and with TerriBull too that the people of Makerfield are being used.

I am seeing a lot of support for Starmer on other platforms and a lot of anger towards Burnham.

What struck me about the resignation letters was that Ministers listed all the many things that had been achieved in less that two years … and I think, why walk away from doing more?

Yes, I agree that Starmer’s approach is incremental but that is wrong with slow and steady?

I would rather have a government that was left of centre but equally I don’t think the country as a whole wants radical change else why is Reform, a regressive party stuck firmly in the past, so popular?

What I haven’t heard is what Burnham proposes to do that is different. I’m not sure I’ve heard him say anything at all recently. Maybe someone could enlighten me. All I seem to hear is Burnham and buses. And while Manchester may have a great bus network so do other places. What else is he offering to do that is so different and more importantly, doable?

Yes I agree.

This is not a done deal by any stretch, and neither is it universally popular.

It is highly likely to collapse around his ears and what will have been achieved.

A Labour Party divided

A Manchester Mayor with a big question mark over his head as to his commitment

A Prime Minister weakened

A country less stable.

Nothing good will come of this.

Whitewavemark2

Yes I agree.

This is not a done deal by any stretch, and neither is it universally popular.

It is highly likely to collapse around his ears and what will have been achieved.

A Labour Party divided

A Manchester Mayor with a big question mark over his head as to his commitment

A Prime Minister weakened

A country less stable.

Nothing good will come of this.

Yes!

Like I posted on another thread, Labour is screwed!

I haven’t much confidence in the U.K. going forward either. Rachel Reeves has put pay to that…

Reform ran on a 'Get rid of Starmer' slogan. I can see that the same slogan might serve for AB who could then beat Reform.

My fear is that he wins and becomes prime minister but then can't deliver because there are so many invariables.

I would rather have a government that was left of centre but equally I don’t think the country as a whole wants radical change else why is Reform, a regressive party stuck firmly in the past, so popular?

I think that many voters do want radical change, because a common theme in support for Reform and the Greens (and most likely for Labour too) is the state of their own household economies. There are 14 million people living below the poverty line and above that are those who are just about managing, even the previously comfortable 'middle classes'.

The parties offer different reasons for the causes of their problems but the over riding cause is, I hate to sound like a stuck record but there is no getting away from it, the economic 'orthodoxy' which favours the wealthy and sees money continually flowing upwards to them and away from the rest of the population, as it is designed to do so.

When looking at how to finance WW2 Keynes said that the rich must bear the greatest part of the cost because no-one else could afford to. I think we a re in the same situation now and Labour, with its massive majority is, with the right leadership, best placed to do something about. But it requires radical thinking and an ability to ignore the screeching of the top 10% owners of the national wealth (and their client media). And an ability to make the electorate understand how they are being short changed. You don't do it by telling the hard pressed that they have to make financial sacrifices to save the economy, which is the current approach, when they can see that the wealthy are sacrificing very little, if anything.

I don't know if Burnham is capable of this. Starmer certainly isn't. But with more than two years to go it's worth a try. For a start, implementing a progressive tax system and closing the loopholes exploited by the wealthy and their tax lawyers would be a popular move so long as the poor and hard pressed aren't expected to sacrifice, too.

Incidentally, with the current madness in stock markets (which are unfeasibly high and are bound to fall, possibly heavily, when the full implications of Trump's illegal war are felt) and an apparent rush away from bonds (which is happening globally, not just in the UK the FT points out today) just highlights the madness and irresponsibility of wealth holders. They are not our salvation...

When I mentioned radical change I was thinking more along the lines of renationalising the sectors that have been privatised including water and social care so we aren’t paying through the nose for others to get rich.

I agree we need a major change in taxation and to start taxing the very wealthy. If the rich threaten to move abroad … bye, bye and take Farage and his flying monkeys with you.

The PM I really want is Zohran Mamdani.

People keep talking about the need for radical change, but I do not understand what change ,how and where . In fact the nitty gritty.What is this radical change that is supposedly much needed and is the implementation worth all the instability for the country it will cause. ?

They want to be able to afford a home, a car and a holiday ( none of them high end) after working 40 hours a week. That's the 'radical change' they would like. It is slightly more complex as it isn't just about money, but that is a key part of it.

Rarely, I disagree with you, WWM.

I think you are painting/fearing "worst outcomes" to a certain extent.