Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Is there a mechanism for 'challenging' the leader of the Labour Party? Or would it take informal 'pressure' and a word in the Starmer's ear from whatever the Labour equivalent is of 'grandees'?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 6:11 pm Is this true? Sounds good. Perhaps Andy Burnham could step up and supply a load more extra childcare places?

He has his own brand of Trussonomics to pay for it

Could we, in future, refer to Burnham as the 'Northern Shithouse'?

You get beyond the bond markets by putting up taxes. What’ tax is he proposing to stick on Greater Manchester, or does London pay it all?

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 9:14 am Could we, in future, refer to Burnham as the 'Northern Shithouse'?

Burnham is capable of hard yards like raising the politically taboo subject of how to fund elderly social care in the future. This is why amatuer hour blabbering coming from him is more disappointing than it would if it came from Burgon or McDonnell.
As for bringing Corbyn into government when Russia is violating NATO airspace, don't get me started.

As if Burnham could just wander along and pick up a Westminster seat as easily as bobbing down to the Tesco local for a bag of sugar.

It strikes me as curious that Burnham's situation is more or less an exact parallel of Boris Johnson's rise to becoming his party's leader, and - disastrously - Prime Minister.

Johnson was the Mayor of London (and therefore ineligible under his party's rules to challenge for the leadership) when media speculation and the Tory rumour mill were working overtime to promote the idea of him returning to Westminster and displacing Theresa May as a winning leader. Precisely the same thing is now occurring in respect of Burnham.

Johnson lied (of course)that he would stand down as London mayor before seeking a Westminster seat. He won the nomination for the safe Tory seat of Uxbridge in 2014, while still in post as London mayor. Burnham has pledged to serve a full term as Manchester mayor.

Johnson was elected MP for Uxbridge at the 2015 general election, after which he set about undermining, then replacing, Theresa May as Tory leader and PM. Burnham speaks of challenging Starmer before the spring elections of 2026, but would need to win a Westminster by-election in order to do so - the next general election is not due until 2029. It is not clear where such a by-election might take place, nor even whether Burnham could rely on winning such a by-election.

So there it is. Burnham as leader instead of Starmer is both superficially attractive (to some), and in practical terms almost vanishingly unlikely to happen - bar Starmer deciding voluntarily to quit-(also highly unlikely).

My personal view is that the Burnham speculation is damaging to a party already struggling to recover electoral appeal after an underwhelming first 14 months. It is also, again in my view, grossly irresponsible on Burnham's part. The timing, just before conference, betrays a cynicism and raw ambition on Andy Burnham's part that I find somewhat repellant, if not quite as grim as that of Boris Johnson.

I can only hope this tripe puts a lot of potential supporters off. I see he’s floating tax cuts too. As Ian said, it’s Andy Truss.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 8:49 am Is there a mechanism for 'challenging' the leader of the Labour Party? Or would it take informal 'pressure' and a word in the Starmer's ear from whatever the Labour equivalent is of 'grandees'?

This article in The Staggers is quite helpful :

a challenge must be initiated by a declared candidate who can gather the support of fellow MPs. The threshold for a challenge was doubled in 2021 from 10 per cent to 20 per cent of the PLP, so 80 MPs in the current parliament.

A confidence vote without a designated challenger can be arranged, but it has no constitutional force. That is why Jeremy Corbyn was able to cling on in 2016 after a ballot in which 172-40 of the parliamentary party said they had no confidence in his leadership.

It is also why, ten years earlier, missives from Labour MPs telling Tony Blair he needed to go could damage but not remove him. From 2008 to 2010 Gordon Brown was constantly harried by the prospect of challenges that never gathered enough momentum to transition from press speculation to political reality.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... -challenge

Of course, a leadership contest could alternatively transpire in the circumstances you mention - an array of cabinet ministers persuading Starmer that he was finished and must step down. But I really don't see that happening.

I think Burnham would win a by-election in a safe seat with his name recognition and anti-Reform tactical voting.

But where does that leave his mayoralty? That would look pretty shit, and indeed Bozo like. Term ends in 2028.

Youngian wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 9:30 am
Burnham is capable of hard yards like raising the politically taboo subject of how to fund elderly social care in the future. This is why amatuer hour blabbering coming from him is more disappointing than it would if it came from Burgon or McDonnell.
As for bringing Corbyn into government when Russia is violating NATO airspace, don't get me started.

Corbyn can't even work with Zarah Sultana on current evidence. How's he going to work with a Labour Government?

