Should we take it as a given that any Labour MPs who vote for the Tory motion today will have the whip removed from them by tomorrow evening?
And, presumably any Labour MP who has the whip removed will have no say in selecting a new Labour leader, when that happens, beyond their vote as a party member. Which would likely benefit the right in the party because the remaining left leaning Labour MPs are more likely to vote in principal.
If they have any sense the party will ditch Starmer and his Labour together overlords and move left again. They are never going to compete with Reform for the right
If they have any sense the party will ditch Starmer and his Labour together overlords and move left again. They are never going to compete with Reform for the right
There is no reason that "right" in an economic sense has to coincide with "right" in a bigoted arsehole sense. It often seems to coincide, but I don't think it's required.
If they have any sense the party will ditch Starmer and his Labour together overlords and move left again. They are never going to compete with Reform for the right
There is no reason that "right" in an economic sense has to coincide with "right" in a bigoted arsehole sense. It often seems to coincide, but I don't think it's required.
Selfishness and a complete lack of empathy do tend to push people in that direction on both counts.
If they have any sense the party will ditch Starmer and his Labour together overlords and move left again. They are never going to compete with Reform for the right
There is no reason that "right" in an economic sense has to coincide with "right" in a bigoted arsehole sense. It often seems to coincide, but I don't think it's required.
It’s not. People who are economically liberal but socially conservative are commonplace, and the Cameron government was notably economically conservative but socially liberal.
If they have any sense the party will ditch Starmer and his Labour together overlords and move left again. They are never going to compete with Reform for the right
There is no reason that "right" in an economic sense has to coincide with "right" in a bigoted arsehole sense. It often seems to coincide, but I don't think it's required.
It’s not. People who are economically liberal but socially conservative are commonplace, and the Cameron government was notably economically conservative but socially liberal.
Aren't conservative and liberal economics both right wing? Just depends on whether you want to use the state to ensure only your own country's capitalists grind the faces of the poor or you want capitalists of all nations to be able to grind the faces of the poor anywhere in the world.
On a political compass with two axes of economic left-right and social policy authoritarian-libertarian most political parties do fall along a line from liberal left to authoritarian right. There are, of course, exceptions - Libertarians fall within the liberal right quadrant, Communists in the authoritarian left.
Has the Starmer resignation clock started ticking or is he going to need to be tossed out on his ear?
It's all happening as we speak. Tomorrow morning's Cabinet meeting will be crucial. Starmer is fighting back but there's a major revolt developing within his own Party.
I heard on the BBC this morning that the last PM to last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001.
Has the UK become ungovernable? Have people become blind to the economic etc constraints and pressures that bind governments? Is it just a matter of impatience?
Politics are entertainment, and government is dead. This is politics done by social media, at the behest of big business. They want the populus distracted by the entertainment, so they can do the actual lever-pulling.
I heard on the BBC this morning that the last PM to last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001.
Has the UK become ungovernable? Have people become blind to the economic etc constraints and pressures that bind governments? Is it just a matter of impatience?
Those economic pressures and constraints are mostly the doing of supposed “free market” monetarist economics that favour corporate interests and market trading over businesses that actually serve the people in any way.
The effect of that is while Parliament and hence the government is elected democratically it cannot act in the interests of people, which makes a nonsense of the democratic process.
In some Western European countries these excesses are mitigated, but the U.K. and the USA are no longer democracies.
Has the UK become ungovernable? Have people become blind to the economic etc constraints and pressures that bind governments? Is it just a matter of impatience?
Basically the media has largely accepted or is actively promoting a myth of austerity that doesn't work, and a myth of Brexit, that hasn't worked, and so government cannot deal with the actual causes of the actual problems.
I'll add also that Labour gets a kicking from large sections the media who regard any Labour government regardless of policies as essentially illegitimate.
That said, trying to means test the winter fuel payment was a matter of eating the faces of the people who up until then had voted for face-eating leopards, which was tactically unwise, since generally speaking people don't vote Labour for the face-eating.
Has the UK become ungovernable? Have people become blind to the economic etc constraints and pressures that bind governments? Is it just a matter of impatience?
Basically the media has largely accepted or is actively promoting a myth of austerity that doesn't work, and a myth of Brexit, that hasn't worked, and so government cannot deal with the actual causes of the actual problems.
Or at least; any party that would look like it might actually solve the problem would get a kicking by the press.
Not least because the problem is that the UK's economic model blew up in 2008 and there's a lot of blame to go around, not least because the root of the current malaise goes back to 1979.
