Step aside Starmer (UK)

[C C]

Burnham is one-half Co-operative Party (not fully Labour), so I guess that explains the bizarreness of him telling Starmer to step down when he's actually an instance of a "Labour candidate" winning while Starmer is PM.
- - - - - - - - - - -

Step aside Starmer
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/...de-starmer

INTRO: No more messing about — read the room and get out, the labour movement told Sir Keir Starmer today after Andy Burnham’s victory in the Makerfield by-election. Mr Burnham will now call for the Prime Minister to quit in the wake of his larger than expected majority in the poll, seeing off hard-right Reform by more than 20 per cent of the vote. Trade union leaders and Labour MPs united in demanding that Sir Keir depart in the near future, opening the way for Mr Burnham to take over. Celebrating his victory, the Greater Manchester mayor had billed it as Labour’s “final chance to change” and pledged a “new path” for Britain... (MORE - details)

---

MICHAEL HEAVER
https://youtu.be/GH6UjsZnZOc

Cabinet to Starmer: Time to go...

Labour goes into utter meltdown.. https://youtu.be/GH6UjsZnZOc

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/GH6UjsZnZOc

[C C]

PM expected to announce resignation on Monday as Trump piles on pressure
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po...00007.html

INTRO: Sir Keir Starmer is increasingly expected to announce that he will set out a timetable for his departure on Monday as pressure builds for him to resign.

Sir Keir is said to be spending the weekend discussing the matter with his family and considering his future at Chequers before making a final decision. But he has reportedly reached the conclusion that he cannot continue as Labour leader.

On Sunday afternoon, US president Donald Trump weighed in on the prime minister’s potential exit from Downing Street, claiming that “he will resign” after failing on immigration and energy....

MICHAEL HEAVER
https://youtu.be/24itSSdmTC8

Starmer finally resigning? ... https://youtu.be/24itSSdmTC8

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/24itSSdmTC8

[Syne]

So Labour will jettison a scapegoat. Could be an excuse for a further lurch to the left.

[C C]

So Labour will jettison a scapegoat. Could be an excuse for a further lurch to the left.

Other than Burnham identifying more strictly as a socialist in earlier years, I don't see much difference between the two. Both have a tendency to play around with being practical or a "left-centrist" when actually in office. Apparently Labour is gambling that someone who has yet to accumulate the same baggage as Starmer will make the party look better for the time being, even though that is surely going to fizzle out for Burnham by the time of the 2029 general election.

They expect Burnham to be more confrontational with Trump than Starmer was, but after a few weeks or months of sparring (just to present the illusion that he's "bulldog different" from Starmer), he'll probably fall into the same pattern: "Burnham's comments suggest he would diverge from Starmer's pragmatic stance toward Trump. Labour politicians have long been critical of Trump, but Starmer has largely steered clear of direct confrontation, instead emphasizing cooperation with Washington."

---

Political positions of Keir Starmer: However, as opposition leader and later as prime minister, Starmer's Labour Party is considered to be far closer to the political centre. Some commentators described Starmer as exhibiting an authoritarian approach, and critics on the Labour left have expressed anxiety over being purged from the party under Starmer's leadership. [...] Some commentators, judging that Starmer has led his party towards the political centre in order to improve its electability ... Others regard his changes of policy as testament that Starmer holds no clearly defined philosophy. A third group think that Starmer does subscribe to a definite ideology and that it is towards the left end of the socialist spectrum...

Andy Burnham: Andy Burnham has said that he joined the Labour Party at the age of 15. In 2010, he identified as a socialist. In his 2010 leadership bid Burnham emphasised his philosophy of "aspirational socialism", which he described as redistributive, collectivist and internationalist. He is a strong opponent of nationalism, which he has described as an "ugly brand of politics". In 2020, Iain Martin of The Times described Burnham as a "former Blairite" and associated with New Labour. In a 2010 interview with Andrew Marr, Burnham said he was proud of his association with New Labour. As mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham has rejected the approach taken by New Labour on housing and transport but has remained committed to New Labour's "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" approach. Politically, Burnham places himself on the soft left of the Labour Party. His politics have been described as soft left by a number of media outlets...

