[Tubby Isaacs]

Dianne Abbott (who ?) on C4 news said she thought that the applause was “staged”.

What. A. Fucking. Idiot.

Roughly translated, nobody much agreed with her.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Political commentary. And Gaby (who I keep calling Gaby Roslin) isn't by any means among the worst. As someone BTL says, what does this "vision" stuff actually mean? There's a manifesto we can look at, and per Full Fact, lots of it seems to be happening. I don't agree with restricting student and care visas, but if you were so minded, you could say there was a vision there about what level of net immigration is appropriate, and by no means a vision confined only to Farage and Goodwin.

I alighted on Gaby because she actually noted the special needs policy, so is at least doing something beyond the others. One wonders how that policy relates to this "vision thing". Perhaps we could just judge it on its merits?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Wormald is a Tory placeman.

[Abernathy]

Limb? Out on his treacherous Scotch arse, I hope. I have never trusted that slippery scroat.

Ahem. Treacherous Scottish arse, if you please. As you ought to know, Scotch is a golden nippy drink.

[mattomac]

Maybe it’s not quite dawned on these journalists that the reason there is no obvious replacement because it’s not 2 years into a 5 year term after a election that was a landslide.

Who was Cameron’s challenger? Only Johnson showed up after 5 years, Osborne was his obvious replacement and would without Brexit probably replaced him.

May at a push was also a possibility but Johnson, Truss and Sunak who they ended up on where never PM material.

Nethier is Badenoch or Jenrick.

Blair only ever had Brown. After 14 years a whole list of challengers don’t just show up.

[The Weeping Angel]

Guy can frankly shaft himself with a rusty spanner. He thinks government is incredibly easy and he has all the solutions odd how hes never tested the theory.

Stephen Bush is a massively pompous poor man's Sam Freedman. Freedman tends to concentrate on stuff he's seen close up, or from which he can reasonably draw analogy (so he's seen education reform, as it was called, close up, so he reasonably draws lessons on how you might reform other areas). Bush doesn't seem to have done anything.

"Warmed over Millibandism" is a ridiculous phrase. Milliband in Government is doing stuff way beyond what he contemplated as leader. Reeves is much more expansive in terms of spending and borrowing. Workers rights weren't a Milliband era priority. Nor was planning, which has the potential for the OBR to significantly upgrade growth forecasts.

Of course, lots of critics want more of the stuff Bush hates. Funny old game. And it's easy for this "radical centre" to get above itself. They were almost all telling us the WFA had to go. It did, and was enormously unpopular.

Sam Freedman in his Substack, tried to set out what a post-Starmer future would look like, mostly concluding that not a lot would change, but there might be more emphasis on stuff that appeals to progressives.

[mattomac]

Would depend who the leader is though?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Wormald is a mandarin one is better off without. Mate of Gove...

[The Weeping Angel]

Would depend who the leader is though?

Possibly, he thinks the likeliest contender is Angela Rayner he sets out what she or he might do on immigration.

Likewise, on immigration it’s unlikely a new leader would completely reverse course. They would probably try to build on the existing deal “small boat” returns deal with France, and would keep many of the changes to legal migration rules that Yvette Cooper introduced when Home Secretary. But they could make a few tweaks to the harshest new rules to indicate a move away from the kind of performative hostility liberal voters find so unappealing. This could include scrapping some of the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain applications, that would make it harder for people to feel secure here.

Simply by avoiding painful attempts to triangulate in search of voters that are never going to support Labour, a new leader could strengthen their political position by winning back some support that’s gone to the Greens and Liberal Democrats. Starmer is so unpopular not because Tory and Reform voters dislike him – that would be true of any Labour leader – but because he’s lost so much support from his own bloc. Even Streeting, seen as the most “right-wing” of the plausible candidates would be significantly better at appealing to the average liberal voter.

https://samf.substack.com/p/after-starm ... dium=email

[The Weeping Angel]

John Woodcock draws parallels with what happened when James Purnell resigned.

[davidjay]

John Woodcock draws parallels with what happened when James Purnell resigned.

Has anyone pointed out that this came after a three-term government that was out on its feet and still only just lost?

[Tubby Isaacs]

James Purnell, crikey, there’s a political Titan. But he was at least in the Cabinet. Not one PPS has resigned this time.

“Rescue operation” here means not changing PM because nobody has resigned?

[Youngian]

Wasn't Purnell anointed as Blair's dauphin for about three months by whoever (can't remember)?
A Labour John Moore (older viewers may recall his rise which was that of a soggy paper plane rather than meteoric).

[Tubby Isaacs]

It was a pretty brief period which I didn't really notice till it was remarked upon afterwards. Strangely, Mr Purnell left Westminster just as he'd have got the chance to test the popularity of his brilliant ideas as leader of the party.