Zack Polanski has gobshited about replacing Labour, which doesn't suggest great capacity for co-working either.

Andy Burnham unveils campaign song.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 9:49 am I think Burnham would win a by-election in a safe seat with his name recognition and anti-Reform tactical voting.

But currently, no such by-election exists, or is in the offing. One could be engineered, with a veteran left-ish MP being persuaded to stand down on (say) health grounds to leave the ground clear for Burnham, but it's quite hard to identify such a scenario. All very, very unlikely.

Under the regeneration plan that the prime minister will announce on Thursday, 330 deprived areas will receive tens of millions of pounds over a decade to be spent on renewal schemes. Officials say many of those areas will be in coastal communities, former coalfields and market towns – the kinds of places that voted heavily for Brexit and where Reform is performing strongly.

330 is rather a lot of places to share this money around. Will anyone notice? I mean, this is the right approach (when people were asked about leveling up under Bozo, this rather than new infrastructure was what they had in mind). We've had our (positively lunar) main road refurbished here. The Green councillor is taking credit for, it any local politician would. I doubt anyone apart from me and my wife are associating it with the Labour government.

The considerable political downside is that it suggests voting Reform works. If Farage is indeed serious about being the PM, he'll make that point. "They didn't care till I made them. I got the money into the area. Now vote for me to do the same with the whole country".

Abernathy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 10:25 am
But currently, no such by-election exists, or is in the offing. One could be engineered, with a veteran left-ish MP being persuaded to stand down on (say) health grounds to leave the ground clear for Burnham, but it's quite hard to identify such a scenario. All very, very unlikely.

Well, by-elections never exist till they exist. Wouldn't need to be somebody old and ill. I can see it being attractive to a no mark backbencher who got delusions about "speaking for Britain" (and would doubtless get assurances about a peerage). The way Andy's going he'll be saying "Speak for Britain" himself by next week.

I’m focussed on being Greater Manchester mayor., says bloke who’s just spoken about a load of stuff unrelated to being Greater Manchester Mayor.

Quite...

Here he is again being focussed on his mayoralty. Exclusive, eh? I bet that took real newshound skills for him to tell you this. This isn't journalism, this is a paper trying to bring down a Labour Prime Minister.

Andy Burnham calls two-child benefit limit the ‘worst of Westminster’
Exclusive: Greater Manchester mayor says policy introduced in 2017 is arbitrary and cannot be justified

I agree with him. Shame he's not so keen to propose £3.5bn tax rises to pay for it. Or perhaps he is, probably a London tax of some description. One tax he's talked about raising is a tourist tax. Reeves must be sorely tempted to bring that in at a national level so that she gets to spend it, not Andy who anticipates spending it himself. (This would be a bad idea, a devolved tourist tax to be spent locally is much better).

Is this the same Andy Burnham who mucked up the 2015 Leadership Election by equivocating on benefit cuts? I actually defended him that time, I think. Funny how he's become a straighter talker since then, mind.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 12:08 pm Quite...

In fairness, he is probably making a distinct point. The distinct point being "paid for by people who don't live in Greater Manchester".

It's a bad policy but not a particularly "Westminster bubble" one. It's popular, even among, a majority of Labour voters.

Possible candidate for standing down for Burnham is the whipless Andrew Gwynne in Gorton and Denton. The Galloway party got 10% last time, and could maybe get a bit more with Galloway himself running. Would Jez want to run here? Lots of Greens 13%, who I think would be squeezable by Burnham. Reform got about their national vote share last time (14%), with under 8% Tory for them to squeeze.

I'd make Burnham favourite. Trouble is that if he loses, that's it for him. Would he want to take that risk?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorton_an ... stituency)

I'm going to take a break for being annoyed with Burnham in a minute, honestly. Here's something he could be talking about if he's really focussed on his day job.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/comm ... tore-pride

Communities will be handed unprecedented new powers to seize boarded shops, save derelict pubs and block gambling and vape shops on their high street.
Prime Minister to announce “Pride in Place” Programme with historic funding to invest in over 330 of our most overlooked communities.
The measures form the largest transfer of power from Whitehall to communities in history through the Plan for Change.

Some useful stuff in here.

There's a danger that without a lot more money this falls flat and the trouble of talking up devolution and power of communities is that lots of people think that means stopping "asylum hotels" and railway lines and solar farms and new houses. Certain political parties (all of them apart from the Government) will connive in this obvious fiction.

Do I see betting shops there? I thought that this wouldn't happen because of "lobbying".