Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Oboogie wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2026 7:40 pm Don't expect being "King of the North" to play well anywhere outside the North and, if you set yourself in opposition to a particular region (eg London) don't be surprised if that region fails to genuflect in your direction.

You can say that again!

He's more popular than Starmer everywhere, isn't he?

I think he'll do lots of the same policies, but might sell them a bit better. That's not to be sniffed at. And a big difference is that he's not personally got his hands dirty sorting out the left. I don't have a high opinion of lots of the people he did go after, but it probably went too far. Burnham will get an easier time from lots of people because of this.

.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2026 8:10 pm He's more popular than Starmer everywhere, isn't he?

I think he'll do lots of the same policies, but might sell them a bit better. That's not to be sniffed at. And a big difference is that he's not personally got his hands dirty sorting out the left. I don't have a high opinion of lots of the people he did go after, but it probably went too far. Burnham will get an easier time from lots of people because of this.

If he gets in within a year he will be accused of being continuity Starmer.

Assuming Andy's crowned I'm concerned he could lose more seats than he retains especially if the Tories knock the balmy fluid on the head and march towards the centre. How does a Blair-Prescott type relationship with Streeting as his deputy sound?
And keep Reeves as chancellor, its already bad enough that it looks like Tory chaos all over again.

Youngian wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2026 1:33 pm Assuming Andy's crowned I'm concerned he could lose more seats than he retains especially if the Tories knock the balmy fluid on the head and march towards the centre. How does a Blair-Prescott type relationship with Streeting as his deputy sound?
And keep Reeves as chancellor, its already bad enough that it looks like Tory chaos all over again.

I'd certainly keep Reeves in post. The only name I've heard touted as her replacement is Miliband and he's doing an excellent job at Energy and Net Zero, would he be a good chancellor, dunno, but as far as I'm concerned he's not available.

Apparently, Burnham was the sole candidate short-listed, so he is automatically selected. Curiouser, and curiouser.

Many have pointed out that this by-election is unique in that voters are being urged to vote Labour in order to get rid of a Labour Prime Minister.

They aren’t fucking kidding.

If it’s not Reeves it has to be Jones.

Or Cooper, or someone else who doesn't look like they enjoy chucking money about too much. Reeves has pushed it quite far as it is.

So, let me get this right.

A MP has stood down to allow Burnham to contest his seat in Manchester.

If he wins this by-election, he can then run in a leadership contest against Keir Starmer. There is however, no certainty he will win this by-election.

If he loses, he can just go back to being mayor of Manchester. No loss for Burnham there. Meanwhile, the Labour Party will see its majority in the Commons reduced by two and another member for a populist party gets into Parliament. This will also have cost the Labour Party a not insignificant sum to stage.

And all this because some vain little twat has got high on his own supply, feted by his acolytes? I'm reminded of the lyrics of Kate Bush's Wow.

It. Fucking. Stinks.

Burnham refuses to diss Farage as he goes high to talk about the issues. Very admirable but that's not how you send Farage packing. Stamping your foot on his neck and keeping it there is.*
Andy understands Reform voters and its a cry for help as living standards fall. Perhaps he means the small amount who'd consider voting Labour. Has anyone ask the self employed plumber standing for Reform how much his call out charges are?

* Metaphorically speaking, I would want Nigel's £5m security men chasing me.

Over on Facebook Jamie Driscoll was saying that Burnham would be stuck to tinkering around the edges as Labour is a neo liberal party.

What does that mean? That he might not collapse the pound by teatime?

Anyone getting slightly bored with the amount emails from the Labour Party involving this.

Self sabotage ego trip in an attempt to stab the leader in the back and you want us to fund it? How about Andy or Josh Simons funds it?

Boiler wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2026 6:04 pm So, let me get this right.

A MP has stood down to allow Burnham to contest his seat in Manchester.

If he wins this by-election, he can then run in a leadership contest against Keir Starmer. There is however, no certainty he will win this by-election.

If he loses, he can just go back to being mayor of Manchester. No loss for Burnham there. Meanwhile, the Labour Party will see its majority in the Commons reduced by two and another member for a populist party gets into Parliament. This will also have cost the Labour Party a not insignificant sum to stage.

And all this because some vain little twat has got high on his own supply, feted by his acolytes? I'm reminded of the lyrics of Kate Bush's Wow.

It. Fucking. Stinks.

Plus it weakens Starmer and makes Labour look irresponsible.

Guardian reporting Burnham back’s Shabana Mahmood’s immigration changes. I hope he doesn’t back all of them.

Starmer detested with a passion for nebulous reasons while a bloke with virtually the same views and only a slightly less dull persona is a fettered political rock star. As Governor Arnie commented; I hate politics but love policies.

Meanwhile... Wes Streeting is apparently proposing a wealth tax. Are we through the looking glass ?

Streeting was talking about equalising income and capital gains tax rates this morning which is more tangible than 'we used to make stuff when I was a lad.'
Don't know what's fuelling the impressive growth rates Machester is enjoying under Andy's mayoralty but I bet its high end services and international investment in tech and finance. A model Lawson and Thatcher envisaged in the 80s.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 8:43 am Guardian reporting Burnham back’s Shabana Mahmood’s immigration changes. I hope he doesn’t back all of them.

The performative petty spite against those who are already here is what gets my goat and I'm not a pro high immigration person. Even if you want a bare minimum of immigrants like Rupert Lowe you make people welcome.