Mailwatch(ed) Forum

When the inevitable happens and Backstabber Burnham makes it into number 10, I will extend to him the same courtesy that I extended to Corbyn - give him 6 months to prove he's up to the job.

Corbyn, of course, didn't need the full 6 months, his talents being such that he completely fucking blew it in the first few weeks. I don't believe Burnham will be anywhere near that bad.

Yug wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 1:03 pm When the inevitable happens and Backstabber Burnham makes it into number 10, I will extend to him the same courtesy that I extended to Corbyn - give him 6 months to prove he's up to the job.

Corbyn, of course, didn't need the full 6 months, his talents being such that he completely fucking blew it in the first few weeks. I don't believe Burnham will be anywhere near that bad.

There's low bars and there's subterranean.

I still think the "Fuck it" option was favourite.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 10:25 am Can't shake the feeling that what we have seen is an out-and-out political coup.

Well, he couldn't win on his own merit in two previous elections, so a coup has happened to satiate his ambitions.

Yet it'll be the Left who'll say "but you do know that if we didn't get rid of Starmer we'd have got a Reform government, wouldn't we?"

The people who keep telling us the Government is basically Reform anyway.

I wonder how long it will take before the Corbynistas realise Burnham isn't one of them after all and is, therefore, Thatcher?

Edit: answering my own question I've already seen demands that he be sent to the Hague to be tried for war crimes - he voted for the Iraq War and described the Manchester synagogue attack as terrorism.

Clive Lewis showed up in an article the other day, telling us how he has a copy of Starmer's 2021 pledges up on his wall. Perhaps he has the borrowing rates now compared with then pinned up or indeed the cost to the economy of Covid and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, or the increase in sick benefits, but I doubt it. Maybe he could pin the 2024 manifesto up, that's what Starmer was elected on and was making a decent fist of delivering.

Clive ought to have had the whip suspended for mucking about offering his seat to Burnham, which (incredibly!) he didn't mean. Perhaps he'll claim Burnham is doing the 2021 Starmer pledges in government, or more likely he'll clear off to the Green Party.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 6:22 pm I wonder how long it will take before the Corbynistas realise Burnham isn't one of them after all and is, therefore, Thatcher?

Edit: answering my own question I've already seen demands that he be sent to the Hague to be tried for war crimes - he voted for the Iraq War and described the Manchester synagogue attack as terrorism.

If they get their way the Hague is going to be incredibly busy.

Burnham can go on trial when they've finished with "Lammy" and "Starmer".

Meanwhile, the press are doing all they can to stop Ed Miliband from being made Chancellor with the help of Sharon Graham and Paul Smith.

Ed wasn't exactly a big tax raiser when he was Leader of the Opposition. I think he proposed raising about £8bn a year over George Osborne's 2015 level.

Sharon Graham was elected on "get out of the politicking", wasn't she? Union leaderships are an absolute joke.

I am intrigued that the new star performer in the Burnham Circus is rumoured to be David Miliband to the FCO. Granted, he would need to take a pay cut, but I believe that he would be a huge asset. ably adopting the profile which suited Starmer so well.

It would mean yet-another-man in an already poorly balanced cabinet, but it is not as if Cooper has exactly embraced the rôle.

I see Burnham is asking for ten years to fix Britain.

Given Starmer said the same thing back in 2024 and you usurped him within two years because people felt things weren't happening fast enough for their liking, why should you be treated differently?

Twat.

New irony meter, please.

Boiler wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2026 9:26 am I see Burnham is asking for ten years to fix Britain.

Given Starmer said the same thing back in 2024 and you usurped him within two years because people felt things weren't happening fast enough for their liking, why should you be treated differently?

Twat.

Actual twattery would be to deny what is painfully obvious. It would Zack-level nonsense to claim that he can knock the country in to shape and still be in time for last orders.

In fact, he is probably making a point for the hard of thinking.

Plus Burnham didn't usurp Starmer, the PLP did that. If the NEC had blocked Burnham from standing in Makerfield (which, if they were consistent, they would have), the PLP would still have replaced Starmer eventually.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2026 1:48 pm Plus Burnham didn't usurp Starmer, the PLP did that. If the NEC had blocked Burnham from standing in Makerfield (which, if they were consistent, they would have), the PLP would still have replaced Starmer eventually.

And can you imagine the howling there would have been if they had blocked him? I think they had no choice in the matter.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2026 1:48 pm Plus Burnham didn't usurp Starmer, the PLP did that. If the NEC had blocked Burnham from standing in Makerfield (which, if they were consistent, they would have), the PLP would still have replaced Starmer eventually.

This is true, but I find the argument that the PLP/ Labour MPs have collectively and prematurely shat their pants by ditching Keir Starmer before he had even completed 24 months in the job, and without affording him the opportunity to turn adverse opinion polling around a clear three years before the next general election has to be held, rather persuasive.

I also view Burnham's engineering of a way to get into position to usurp Starmer as a kind of treachery,

Burnham sets out plans to devolve power to regions with new 'No 10 North' in Manchester

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgrk4rpxnx7t

Andy Burnham says if he becomes prime minister, he'll "take power out of the centre" and expand his office to Manchester - other key takeaways

In his first major speech since launching his bid to replace Keir Starmer, Burnham says "No 10 North" would be the "nerve centre of a re-wired Britain"...

If he's that keen on moving to Manchester why doesn't he run for Mayor? The post is currently vacant.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2026 3:02 pm

Oboogie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2026 1:48 pm Plus Burnham didn't usurp Starmer, the PLP did that. If the NEC had blocked Burnham from standing in Makerfield (which, if they were consistent, they would have), the PLP would still have replaced Starmer eventually.

This is true, but I find the argument that the PLP/ Labour MPs have collectively and prematurely shat their pants by ditching Keir Starmer before he had even completed 24 months in the job, and without affording him the opportunity to turn adverse opinion polling around a clear three years before the next general election has to be held, rather persuasive.

I also view Burnham's engineering of a way to get into position to usurp Starmer as a kind of treachery,

Agreed. I'm not defending the actions of (half of) the PLP or Burnham, merely correcting the record ie without the PLP, Starmer would still be in No10 and there'd be sweet fuck all Burnham could do about it.