King of the North: Steven Fielding, an emeritus professor of political history at the University of Nottingham, describes Burnham as a “pragmatic politician, not ideological.” This lack of strict ideological leaning has enabled Burnham to position himself as someone who is viewed quite favorably from multiple factions within the Labour Party.

[Syne]

So Labour will jettison a scapegoat. Could be an excuse for a further lurch to the left.

...Apparently Labour is gambling that someone who has yet to accumulate the same baggage as Starmer will make the party look better for the time being...

Well, that's what scapegoats are for.

[Yazata]

I don't expect Andy Burnham to be an improvement on Kier Starmer. Certainly not from the American perspective, since I expect him to be more anti-American out of a desire to appear more performatively anti-Trump. (It's what the Labour party left-base demands and Burnham will want to stop the Labour defections to the Green party.) TDS demands that he be against anything that Trump is for.

Domestically, I expect him to retain open borders, the two-tier justice system, multiculturalism, continued encroachments on free speech and so on. He might expand the welfare-state and will probably be distrustful and restrictive towards American-style creative entrepeneurship.

But paradoxically, that might be good for Britain at this pivotal point in their history. That's because I see the Reform party as perhaps Britain's last-best hope. (The Conservatives certainly aren't.) If Labour listens to the people's concerns (as opposed to the fantasies of the posh London elites) and changes course to address those concerns, then a lot of the wind will be taken out of Reform's sails.

Burnham's challenge is to stop Labour's socially conservative working class base from defecting to Reform, without accelerating the trendy London new-left's defections to the Greens. Whatever Burnham does to appease one of those voting blocs will alienate the other. It might be an impossible task.

(We are seeing similar dynamics at play here in the American Democratic party, which seems to be going all-in on socialism and weird gender-politics.)

[stryder]

Britain is currently a disenfranchised state. It's been like that for a number of years. No matter which loud minority puts a person in as Prime Minister, it's guaranteed that they will more than likely not last their term. This has been the case for countless Prime Ministers in recent years.

If Burnham gets in, it's guaranteed they'll want him out in two years. If Farage gets in, they'll want him out in one. The entire political system needs a complete shake up if it intends to be fit for purpose and currently none of the parties are doing it. Sure there's those that claim they'll make a difference, but they still want to cling to old archaic systems rather than rattle the foundations to the core.

Currently all the swinging thats been done (and changing the PM as frequently as underwear) means that the current political system is more useful to foreign countries that want to see the UK damaged or hurt, than actually helping the UK.

Democracy has never been so much of a sham.

[Syne]

Maybe a system that isn't as volatile as changing every five years?

Currently all the swinging thats been done (and changing the PM as frequently as underwear) means that the current political system is more useful to foreign countries...

...or foreign immigrants.

[C C]

It's now official.

Starmer says he’ll resign as UK prime minister, roiling British politics yet again
https://apnews.com/article/keir-starmer-...d5c40d1518

INTRO: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Monday he will resign, forced out by his own party after missteps and mistakes soured voters’ goodwill following a landslide election victory two years ago on a promise of steady leadership and economic growth. Starmer says he will remain caretaker prime minister until his Labour Party chooses a new leader — with expectations growing that it will be former Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham...

---

‘He lacked any conviction or vision’: Readers debate what brought down Keir Starmer
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po...00522.html

INTRO: Sir Keir Starmer’s emotional resignation speech sparked a mixed reaction from Independent readers, with many feeling sympathy for a prime minister they believed tried to do the right thing, even if his government ultimately fell short.

Several commenters said Starmer deserves credit for rebuilding Labour, defeating the Conservatives in 2024 and bringing a measure of stability after years of political chaos. But even some supporters felt he never managed to connect with voters or convince them that his government was delivering results.

Others argued his downfall was always coming. Many blamed a lack of vision, conviction and political judgement, saying he spent too much time trying to please different groups without offering a clear direction for the country.

Readers pointed to the winter fuel allowance row, welfare reforms, immigration, Brexit, donations and the Mandelson scandal among the key reasons his authority unravelled.

A common complaint was that Starmer never developed the public appeal needed to carry people with him through difficult decisions. Several argued that his reserved, technocratic style made it hard for voters to warm to him.

Here’s what you had to say... (MORE - details)

[Syne]

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/m2r8tnx02Lg