Of course, given that those benefiting from the malaise have significant powers of patronage, they just need to continue to attract and promote those who want to have significant post-political careers, their own institute, the ability to sit and pontificate on a stage at Davos and maybe shake hands with Bono.
Part of the problem is that successive election campaigns have promised the impossible. Stopping the boats, better services with lower taxes, £350 million a week for the NHS etc.
People no longer believe them. Neither should they.
I don't see much evidence of that. There is far too much evidence of people believing that the problem is that the fascists haven't gone far enough. Gt Yarmouth is now almost entirely represented by people who think Farage is a liberal softie.
Post-Brexit Britain seems, politically, to be mostly about allocation of blame and naive belief in simple solutions. The majority who voted for Brexit seemed to have little idea of the long term disadvantage they were creating, choosing to belief that we’d would do better “on our own”. Free from Brussels bureaucrats.
Ah well. I hope not to see MAGA UK on the optimistic grounds that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
But Keir Starmer is unlikely to be the only casualty of the post Brexit mess.
Politics are entertainment, and government is dead. This is politics done by social media, at the behest of big business. They want the populus distracted by the entertainment, so they can do the actual lever-pulling.
I heard on the BBC this morning that the last PM to last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001.
David Cameron was PM from 2010 to 2015. Are they not counting him because of the initial hiatus while the coalition was formed?
That was my thought when the BBC chappie said that. They may have meant last Labour PM ... but that's not a very significant thing since Brown was PM when he went into 2010 election and there have been a succession of Tories since then.
The behaviour of the Labour Party at the moment is a disgraceful as the Tory party post Cameron. The only difference is that they seem to have an excess of MPs convinced they can (a) be PM, and (b) govern - they haven't.
What sums up the Starmer debacle is the shit-show that was the Mandelson appointment, with nobody on either side of the House of Commons asking the fundamental question: Why did he decide to replace a successful career diplomat ambassador, Karen Pierce, who was liked, trusted, and respected by both Biden and Trump, at all?
I suspect that none of the candidates to replace Starmer will be any better.
Should there be a minimum qualification for being an MP? For example - having actually managed something more complex than a paper round or an MPs social diary?
It really isn’t a question of a better candidate. It will require difficult and painful (and therefore unpopular) choices to make a silk purse out of the current economic sow's ear.
In the current political climate, the necessary courageous and far sighted policies will lose not just the next general election but the one after that.
The situation has moved way beyond the norm.
Tomorrow we are scheduled to have the State Opening, with the monarch expected to issue a speech laying-out a Starmer government's programme, yet the PM is a dead man walking - that is farcical. How in good conscience can Charles be expected to set-out a legislative programme that everyone present will know is likely to be binned?
To be blunt, it seems to me the only acceptable thing at the moment is to re-convene Parliament until this leadership issue is settled - although whether or not that is even possible I have no idea.
The fundamental problem is the nature of political discourse, which fundamentally is lacking in honesty (mostly not telling the whole truth rather than outright lies, although there's too much of that).
Two years ago it was very clear to everyone that the UK economy was broken, that the policies of successive Tory governments had suppressed economic growth, the stupidity of Brexit had suppressed things even more, and that external impacts (Covid and the invasion of Ukraine being the biggest) had hit an already weakened economy. The Labour Party went into the election promising to fix the problems - but they did so without being honest about the size of the problem facing them, and seeming to offer impossible quick fixes. Presumably someone thought that an honest message that no government can overturn 15 years of mis-management of the economy overnight, that there would still need to be hard decisions to make to balance investing in severely under resourced public services without excessive borrowing, that there would need to be extra tax income from those who can most afford it, that it would take years to see significant recovery - and most importantly that we would need to reverse the Brexit mistakes as much as possible - wouldn't be bought by the electorate. Which has left the public (and large parts of the Labour Party) disappointed that the impossible hasn't happened, because they weren't told it was impossible.
Extra tax income? Back in the eighties we actually had potential sources of income, but the gas and oil revenue was used to reduce taxes and the national resources in general sold off so as to fund more tax cuts, while public spending was reduced (including massive cuts to the defence budget). Now we are royally screwed, oil and gas revenue is falling, public services are poor at best and we have a far-right political party exploiting the entirety reasonable fears of those who have seen their income, wealth and savings using the authoritarian playbook. Worse still, they have dragged the mainstream parties in their direction.
