[Tubby Isaacs]

In fairness to her, she's quite positive about what the Government is doing, so seems to be about "getting the message out". Starmer's certainly failed to do that, but how easy is anyone else going to find it, right now? One of the first tasks is going to be explaining why lots of people haven't had energy support payments (with Nigel, Zack, Ed and Kemi all telling them that they should have got it). They'll get told by Farage and Badenoch that Labour gave all the money to Vicky Pollard, and by Zack that the rich have taken all the money, and by Ed that there's some easy EU deal that can pay for it all.

But it's painful stuff otherwise. Why didn't she at least wait for the speech she says she's going to be listening to?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Translation: his favoured candidate might not win.

I don't think they even have a candidate. He presumably means Burnham, who they all rejected as a Blairite sell-out when Jez was running.

What's Starmer supposed to say? "I'm resigning as soon as Andy Burnham can get into Parliament"? This "orderly transition" stuff never works. See Jim Callaghan in 1980.

[Abernathy]

Right. So tomorrow night, there is the weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, which I would expect Starmer to address. There is a vague rumour around that Starmer may decide to do a John Major style "put up or shut up" move and put himself forward voluntarily for re-election as leader/PM, inviting challengers (while expecting/knowing there will be none) in an effort to silence the calls for him to resign. This would probably not follow directly the prescription in the rule book, which says a leader must be elected when a vacancy arises by an electoral college of one third PLP, one third affiliates, and one third membership, but would need to be something like the vote of confidence/ no confidence conducted by the PLP in respect of Jeremy Corbyn in 2016 (which Corbyn overwhelmingly lost but simply ignored) with a commitment by Starmer to stand down and enable a formal leadership contest should he lose the confidence vote. I regard this as highly unlikely, though not impossible. Tomorrow is also Catherine West's chosen "deadline" for cabinet members to accede to her exhortation to demand Starmer's resignation, as well as for West to have gathered the 81 nominations from her fellow MPs to challenge Starmer herself - which I do not think she is remotely likely to get.

But after all that bollocks comes the King's Speech on Wednesday. A brand new legislative programme and a chance to be bolder and better, and transform the electoral fortunes of the party and the leader. I regard this as by far the more favourable, and the more likely to happen, of the events of the next week.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Andrea Egan's called for sectoral bargaining across the whole economy. That works well in the Netherlands, but it probably wouldn't encourage UK investment in the short term. This is fixed by "standing up to markets", as she puts it.

She also wants the "Treasury's block on investment" removed. Reeves changed the rules on that ages ago.

Unions used to keep Labour sensible. Seems like that's not going to happen any more.

[Boiler]

So determined are they to push their agenda, the Grauniad has decided to allow a BTL bitchfest - on a Sunday.

God, I fucking hate scribblers.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Guardian, apart from Heather Stewart and Nils Pratley, is Zack's comic these days.

[Boiler]

There is a vague rumour around that Starmer may decide to do a John Major style "put up or shut up" move and put himself forward voluntarily for re-election as leader/PM, inviting challengers (while expecting/knowing there will be none) in an effort to silence the calls for him to resign.

I have wondered if Starmer could potentially do this.

[Boiler]

The Guardian, apart from Heather Stewart and Nils Pratley, is Zack's comic these days.

Ain't it just.

[mattomac]

Have to say Catherine West really is an idiot. Sorry but she is.

[Boiler]

I see Rayner's now flapping her gums for Burnham.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yekp5j36zo

Angela Rayner has warned that Labour faces its "last chance" after heavy election losses this week, as she backed Andy Burnham to return to Westminster.

In a statement following Labour's disastrous performance at the polls, the former deputy prime minister said the party had been wrong to block the Greater Manchester mayor from standing as an MP earlier this year.

Rayner, seen as a potential contender to replace Sir Keir, called on him to "meet the moment" with bolder action to make people feel better off.

Rayner? A potential contender? Do fuck off, she'd be bloody useless.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Why?

[Abernathy]

Why?

Poor judgement? Is it really a sensible thing to announce a (non-serious) challenge for the Labour leadership 3 days before a King’s speech ? In the almost certain knowledge that she cannot garner the required 80 fellow PLP members to launch such a challenge ? And apparently with no consideration of the negative repercussions,for the party and thek country, of the protracted months of navel-gazing that a Labour leadership contest always entails ?

Just a rough guess.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Rayner warns Starmer to change direction as Streeting preparing leadership bid

Except that Streeting isn't preparing a bid when you read the article. And he's disowned Catherine West.

One ally of Streeting told the Guardian: “Wes isn’t going to challenge Keir but he is preparing in case it all falls apart.”

Streeting is understood to have delivered this same message to No 10 but he will not be the first to make a move against the prime minister. The health secretary’s supporters believe he has demonstrated fighting spirit after his local Redbridge council was retained by Labour.

Did anyone actually say that last bit there?

[The Weeping Angel]

I've observed that those who want Starmer gone have never really set out what they would do differently beyond vague platitudes like govern competently. That's easier said than done when you've got the media on your case, willing to blow up the slightest thing.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Rayner? A potential contender? Do fuck off, she'd be bloody useless.

Her tax failing was something easilydone, but the fact remains she underpaid tax by quite a lot when buying an expensive property. Her contribution to "at least Farage isn't a hypocrite" is pretty substantial.

She was in the Cabinet till fairly recently. Did she share any of these "bold policies to make people feel better off"? She could share them now, if she didn't. I'm all ears. Perhaps Andy Burnham has told her some.

By all means, say "Keir's shit at presentation and has a couple of policies that he should junk". But this "make everyone better off now" is doing the media's job for them. Does she think for a minute that the Tories would have been expected to do this?

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've observed that those who want Starmer gone have never really set out what they would do differently beyond vague platitudes like govern competently. That's easier said than done when you've got the media on your case, willing to blow up the slightest thing.

I think they could reasonably say they'd at the very least tone down some of the Mahmood stuff, which hasn't pleased anybody. There shouldn't be any changes to the rights of people already here. Perhaps some of the more contentious mergers of council areas could be revisited. Beyond that, I don't know what they mean, that doesn't come back to chucking more money about. Failing that, as someone BTL in another place said, there's no guarantee that whoever replaces Reeves and Starmer doesn't cut back on climate investment. Or do other short term stuff like cutting water bills by cutting investment.

[Oboogie]

Any potential candidate proposing policy changes will need a mandate from the electorate if they plan to ditch the manifesto they stood on two years ago.
Hands up who thinks Labour would win a GE right now?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Sir Keir couldn't have been clearer that it was a long haul in the election. Yet he'd barely been there a few months and already it was "where's the change, eh?" I'm not really sure what they expect after 22 months. You'd think big increases in the minimum wage, settling public sector strikes, lots more money for poor children would count, but apparently it doesn't. The recipients of the biggest pay settlement were back on strike a year later, and the government were bastards again.

George Osborne wasn't very popular in 2012, but the reaction to him wasn't like this with Reeves. The deficit targets were being missed, services were being cut, and VAT went up to 20%- contrary to promises before the election. I don't recall Osborne being any better at communicating that Reeves either.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Any potential candidate proposing policy changes will need a mandate from the electorate if they plan to ditch the manifesto they stood on two years ago.
Hands up who thinks Labour would win a GE right now?

Well, indeed. Some of those people don't care at all about any sort of mandate- if Labour members decide something, it's what everybody gets because they really want it. And, as we've said before on here, they think that the world more widely has to obey them. See Andrea Egan today, "stand up to markets".

[mattomac]

Labour lost because Andy Burnham was blocked.

Ok Angela….