Off Topic The politics thread - Starmer/Burnham/Reeves/Farage etc.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
There will be at least one good candidate aiming to be Prime Minister, and one committed to the north.
 
I'm a Labour Party member who thinks lStarmer has made too many unforced errors, but I'm not comfortable with parachuting someone into Parliament to challenge him. This is going to get messy.
Let’s hope he boots that berk into never never land not to be seen again. Then hopefully if he becomes leader he looks after the people who voted them in.
 
I'm sure he is a nice bloke but Starmer just has nothing about him.

A leadership battle now may not be ideal but without change at the top Labour are leaving the door wide open for Reform. For me that is a much bigger threat for a country where a vast majority of people already have very little cash to spare.

Labour don't need someone who buries their head in the sand, they need someone with a spine who isn't afraid to challenge opposition leaders and do what is needed for the country. It will be far from easy but I think Burnham could be that person.

Farage knows how bad Burnham could be to his plans, which is why he said Reform would "throw absolutely everything at” the by-election. He is now blaming the outcome on anti-starmer votes and that "Reform won, if you think about it".

They didn't, and if a party is basing their hopes on winning an election on the hatred of the opposition leader then that speaks absolute volumes about them.
 
I'm sure he is a nice bloke but Starmer just has nothing about him.

A leadership battle now may not be ideal but without change at the top Labour are leaving the door wide open for Reform. For me that is a much bigger threat for a country where a vast majority of people already have very little cash to spare.

Labour don't need someone who buries their head in the sand, they need someone with a spine who isn't afraid to challenge opposition leaders and do what is needed for the country. It will be far from easy but I think Burnham could be that person.

Farage knows how bad Burnham could be to his plans, which is why he said Reform would "throw absolutely everything at” the by-election. He is now blaming the outcome on anti-starmer votes and that "Reform won, if you think about it".

They didn't, and if a party is basing their hopes on winning an election on the hatred of the opposition leader then that speaks absolute volumes about them.
Agree completely.

For me, Starmer was never the man I wanted to lead my party, or my country but it was a case of "anyone but the Tories" after the disgusting way they acted during and after covid. Burnham is the perfect man to lead us now, and as you say is a far better fit to stave off the threat from Racist UK Party and their leader Adolf Farage
 
I'm a Labour Party member who thinks Starmer has made too many unforced errors, but I'm not comfortable with parachuting someone into Parliament to challenge him. This is going to get messy.
It could save the Labour Party not having a corporate clique in slick suits
 
I do mate, but we both probably thought the same about Starmers speech and look how that turned out.
I can’t wait to see the back of the robbing bastard.
Starmer was propelled into power by McSweeney and backers. He’s has to stay inline. I hate them Labour cliques- left and right. Just focus on people.
I’ve done work with Burnham in GM. A really genuine bloke who has a big heart for kids and believes in helping communities and local organisations to do more where they live. Whether he can translate that to national and international is the thing we need to see, but i do believe in him.
 
Last edited:
Starmer was propelled into by McSweeney and backers. He’s has to stay inline. I hate them Labour cliques- left and right. Just focus on people.
I’ve done work with Burnham in GM. A really genuine bloke who has a big heart for kids and believes in helping communities and local organisations to do more where they live. Whether he can translate that to national and international is the thing we need to see, but i do believe in him.
The question is can he be worse than Starmer,
I very much doubt it,
Hope when he is prime minister he dispatched his size 10 up Reeves arse as well.
Another thieving bastard.
 
My objections aren't about personality, it's the process. When the Tories were switching leader every few weeks I thought there should be a general election if there was a change of PM. I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise now.

As you say with a commons majority the Tories never went for a General Election. Now Labour had a commons majority.. it is a safe bet they won't go for a GE either.

Politics huh
 
  • Like
Reactions: Row 3
Agree completely.

For me, Starmer was never the man I wanted to lead my party, or my country but it was a case of "anyone but the Tories" after the disgusting way they acted during and after covid. Burnham is the perfect man to lead us now, and as you say is a far better fit to stave off the threat from Racist UK Party and their leader Adolf Farage
I hope Burnham has the balls to stand up to Trump.and the immigrants.
 
My objections aren't about personality, it's the process. When the Tories were switching leader every few weeks I thought there should be a general election if there was a change of PM. I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise now.
Aye i can aee that though it’ll never happen. The main thing for the country is having someone who makes things work for everyday people not those who have more wealth than the country but control policy.
 
My objections aren't about personality, it's the process. When the Tories were switching leader every few weeks I thought there should be a general election if there was a change of PM. I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise now.

Of course The PM COULD tell The King that he had lost the confidence of a large part of his party and request a General Election.

Given his huge majority, this might just make a lot of Labour MP's wonder if thats what they realy wanted, at the minute.:emoticon-0130-devil

Personaly I had high hopes of Sir K.
In retrospect, he would have been better served with a very much smaller majority.
As it is he has found it impossible to to keep control over a Party with a majoity of 165 over the rest of the house combined.
I wish his successor, whoever this may be, well, for all our sakes.
From what I read a bonus might be that we will no longer have to listen to the dictates of 'Rachel fron Accounts'. A bonus perhaps?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rooch 3
My objections aren't about personality, it's the process. When the Tories were switching leader every few weeks I thought there should be a general election if there was a change of PM. I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise now.
Since "Brexit" we have had 6 prime ministers, possibly 7 now, in 10 years. That is the Brexit effect in plain sight .
 
No, it the effect of having career politicians who have no idea about real life in this country, just the words from like minded social groups.
You think it's a good thing having 7 prime ministers in 10 years? We used to laugh at Italy for this sort of thing. It's beyond a joke, we are now a banana republic.
 
Of course The PM COULD tell The King that he had lost the confidence of a large part of his party and request a General Election.

Given his huge majority, this might just make a lot of Labour MP's wonder if thats what they realy wanted, at the minute.:emoticon-0130-devil

Personaly I had high hopes of Sir K.
In retrospect, he would have been better served with a very much smaller majority.
As it is he has found it impossible to to keep control over a Party with a majoity of 165 over the rest of the house combined.
I wish his successor, whoever this may be, well, for all our sakes.
From what I read a bonus might be that we will no longer have to listen to the dictates of 'Rachel fron Accounts'. A bonus perhaps?

Or not being misogynistic, Rachel Reeve, might well have done a stellar job compared to Starmer.
If Sir Kier had faced down back-bench MPs over benefit cuts, ie backed Reeve. GB has maxed out its 'credit cards' and Reeves principle of not using borrowing for current spending is sound. Moving her out is a risk, a big one.

Burham has the same financial straightjacket as Starmer, any extra borrowing will cause a bond melt down. Nobody has come up with a credible method to 'stop the boats', is there one?

GB is not broken, Ukraine and Iran wars are aa economic problem, the UKs PM can do nothing about it.