If Labour has to get back on track it needs to oppose Reform vigorously and consistently, using evidence not rhetoric, and put it straight: better public services cost, privatised public services cost more and privatised public services are not better. Tax increases of a few pence can improve services massively, and most people will, overall, be better off, healthier and happier.
Now I’m retired and no longer a civil servant, maybe I should get involved.
Will it really help if Starmer is replaced? I think probably not. I think a number of the alternatives to Starmer would, or at least might, have been better had they been leading Labour in 2024, but coming in under these circumstances none of them are likely to stand a chance.
Conclusion: Starmer should either tough it out (if he can) or call a General Election.
Conclusion: Starmer should either tough it out (if he can) or call a General Election.
The Labour Party and the government are both in a mess and Starmer’s position is weak.
A snap general election would hand hundreds of seats to Reform whereas another three hard years will see a move away from Reform through resignations, expulsions and effective opposition.
But then he would just lose to Reform in a few years. I can't see any situation where he wins. Labour needs a leader who can change the direction of their rhetoric, and fast.
Conclusion: Starmer should either tough it out (if he can) or call a General Election.
The Labour Party and the government are both in a mess and Starmer’s position is weak.
A snap general election would hand hundreds of seats to Reform whereas another three hard years will see a move away from Reform through resignations, expulsions and effective opposition.
I don't see why another three years should make Reform's position any weaker. Apart from "something may turn up". It is difficult to see Starmer winning in 2029, true. But it is difficult to see any of his replacements doing that either, especially if there's a bitter succession battle (e.g. Rayner vs Burnham vs Streeting).
You could argue it's better to take the medicine now. A GE this July and perhaps we get a hung Parliament giving five parties substantial representation in England. Wait until 2029 and it could be a Reform landslide bedding in for ten years.
I mean that the entire political spectrum being distracted by an election, and even more by negotiations for a hung parliament, is not a good idea when we are one more dumb Trump decision away from WW3.
If we end up at war, we should have a government of national unity at that point anyway. Right now, a leader not following Trump blindly into another Middle Eastern war may be the most consequential outcome in the short term.
Reform winning during a Trump presidency and Reform winning after a Trump presidency are two very different propositions.
It seems like with the Night of the Butter Knives going on just now we're going to end up with the worst of both worlds - a useless PM with potential challengers shown to be even less use staggering on to electoral oblivion sooner or later.
It would be helpful if the HMRC would pull its finger out and make a decision about Angela Rayner.
One wonders if there has been any interference on that score. It would certainly be the sort of thing the Labour Right would try if they thought they could get away with it.
It would be helpful if the HMRC would pull its finger out and make a decision about Angela Rayner.
Even if Angela Rayner pays the tax due plus any penalties and fines, she’s in no position to replace Starmer. Streeting is preferred by the Labour right but I think the membership as a whole would prefer Burnham, which is another reason to avoid a snap election. By 2029 he could well be in Parliament.
It would be helpful if the HMRC would pull its finger out and make a decision about Angela Rayner.
Even if Angela Rayner pays the tax due plus any penalties and fines, she’s in no position to replace Starmer. Streeting is preferred by the Labour right but I think the membership as a whole would prefer Burnham, which is another reason to avoid a snap election. By 2029 he could well be in Parliament.
It would be helpful if the HMRC would pull its finger out and make a decision about Angela Rayner.
Even if Angela Rayner pays the tax due plus any penalties and fines, she’s in no position to replace Starmer. Streeting is preferred by the Labour right but I think the membership as a whole would prefer Burnham, which is another reason to avoid a snap election. By 2029 he could well be in Parliament.
Why couldn't Rayner replace Starmer?
Because there's a widespread feeling that she could win a leadership contest but not an election.
The Labour Party went into the election promising to fix the problems - but they did so without being honest about the size of the problem facing them
No, there was a completely failure to understand the scope of the problem, because the faction in charge are fundamentally wedded to the status quo (which they don't see for the ideological position that it is) and oppose any significant change.
Starmer came into power thinking that all that was needed was a few minor tweaks and better execution, he had no ideas or vision of his own, neither did Reeves. To that extent they have *always* banked on 'something may turn up' (after all, the economy will start growing, that's what economies do), summed up very well in this LRB snippet:
Look at his latest 'big idea', that of the youth mobility scheme:
"But the prime minister said a deal would be unveiled before the summer. “Brexit has held back our young people,” he said. “They should be free to work, study, travel in European countries, just as I was able to when I was growing up. That has been snatched away from young people because of Brexit. I'm not going to let Brexit stand in the way of their opportunities.”
