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.

Well, it’s difficult to understand your meaning otherwise.

But, fine, let’s agree to disagree. Although quite what your point is that you think I’m disagreeing with is obscure.

Anyway, enjoy the beer!

Why is Major a good example from a Labour point of view?

If you don’t like dull PMs and want to ridicule them, at least be even handed. I thought Major was, personality-wise, an electoral liability for the Tories, not an asset.

Policies and judgement are different of course. But I hardly think Starmer’s judgement will go down in history as a triumph 🤭.

Those news outlets are not left wing, most media is right wing and I do think they’ve given Starmer a much harder time than any Tory leader would get, and don’t even get me started on how much air time they give to reform

Absolute nonsense…except for the excessive Reform screen time. But even then you’d have to accept that the party that’s been ahead in the polls should get a reasonable look in.

I do not for a moment think that Labour’s had it harder than the Tories did from the media. That is such rubbish.

And the Tories had to endure endless mass circulation of appalling lies on social media by the left about corruption and other supposed wrongdoing.

Not at all. From partygate onwards it was the same for the last gov.

Starmer just benefitted due to it so he obviously didn’t mind.

The problem is that we live in an era where personality politics dominates rather than competence. Politicians have to play more to the media; but the media itself is no longer trustworthy, funded and influenced by people with very definite agendas, and backed up by bots, which are extraordinarily successful at spreading extremist viewpoints.

All that means the political focus ends up being on the narrative and the brand; those savviest at navigating it are the most successful on a personal level (see Farage and Johnson), but conversely, those less focused on that and more on actually trying to govern the country get the worst press.

I don’t agree with a lot of things Labour and Starmer have done; I particularly think they’ve been far too timid and massively wasted the opportunity of their first two years when they could have pushed a lot more through. But I’m totally incensed by the likes of Streeting and Burnham stabbing him in the back and trying to play the personality game, when that is quite clearly not where the UK government should be focusing its energies right now.

But if it’s all about quiet unshowy competence, why should the country put up with a nasty incompetent man like Starmer who has the shittest possible judgement and is also an absolutely terrible communicator and frankly a dull arse?

Being uninspiring but good is one thing. Being uninspiring and completely useless is another.

Disagree most media outlets are right wing

The unshowy part isn’t the issue for him. It’s all the other stuff.

And they had a point !

No Major was always more popular personally than the Tories as a party. And you need to look at the quote history.

If Burnham becomes PM without even a leadership contest, the calls for a GE will be deafening. And rightly so, IMO. I know it’s our parliamentary system, but the whole thing feels arrogantly undemocratic. Burnham would be pm having engineered his way into the job, without the scrutiny party leaders get during a General Election campaign. I just don’t see how that gives him any real mandate. So if he does get put there, there should be a GE.

its embarrassing hearing newly elected Labour MPs saying things like “Starmer needs to reflect” or that the party needs to “debate policy”. For fuck’s sake, they’ve had years to sort yourselves out! People didn’t vote for MPs to spend their time having internal navel-gazing sessions, debating policy and direction, and joining the replace Starmer herd. They voted for them to get on with the job and represent their constituents. I get why people are angry with these MPs, it’s shameful behaviour.

The funny thing is, I actually quite like Burnham. But if anyone thinks he won’t flip-flop when it suits him, they’re in for a shock. Part of me hopes Starmer just says, “Right, I’m off then. Crack on, Andy,” and forces him in at the deep end but I don’t think he will because he will want to try to act in the country’s best interests, and try to contain the chaos.

And I’m still not buying this idea that everyone supposedly hates Starmer. Plenty of people are disappointed in him, but the level of visceral hatred you see talked about online feels exaggerated to me. I can’t help feeling a lot of it has been manufactured or amplified by the right-wing press. Even if you’re critical of him, some of the stuff you hear just doesn’t ring true.

I don't understand this recent moaning about it being 'undemocratic'. Changing PM between elections is completely normal - it's just the frequency has got a bit much! But it's a standard way to hand over power - Wilson to Callaghan, Thatcher to Major, Blair to Brown and these are not exceptions.

People seem not to understand our system. It's intended to facilitate this, for good reason. Burnham will still need to be mindful of the manifesto (as much as Starmer himself was anyway).

It isn't moaning, Burnham held on to his original job, obviously wasn't doing it as so much went into campaigning. How about "I know it’s our parliamentary system, but the whole thing feels arrogant"?

I don't understand all this moaning about the standard operation of the system.

Of course a politician can campaign for a different post. We live in a democracy.

As for arrogance - the voters of Makerfield had the choice to say no. It isn't arrogant to stand for election, it's just normal politics.

They have treated Keir really badly.
Not convinced of Burnham either op.

Yes.

Biological reality is essential..if a politician doesn't believe in biology then I can only assume they are a moron of the first order with disregard for the entire female population.

How can you believe in anything they 'believe' in when they do not believe in reality.

To be fair he has ficked the country over.

How?
The tories did that. What has Starmer done that's worse?

Worse than buying defective covid kit at inflated prices from your mates?
Worse than telling the country not to mingle whilst taking a mistress?
Worse than using your taxpayer funded offices for sex sessions with colleagues?
Worse than partying with suitcases of wine while people were dying- Some because of the defective kit?
Worse than using the British government to as a sales pitch to flog your father in laws AI technically to all and sundry?

What has Starmer done to fuck the country over?

I know it’s our system and I wrote it FEELS undemocratic. Difference with all those you mentioned is that they were already sitting MPs. An elected MP stood down for Burnham to stand, and we know the rest. It is an engineered situation. It is completely different to other leadership changes.

Yes, and now a Labour minister, Mike Tapp is saying: “Is it time to legislate if a change of leader is forced by its own party, then a general election must be called." So from within their ranks.

How has he done this, precisely?

I think there should be. Same as if an MP changes party mid term an by election should happen.

And earlier today Labour MP John Slinger “We're not choosing the captain of a tiddlywinks club. We're choosing a Prime Minister. Anyone who wants that office should face real scrutiny and set out a vision for the whole country. The public deserve nothing less”.

I’ve also heard ordinarily members of the Labour Party unhappy about what’s going on. Many support Starmer.

Labour being in government has made zero difference to when the tories were. Same shit different name.

I don't really buy the manufactured outrage. MPs giving up their seats for preferred candidates has been done by all parties in the past. You can argue about how democratic it is, but it's a case of, them's the rules. As for whether Burnham would be preferable to Starmer, I think KS has been very poor and has shown himself to be a clueless politician. As for Burnham, well obviously he is far from crowned at the moment anyway, but I'm not optimistic, but will keep an open mind.