Burnham: Is the Media Tempting Fate by Jumping the Gun?

Thanks for the very interesting link DAR 👏.

Phil M said that Starmer and the LP's 2 biggest problems as they came to government:

1) They were not ready to hit the ground running but it wasn't all their fault I can't emphasise enough how the Conservatives salted the earth and shat on the country and that Rishi Sunak didn't let the LP in to talk to the Civil service till just a few weeks before the GE- when he should have given access much sooner so the LP could discuss the viability and implementation of their plans.

2) That the country wanted change quickly and that is just not possible and that remains the case.

AB should be more prepared but he will still need to grapple with the second problem. In fact anyone who is elected PM- even if it's Frage in three years time will still have that problem.

The electorate needs to become a bit more realistic and a bit more patient or we will continue to be ungovernable as a country.

He said the LP should have kept Sue Gray in office and that would have gone some way to dealing with problem 1). It was McSweeney that actively tried to get rid of her. and portion himself. Perhaps evidence of the boys club culture mentioned on another OP.

I'm not sure it's just the Boys Club nature of Parliament. I think, over time, most organisations start to work for the employees not the customer. They tend to improve when they have a shake up - new owners, reconstruction, downsizing, etc. Perhaps that's just what Parliament needs.

I agree the culture is more than just a boys club aspect. All organisations have their own culture some aspects more negative than positive and vice versa.

New leaders usually are. mindful to find out about the prevailing culture as they come into office so they can make it mote fit for purpose and more current as social and political norms change over time.

Party politics is adversarial just like the legal system, male or female it doesn't matter, there is no room for pussy cats it's dog eat dog. Whether it's Westminster or County Hall it's the same power game, some Parish Councils are not much better with dominant individuals ruling everyone else for their own ends.

David49

Party politics is adversarial just like the legal system, male or female it doesn't matter, there is no room for pussy cats it's dog eat dog. Whether it's Westminster or County Hall it's the same power game, some Parish Councils are not much better with dominant individuals ruling everyone else for their own ends.

Politics is inevitably competitive, but that doesn't mean it has to be "dog eat dog." Good representatives can challenge each other robustly while still behaving respectfully and working together when there's common ground. If we accept cynicism as inevitable, we risk excusing behaviour that shouldn't be normal.

I don't think it is all charactered by that: I think some are, but I'm just not so cynical. There will also be genuine friendships, kindnesses, focusing on constituency needs, from those who have gone in to try and "make a difference".

In a long political history, I can recall both, at many levels.

And I would so like to introduce you David to R, in an adding ward, a counsellor, running a business with his wife (indoor skateboarding), two autistic children, who is passionate about "making things better" for those most in need.

(not an added ward, an adjoining ward)

There are good well meaning councillors that work for the good of the community, even they have to toe the party line, if they don't they get deselected at the next election. They are a minority, one friend of mine served as a Tory, fell out with them, then as a Lib Dem again disagreed, then got elected as an Independant for many years.

IMO local elections should not be party political but it's not going to happen

Nominations for the Labour Party Leadership are scheduled to open on 9 July and close on 16 July, with a leader to be elected by 29 August if a contested election is held.

AB is currently the only MP to announce his candidacy for the leadership contest but … wouldn’t it be a ‘turn up for the books’ if someone else has been quietly working away to get the support of 81 Labour MPs and, on the 9th July, puts their name in the hat🥳

It would be a good thing, I think, if someone did. One problem is that Starmer increased the number of MPs a candidate needs to support them, from 10% to 20%, so it is harder now.
I think Andy Burnam would still win though., but it would look less like a coronation.

Totally agree Ilovecheese.

I think it would be a good thing all round.

LP members (me included) who feel patronised and disrespected by the AB coup, would at least have their voice heard.

If AB won the contest, he would be able to say he has gone through due democratic process as laid out in the LP constitution, and has been given the mandate of the LP membership. Currently, opponents from all sides can say ‘AB has no mandate to be the leader of the LP or the PM’ - which I’m sure they will do with great regularity.

I’m hoping against hope that someone will have the guts to stand🤞

I think Starmer was right to increase the eligibility to stand as a candidate to 20% of MPs, otherwise in normal circumstances, the process for electing a leader is unnecessarily long because some people have no chance of being elected, it just increases the number of rounds. I’d like to see somebody else stand against Burnham, but I suspect the only person who would get over 80 votes would still be Starmer, so I can’t see it happening.

I’m not overly worried about Burnham being criticised for not having been elected through the usual process though, because I also think the membership would vote overwhelmingly for him if they got the chance to vote - particularly if the other candidate was Starmer.

Well, clearly KS is not going to stand.

Maybe the LP grass roots membership would vote overwhelmingly for AB … but without a leadership election we just don’t know.

If the Tories, Reform et al. do consistently criticise him for having no mandate (which they will), saying ‘the membership would have voted for him if they had the chance’ is a pretty weak argument IMO.

Wishing things were different doesn’t actually mean there would be any benefit to it though LizzieDrip, so it’s just wishful thinking I’m afraid. If it wasn’t the lack of an election, it would be something else that he would be constantly criticised for anyway - what matters far more, to the electorate, is that he actually delivers in the PM role.

We’ll just have to see🤷‍♀️

My constituency would definitely vote Andy Burnham rather than Keir.

I’m sorry it’s come to this but it began to be inevitable. Nazir Afzal who admires, and likes Keir, worked well with him at the CPS and has worked with Andy Burnham wrote an interesting piece in the Guardian this week. One sentence particularly resonated for me. He said Keir could win the case and lose the room. That’s what’s happened, tragically, to his time as PM.

Sadly Iam64 it appears to be all about personality and charisma🤷‍♀️

That resonates so much Iam and is so sad.

I have thought about that word "charisma". I don't like it as it's far too general and has references to being shallow in it, and Starmer is a very serious man.

Better phrases like, "a warm personality, who communicates with ease"

I was thinking a while ago, what PM with any sense of "easing in and holding support" puts in place a policy initially of cutting Winter Fuel allowance so suddenly in the way they did?

How many like me in the LP wrote immediately to their LP MP's or HQ at that point saying no, for goodness sake, it needs to be graduated, what on earth are you doing.....

It was Reeves who wanted to cut the winter fuel allowance.
I have no time and no admiration for either of them but Starmer should not have listened to Reeves.

Indeed.

I would have supported changes to WFA and Pip had the proposed changes been discussed effectively with MPs. I was surprised Starmer made such a mess of that.
It seems he didn’t engage with MPs. It doesn’t matter if the proposals came from Rachel Reeves, Keir Starmer was PM and party leader. It started badly and became worse.

I’m still puzzled by the strong dislike, hatred even expressed by so many people towards Keir Starmer.

I don't think it will be ever be possible in the near future for anyone to have meaningful discussions around welfare reforms, I don't actually think that is Starmer fault, it is more the tribal positions of 'supporting welfare' = good whilst addressing welfare issues = bad.

It's also an incredibly difficult task.

Easy for opposition Badenoch to say, oh yes we will cut money on welfare and put it in defence vaguely - no specifics and she neatly dodges the issue that pensions are de facto benefits too and in fact younger voters have their own feelings about that...

It isn't about a conversation about welfare cuts really, there is a conversation before that I think, about work, purpose, mental health, etc. It would require someone quite brave.