How stupid are Labour MPs?!

[JoyousOpalLemur]

One after the other on the BBC this morning, all but one patting themselves on the back and almost dancing for how clever they are that they're forcing Starmer to resign so that Burnham will be coronated the new PM.

They all think they've got the new Boris.

Maybe he is, but it didn't work out very well for him - or for us - did it?

Starmer stood for leader once, won by a landslide, and then won a landslide general election. Burnham has stood for leader twice before, and got trounced both times. Winning a mayoral election in a Labour heartland is hardly a remarkable achievement.

They all seem to think Burnham will unite the left, but he hasn't given one policy idea that will appeal to left wing voters.

Starmer is a decent man. I don't regret voting for him. Burnham is an actor who says anything that he thinks will make him popular. I know who I'd rather have.

Agreed. They think there is something fundamentally wrong with Starmer but they forget he was popular before the RAGE MACHINE of right wing social media crucified him for breathing.

Oh, come on! Starmer has never been 'popular'. Not with the media, not with the public, and generally, not on MN either.

Poor Rishi was just as culpable as the rest of the tory lot through covid. Not just one, bit two PCN while Pm for thinking the law didn't apply to him.

Using tax avoidance measures along with his wife to avoid his fair share.

Using the Office of PM to publicise his in laws business by flogging tech to all and sundry.

Poor Rishi can get to fuck

I've posted about this 'Corbyn got more votes' thing before - going back to it now because I still think it's misunderstood. One, it doesn't fit with how our voting system works. Corbyn led Labour piled up more votes than before in constituencies they already held, like parts of Merseyside and London, but that didn't win them more seats. Their vote in other seats was the same or lower which is why, in spite of the higher overall vote share, Labour trailed the Tories by some way in terms of seats won. Like it or not, that's our FPTP system and you have to win it before you can change it. The Starmer led Labour victory of 2024 was a much more efficient vote (as one of the pundits put it on results night) where they won a lot more seats, not by massive margins in all cases but enough to give them a thumping majority.

Secondly, this matters because it shows a broader base of support, if relatively shallow, around the country rather than fervent support in some areas but equivalent strong dislike in others. This is important with Burnham incoming because he's expected to command support on home turf as 'King of the North' but the most effective way to win a GE is with broader appeal. Will he win over voters in the south east, Wales and so on? Simply looking at vote share doesn't tell us.

Totally agree OP

Thanks @letsallchant you have put this very well. In this regard, I have also raised re: how will Andy fare in the south? But, sadly didn't get a good discussion.

"Poor Rishi" lost the Tories 3 million votes being the freelancers/self employed he excluded from the covid support schemes, many of whom would have been natural Tory voters, being self employed. If that wasn't bad enough, he lied in Parliament about it and produced flawed figures trying to demonstrate that people weren't excluded or that they were excluded because they were rich. Utter bollocks and he knew it. Some of his exclusions were utterly unfair and illogical - presumably he didn't understand what he was doing and couldn't be arsed to check it out even when the facts had been presented to him! 3 million people is a lot of votes to lose.

@Badbadbunny 3 million people is a lot of votes to lose.

Yes, it is - I didn't know the implications of those exclusions. My MP alone lost 17,000 votes.

The conservatives have a mountain to climb to win back votes. They do seem in the wilderness just now

This 100%. Corbyn loved the adulation of talking to his fan base. He has demonstrated how ineffectual he is with Your Party when he set up his own party and still managed to make a shit show out of it.

lol at ‘ your party’! It died a death before it even warmed up. There was one on the go with Ruth Davison and someone else ‘ the alternative tories ‘ or some such. They never get off the ground do they

How stupid is anyone to denigrate someone who may be the next prime minister, within days of it becoming apparent, when they actually have no idea whether it will be bad or not. He is nothing like Boris.

Starmer is a nice man, but he is a terrible politician and a terrible leader. He doesn’t lead, he doesn’t get involved in the actual politics, he hasn’t been speaking to any of the departments, he doesn’t stand for anything.

He won by a landslide both as leader and in the election because he was a warm body that would get rid of the tories. Nobody really voted for him because they wanted him.

I’ll also add, Corbyn ran the campaign of a lifetime, policies full of popular giveaways, reaching young voters, it was the kind of campaign that should have been highly effective. He lost to May who didn’t even campaign, barely spoke during the run up to the election and even sent someone else to debate.

