Mailwatch(ed) Forum

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?

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 2:04 pm
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 2:32 pm 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.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 2:49 pm The Guardian, apart from Heather Stewart and Nils Pratley, is Zack's comic these days.

Ain't it just.

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