The Treasury has been pushing for an “ambitious” youth migration deal to boost the economy. The Home Office has also expressed concerns about the impact on net migration but Starmer stressed his personal “belief” in the scheme."
Leaving aside the paucity of ambition .. it's clear that he doesn't understand that his role as PM is to set forth policy. If you actually 'believe' in the policy, then you bang heads together in the Home Office and make them agree.
Sionisias mentioned 'privatised public services cost more'. I don't think Wes Streeting believes this and I don't think he really understands the NHS. Or even really believes in the NHS (does anyone, anymore?). So I'll be even more depressed if he ends up PM.
Sionisias mentioned 'privatised public services cost more'. I don't think Wes Streeting believes this and I don't think he really understands the NHS. Or even really believes in the NHS (does anyone, anymore?). So I'll be even more depressed if he ends up PM.
I don't understand how anyone imagines that Streeting will go down better with the electorate than Starmer.
Because there's a widespread feeling that she could win a leadership contest but not an election.
In itself I don't think that's a good enough reason. None of the candidates look like an election winner. One might as well go with some charisma and drive, which Rayner probably has the most of, and see what can be done in three years. The trouble is that I think Labour would be so horribly split after a leadership battle that this wouldn't work. Those three years might result in nothing other than a prolonged opportunity for Reform to shoot fish in a barrel.
Comments
Yes, that's the implication.
There is no reason that "right" in an economic sense has to coincide with "right" in a bigoted arsehole sense. It often seems to coincide, but I don't think it's required.
Selfishness and a complete lack of empathy do tend to push people in that direction on both counts.
It’s not. People who are economically liberal but socially conservative are commonplace, and the Cameron government was notably economically conservative but socially liberal.
Aren't conservative and liberal economics both right wing? Just depends on whether you want to use the state to ensure only your own country's capitalists grind the faces of the poor or you want capitalists of all nations to be able to grind the faces of the poor anywhere in the world.
It's all happening as we speak. Tomorrow morning's Cabinet meeting will be crucial. Starmer is fighting back but there's a major revolt developing within his own Party.
Will he fall on his sword? Or be defenestrated?
Blocking Burnham was a big mistake.
We wanted a stable leader after the crazy clueless Conservatives. Now excitement and click bait seems to be needed again.
I'm not a labour supporter but I wish political parties would stop shooting themselves in the foot.
In these times of uncertainty we need good leadership and excellent policies - not political wrangling.
I'm glad we don't have a mortgage and the one of our family who does lives in Germany!
Are there any of the potential candidates you think has what it takes to be PM?
Has the UK become ungovernable? Have people become blind to the economic etc constraints and pressures that bind governments? Is it just a matter of impatience?
Those economic pressures and constraints are mostly the doing of supposed “free market” monetarist economics that favour corporate interests and market trading over businesses that actually serve the people in any way.
The effect of that is while Parliament and hence the government is elected democratically it cannot act in the interests of people, which makes a nonsense of the democratic process.
In some Western European countries these excesses are mitigated, but the U.K. and the USA are no longer democracies.
David Cameron was PM from 2010 to 2015. Are they not counting him because of the initial hiatus while the coalition was formed?
I'll add also that Labour gets a kicking from large sections the media who regard any Labour government regardless of policies as essentially illegitimate.
That said, trying to means test the winter fuel payment was a matter of eating the faces of the people who up until then had voted for face-eating leopards, which was tactically unwise, since generally speaking people don't vote Labour for the face-eating.
Or at least; any party that would look like it might actually solve the problem would get a kicking by the press.
Not least because the problem is that the UK's economic model blew up in 2008 and there's a lot of blame to go around, not least because the root of the current malaise goes back to 1979.
Of course, given that those benefiting from the malaise have significant powers of patronage, they just need to continue to attract and promote those who want to have significant post-political careers, their own institute, the ability to sit and pontificate on a stage at Davos and maybe shake hands with Bono.
People no longer believe them. Neither should they.
Ah well. I hope not to see MAGA UK on the optimistic grounds that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
But Keir Starmer is unlikely to be the only casualty of the post Brexit mess.
This.
Sadly, no.
What sums up the Starmer debacle is the shit-show that was the Mandelson appointment, with nobody on either side of the House of Commons asking the fundamental question: Why did he decide to replace a successful career diplomat ambassador, Karen Pierce, who was liked, trusted, and respected by both Biden and Trump, at all?
I suspect that none of the candidates to replace Starmer will be any better.
