[Tubby Isaacs]

He can look at the numbers as well as the next man, and he's not going to get a better chance. He has to go for it.

[mattomac]

What happens if he loses?

And is the party hanging around for it to happen… Yeah that looks really good for the country.

Not like anything else is happening in the world in which we can say, yeah ok we will get back to you in due course sit tight and play amongst yourselves.

It’s more embarrassing than 3 PMs in a month.

[Oboogie]

No way the NEC can turn him down again.

Why not? What's changed since February?
Burnham still has two years to serve in his "dream job" as Mayor of Manchester, is that no-longer important?

[davidjay]

So we lose an MP, a mayor and a bucketload of credibility. Well done, all.

[Tubby Isaacs]

On the plus side there shouldn't be any more resignations, a new health secretary is appointed, and Starmer is safe again.

I'm pleased about this.

[Tubby Isaacs]

No way the NEC can turn him down again.

Why not? What's changed since February?
Burnham still has two years to serve in his "dream job" as Mayor of Manchester, is that no-longer important?

Far more people think he's needed in Westminster than did before, that's the difference. And there'd be resignations if he was blocked again.

[Abernathy]

He can look at the numbers as well as the next man, and he's not going to get a better chance. He has to go for it.

Perhaps, if that really is the nature of his driving ambition. But as I’ve already said, it looks increasingly like a massive gamble on Burnham’s part. Which, in my view, does him no credit whatsoever.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I was as critical as anyone over his Denton and Gorton antics, but he's not the main problem now. The problem is idiot MPs, who have made it clear they'll piss Starmer about if they can't get him out. So you're looking at the best replacement, and it's him. With the bonus he shuts lots of these MPs up.

All politicians are ambitious. If an MP in a college town keels over tonight, Zack Polanski forgets how honored he is to served on the London Assembly. Farage is ambitious (or at least says he is, I'm not sure he'll want to stop the grift). Badnoch and Ed Davey are ambitious. People know politicians are ambitious.

[Abernathy]

Yes, I do get that, of course. But I still think it represents a massive gamble on Burnham’s part. I dare say he deserves a measure of credit for going for it nevertheless. Tom Watson has blogged a very rational assessment of the whole mess, which I’ve posted on another thread. Worth reading.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Polly Toynbee has to her credit at least mentioned the good policies. But here's what she thinks Labour are doing wrong.

Some essentials cost nothing: electoral reform, abolishing the House of Lords, while accelerating rejoining the EU. It’s baffling that this government has been so timid.

What does "accelerating rejoining the EU" even mean in practice? We aren't rejoining, and the EU would tell us to come back when there was cross party consensus. So I'm not baffled.

Nor am I baffled that electoral reform (ruled out at the last election) is not being pursued. That would be incredibly dodgy.

Ask Andy Burnham if he fancies running in Makerfield on the basis of this stuff.

[mattomac]

Regardless of Burnham.

The whole circus looks terrible.