#104599
I thought it was 9-1. On the basis of the rule that as mayor Andy Gobshite has to see out his term.
Interesting that Powell (referred to me as 'pretty vacant' by someone who has met her on several occasions) believes that rules are conditional...
#104603
His bond market comments were the biggest black mark against him for me. Pure Polanski. Reeves put up taxes by quite a lot, and increased borrowing. The impression given that she's running some sort of Wolfgang Shauble operation was bollocks and very unhelpful.
Oboogie liked this
#104612
The reason for Shabana’s abstention? She was chairing the meeting. Or do you mean to ask what was the reason for the decision to disallow Burnham’s bid to reurn to Westminster? This sums it up pretty well :

"Sorry Andy, but the Labour Party endorsed you, nominated you and campaigned for you to be the Mayor of Greater Manchester for a four year term in an election which you won. We do not see it in the best interests of the Labour Party for you to seek to relinquish that post in less than two years. You owe it to the Party and your electorate to see out your term in office."
#104613
Abernathy wrote: Sun Jan 25, 2026 5:56 pm
Malcolm Armsteen wrote: Sun Jan 25, 2026 5:26 pm I thought it was 9-1. On the basis of the rule that as mayor Andy Gobshite has to see out his term.
Nah, it was 8-1. Shabana as chair abstained fron voting.
Someone of Burnham's seniority must have known the NEC would block him so why make the party go through this reckless panto? Especially as Keir has global crises on his plate. Could have made more new friends by not standing instead of losing some.
Last edited by Youngian on Sun Jan 25, 2026 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#104617
Abernathy wrote: Sun Jan 25, 2026 7:43 pm The reason for Shabana’s abstention? She was chairing the meeting. Or do you mean to ask what was the reason for the decision to disallow Burnham’s bid to reurn to Westminster? This sums it up pretty well :

"Sorry Andy, but the Labour Party endorsed you, nominated you and campaigned for you to be the Mayor of Greater Manchester for a four year term in an election which you won. We do not see it in the best interests of the Labour Party for you to seek to relinquish that post in less than two years. You owe it to the Party and your electorate to see out your term in office."
The reasoning that you have set out here.
#104654
As ever, Tom Watson's take on this is a good one :

A small adjustment to democracy
Why Andy Burnham cannot stand, Dave Nellist must not and everyone agrees this was handled very seriously.


There is a brisk trade on X in democratic outrage. On Sunday, demand was high. That outrage was inevitable. If I were an officer of the NEC, I would not have handled it in quite this way.
The latest scandal concerns the blocking Andy Burnham from standing in a by-election. This is being treated as a unique constitutional offence. A never-before-seen innovation in political wrongdoing. Democracy, we are told, has been rejected in favour of cowardice.
History, irritatingly, refuses to cooperate.
Because while Labour has been busy asking Andy to remain exactly where he is, Jeremy Corbyn’s new party has been doing something remarkably similar. Former Labour MP Dave Nellist has been barred from standing for the executive of Jeremy’s party, which for the avoidance of doubt is called Your Party.
This was done democratically. Centrally. With great seriousness.

Dave Nellist is not an unfamiliar figure. He is a veteran of the Militant Tendency. A Coventry councillor. A former MP. A man so steeped in revolutionary socialist authenticity that, if there were a Mount Rushmore of the genre, he would be chiselled in somewhere between Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky.
Nevertheless, unsuitable.
No vote. No argument. No tedious involvement of members. Just a decision. Taken by people who understand democracy very well and therefore know when to protect it from itself. This has prompted a remarkable silence.
John McDonnell has not intervened, as he has in Andy’s case. He has not warned of cowardice. He has not explained that denying members a say accelerates anyone’s political demise. He has not taken to the airwaves. On this particular outrage, he is observing a period of dignified silence.
Apparently, some stitch-ups are more equal than others. To be fair to John, he is not a member of Your Party. It is, however, generously populated by his political allies, which may help explain the sudden discovery that not every internal democracy crisis requires immediate commentary.
In left politics there appears to be a hierarchy of outrage. When Labour does it, it is authoritarianism. When Jeremy Corbyn’s party does it, it is administrative tidying.

Speaking of tidiness, Your Party’s branding deserves praise. It now appears to be branded with two subheads, The Many and For A People’s Party, with Jeremy’s trademark strategic clarity and decisiveness fully on display. Members voted for the name and then, in a spirit of inclusivity, kept the runners up on the second and third lines.
Jeremy himself has had a busy week. He appeared on Newsnight in solidarity with Venezuela, entirely in his happy place, before restricting socialists from standing for his own party’s executive, which, if you will forgive me, was a very Hugo Chávez way of doing things. Under Jeremy, the grassroots are always sovereign. Until, of course, they choose the wrong candidate.
Meanwhile, in the North West of England, flatbed trucks are being checked for roadworthiness. Placards are being laminated. Chants are being practised. Emergency resolutions are circulating by email. The operation to save Andy is in full swing. He will be sanguine about it all. After all, there is always another by-election down the road and they cannot say no forever.
Yet the decision, everyone agrees, is final. Until it isn’t. Because decisions in the Labour Party are always final, except when they change, which they often do, sometimes quietly, sometimes overnight and sometimes after someone notices that next week is beginning to look awkward.
If it were me, I wouldn’t have rushed this. I would have spoken to Andy first, established his intentions and secured some clarity about his ambitions. Perhaps even struck a deal. We owed him that much. Instead, we chose a public rebuke of one of our strongest, if occasionally tricksy, assets. Andy is a big boy. He knew exactly what he was doing. He applied for a role he could reasonably assume he was not going to get, which is not unknown in Labour politics. He can give as good as he gets. He will be an MP sooner rather than later. And it is rarely a mistake to pick up the phone.
#104661
From a good comrade:
My disappointment is that AB threw his hat in the ring in the first place and the fact that he did does diminish him somewhat. There’s nothing wrong with a politician being ambitious - there isn’t one born who isn’t in some way or another, myself included - but a statesman knows when to make a move and when not to. AB is only 55 and has plenty of time to get back into Parliament and make an impact AFTER he has finished his term as Mayor. I also find it chokingly amusing that the hard left are crying foul for someone that they would otherwise perceive to be an absolute dyed in the wool Blairite. It’s a funny old game, but one that really needs to be taken a damn sight more seriously bearing in mind the threats to democracy posed by the likes of Trump and his ICE thugs, a blueprint that Farage would love to import to our shores. The media, and in particular the rightwing press are driving all the talk of a leadership challenge to Starmer purely because they want something to write about and the fact that we have an actual grown-up in Downing Street who is making a difference. They also conveniently overlook the fact that unlike the Tories, the Labour Party has no formal mechanism to remove a leader and we have never done so!
#104674
As I've said before: the Overton Window has shifted.

I've apparently gone from being centre-left to far left over the space of about twenty years, and my core views haven't changed.
  • 1
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
Trump 2.0 Lunacy

It could also be a matter of scale. Bullies like […]

She's too extreme even for them.

Labour Government 2024 - ?

Anyone else get the feeling that this news was rus[…]

Reform Party

It's quite majestic how the 'change&[…]