In the current political climate, the necessary courageous and far sighted policies will lose not just the next general election but the one after that.
Tomorrow we are scheduled to have the State Opening, with the monarch expected to issue a speech laying-out a Starmer government's programme, yet the PM is a dead man walking - that is farcical. How in good conscience can Charles be expected to set-out a legislative programme that everyone present will know is likely to be binned?
To be blunt, it seems to me the only acceptable thing at the moment is to re-convene Parliament until this leadership issue is settled - although whether or not that is even possible I have no idea.
Two years ago it was very clear to everyone that the UK economy was broken, that the policies of successive Tory governments had suppressed economic growth, the stupidity of Brexit had suppressed things even more, and that external impacts (Covid and the invasion of Ukraine being the biggest) had hit an already weakened economy. The Labour Party went into the election promising to fix the problems - but they did so without being honest about the size of the problem facing them, and seeming to offer impossible quick fixes. Presumably someone thought that an honest message that no government can overturn 15 years of mis-management of the economy overnight, that there would still need to be hard decisions to make to balance investing in severely under resourced public services without excessive borrowing, that there would need to be extra tax income from those who can most afford it, that it would take years to see significant recovery - and most importantly that we would need to reverse the Brexit mistakes as much as possible - wouldn't be bought by the electorate. Which has left the public (and large parts of the Labour Party) disappointed that the impossible hasn't happened, because they weren't told it was impossible.
If Labour has to get back on track it needs to oppose Reform vigorously and consistently, using evidence not rhetoric, and put it straight: better public services cost, privatised public services cost more and privatised public services are not better. Tax increases of a few pence can improve services massively, and most people will, overall, be better off, healthier and happier.
Now I’m retired and no longer a civil servant, maybe I should get involved.
Conclusion: Starmer should either tough it out (if he can) or call a General Election.
The Labour Party and the government are both in a mess and Starmer’s position is weak.
A snap general election would hand hundreds of seats to Reform whereas another three hard years will see a move away from Reform through resignations, expulsions and effective opposition.
Oh, and a bit of prayer 🙏
But then he would just lose to Reform in a few years. I can't see any situation where he wins. Labour needs a leader who can change the direction of their rhetoric, and fast.
But what effective opposition, if Starmer stays?
You could argue it's better to take the medicine now. A GE this July and perhaps we get a hung Parliament giving five parties substantial representation in England. Wait until 2029 and it could be a Reform landslide bedding in for ten years.
You mean a hung Parliament? Or an election? You mean Trump is likely to skew the election?
If we end up at war, we should have a government of national unity at that point anyway. Right now, a leader not following Trump blindly into another Middle Eastern war may be the most consequential outcome in the short term.
Reform winning during a Trump presidency and Reform winning after a Trump presidency are two very different propositions.
One wonders if there has been any interference on that score. It would certainly be the sort of thing the Labour Right would try if they thought they could get away with it.
Even if Angela Rayner pays the tax due plus any penalties and fines, she’s in no position to replace Starmer. Streeting is preferred by the Labour right but I think the membership as a whole would prefer Burnham, which is another reason to avoid a snap election. By 2029 he could well be in Parliament.
Why couldn't Rayner replace Starmer?
Not even the Labour right *like* Streeting.
Because there's a widespread feeling that she could win a leadership contest but not an election.
No, there was a completely failure to understand the scope of the problem, because the faction in charge are fundamentally wedded to the status quo (which they don't see for the ideological position that it is) and oppose any significant change.
Starmer came into power thinking that all that was needed was a few minor tweaks and better execution, he had no ideas or vision of his own, neither did Reeves. To that extent they have *always* banked on 'something may turn up' (after all, the economy will start growing, that's what economies do), summed up very well in this LRB snippet:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/34nOIhw1K_I
Look at his latest 'big idea', that of the youth mobility scheme:
via The Observer.
Leaving aside the paucity of ambition .. it's clear that he doesn't understand that his role as PM is to set forth policy. If you actually 'believe' in the policy, then you bang heads together in the Home Office and make them agree.
I don't understand how anyone imagines that Streeting will go down better with the electorate than Starmer.
In itself I don't think that's a good enough reason. None of the candidates look like an election winner. One might as well go with some charisma and drive, which Rayner probably has the most of, and see what can be done in three years. The trouble is that I think Labour would be so horribly split after a leadership battle that this wouldn't work. Those three years might result in nothing other than a prolonged opportunity for Reform to shoot fish in a barrel.