Agreed. And it makes me so angry that democracy has been so utterly disrespected by the media and the rest of the Labour Party. None of them are perfect and maybe the electorate wanted "Mr Rules" when they voted him in so emphatically.

The idealistic part of me used to really like Andy Burnham but he's just shown himself to be treacherous and self-serving and not even his lashes can redeem him in my eyes.

The rest of the world must be pissing themselves.

I agree, cannot stand the he’s boring no personality chat about Starmer, if I want entertainment I could go to the theatre, I want the ship steadied thank you and I want a steady responsible adult in charge and if them makes them “ boring “ so be it.
I think Starmers team and Labour should have shouted more about his successes.
I also think that it’s a double edged sword as as much as I like Andy he’s not the new messiah and has no magic wand to wave over the fluctuating economy, no one has no matter what reform say.

'Britain's first female chancellor to be offered more junior role'.

That's a headline today.

Labour look ridiculous for making a big thing of having a female chancellor less than two years ago now.

Labour look ridiculous for making a big thing of having a female chancellor less than two years ago now.
I don't think so. It shouldn't be a big deal but women generally don't get the top jobs.
The level of misogyny directed towards Ms Reeves has been shocking.
The comments I heard about Mrs May shocked me. Someone described her as 'an old woman' when she was PM. She was 59 when she became PM.
A male politician a few months short of 60 would not be described as 'old man'.

👌

Reeves is incompetent and a liar. The criticism she gets is nothing to do with her sex.

I disagree @Badbadbunny .

@Gtfto2024 Using tax avoidance measures along with his wife to avoid his fair share.

This is not correct.
Rishi Sunak did not avoid any tax.

From the BBC
His wife, the Indian billionaire Akshata Murty, was claiming non-domicile (or “non-dom”) status, meaning she did not have to pay UK taxes on income she earned elsewhere.
However she did change her tax arrangements - (From the BBC)
But she told the BBC she did not want to be a "distraction" for her husband.
Her decision to change her tax arrangements follows accusations of hypocrisy against the chancellor, with opposition parties saying Mr Sunak's family is benefiting at a time when the cost of living is going up.
The BBC estimates Ms Murty would have avoided £2.1m a year in UK tax through her non-dom status.
Ms Murty said her tax arrangements had been "entirely legal", but added: "It has become clear that many do not feel it is compatible with my husband's role as chancellor.
"I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family."

Would you agree to pay more tax if you didn't have to?
No, I thought not.

Would you agree to pay more tax if you didn't have to?
No, I thought not

I'm not a selfish arse. If I was a multi millionaire then I would certainly not be paying financial advisors to avoid paying tax. I would not live in one country while claiming non dom status to avoid paying tax.

You are wrong in your assertion. I believe that paying tax to contribute to a functioning society is a good thing.

Don't judge others by your own poor standards.

Also, see the lies told about Jeremy Hunt’s stamp duty evasion, and all the lies about Tory government Covid contract corruption.

(Before anyone shouts “Mone!”, she was never in government, had the whip removed by the Tories, and the Tories started civil proceedings to recover the money from her two years before Labour took office.)

You are mistaken.

Mrs Sunak paid tax on her overseas earnings in her own country.
To be registered as "non-dom" she had to make a one-off payment of £30,000

If I was a multi millionaire then I would certainly not be paying financial advisors to avoid paying tax.
Why not?
I'm in business and use financial advisers to ensure I pay the minimum amount of tax. That's quite legal. Anyone in business who doesn't employ a Financial Adviser is an idiot and won't last in business very long.

You are wrong in your assertion. I believe that paying tax to contribute to a functioning society is a good thing.
So do I but I don't pay any more tax than I have to.

Don't judge others by your own poor standards.
No need to get snippy because your "politics of envy" are showing.

It is a bit weird that some people rail against managing tax efficiently. The whole point of a tax system is to raise money in some ways and give tax relief in others.

If you want to go down that road, we could mention "Free Gear Kier" who had a millionaire pay for his glasses and his wife's frocks. Angela Rayner and her Capital Gains Tax debacle (and other tax fiascos).
Rachel Reeves doesn't smell too good with her CV that seems to be "economical with the truth"

It's all revealed here -
https://order-order.com/2025/02/18/in-full-labours-long-list-of-sleaze-and-scandal-since-coming-to-office/