I don’t rate Burham highly but he’s the ideal figurehead for a soft left platform that concentrates electoral support which may save Labour at next GE. His support base is largely vibes based rather than being due to ideologically driven value but importantly he’s personal metrics is what can kill Farage/Reform is redwall area and the greens in urban areas.
3 Likes
Fair analysis, but I have to say as a counterpoint that sounds ideal in a snap election scenario.
In the present times as soon as you’re the PM. Time is against you. Only thing I’ve heard Burnham strongly speak about in recent times is the two child cap. But that’s an easy place to position yourself towards and (regrettably) not much a vote winner. I know he’s spoken about the disparity between south and the north but I’ll be interested to see if he has the capacity to keep that tone in a scenario he has to keep those down in London happy.
Me personally, I didn’t like when Tories did this shit and I won’t like it when Labour (eventually it seems) does it. Regardless of actual talent I’m very weary of having faith in anyone who backdoors their way in.
2 Likes
I feel like burnham has benefited from being a big fish in a small pond.
Might get found out if he comes back to Westminster.
2 Likes
The whole fucking thing is pathetic. Just get on with your job of being mayor to 3m people or whatever the fuck it is.
What kind of a prick gives that up for a limited chance at being PM.
2 Likes
His solution to a disparity between North and South is to shit on the South more. Which is quite incredible given the premium people in very deprived areas of the South pay for being geographically closer to London.
3 Likes
Most politicians are narcissistic ego-maniacs who only do things that will increase their power.
Being Mayor of Manchester was always only ever going to be a temporary platform for him to get back into national politics.
2 Likes
Corbyn would have obliterated Starmer in a leadership election back then too as well, so it’s not like that’s some sort of important distinction between Starmer and Burnham.
4 Likes
I don’t think I’ve mentioned it here before but I encountered Burnham at Liverpool Street mainline station a long time ago when he was a junior minister. He caused a lot of tutting from those in front of me as he struggled to work out how to use a ticket in a ticket barrier. His PA came back and showed the little man how to use public transport.
Though I do applaud his work in trying to get justice for Hillsborough victims. Whether his intentions were heartfelt or political, it made him a popular figure across what used to be the “Blue wall”. He has 10 times the empathy the PM shows. Though his is a low bar (little legal pun there for any solicitors out there).
His work on Hillsborough is the only thing that stops me considering him as empty a suit as Starmer. But Labour under him are still not getting my vote, and nor is a party that refuses to rule out working with them.
A bit of context. According to YouGov, 75% of voters have an unfavourable view of Keir Starmer, compared to 18% who have a favourable view. That gives him a net favourability rating of minus 57.
There is no coming back from this. Starmer is sunk. As it is, Labour only won the last election with a third of the vote on the lowest turnout in democratic history - and won two-thirds of the seats because of our now completely discredited electoral system.
Notably, even his own advisors have contempt for him. Just months after being elected, they briefed that the Prime Ministerwas a useful idiot - a mere frontman who did their bidding.
Labour know that without replacing Starmer, they are beyond doomed. It’s their only chance. Starmer is so disgustingly unpopular in every imaginable circle.
2 Likes
I hate that last paragraph.
These new age Mandelsons are just as contemptible
Blocked from standing in the by election. I’ve no real sympathy for him but that is pure weakness projected by Labour.
3 Likes
These NECs ruined the SNP also
Reform would win the majorship anyway so can see why they dont want to do it
That’s pure speculation and there is no basis for your conclusion. You could equally speculate that Starmer could have been the only moderate candidate and won on that basis. Notwithstanding, Corbyn was a disaster for Labour.
Why invite someone to your house party that you know is going to try and cause trouble? Yes you can try to stop him when he turns up, but always better to prevent him coming in the first place.
Everyone Corbyn ran against for leader was a moderate candidate, what are you talking about? Both of those leadership elections were firm rejections of the “moderates”.
In 2015 and 2016 the mood within Labour was firmly anti-Blair and Brown, the membership unequivocally wanted something markedly different and more left wing. The charisma vacuum that is Keir Starmer absolutely couldn’t have won in those circumstances and you’d be deluding yourself to seriously think otherwise.
Right, but that’s completely besides the point, and you feeling the need to include it indicates to me that you don’t really have much belief in the argument that preceded it. You can’t credibly argue that Starmer could have beat Corbyn in either leadership election, so fall back on saying that it was bad that Corbyn was leader.
2 Likes
No, my point was that neither of us can hypothetically claim what could have happened if the circumstances had been different. What did happen was a disaster though for the party.
Because if you don’t let him in, the current host of the party is going to end up burning the house down through sheer negligence.
What would the outcome of a contest between Corbyn and Starmer have been in 2015?
- Corbyn
- Starmer
- Impossible to say
0
voters