AIBU to think the Prime Minister cannot stay in post?

[Bertiebiscuit]

So our Prime Minister is doing what he does best - blaming someone else for his own mistakes. But i really think he's done for this time - if he didn't know he's incompetent, if he did know he's lying to Parliament and the whole country. Either way i don't see how he can expect to keep his job. It's frightening how little he cared for Mandelson 's cosying up to a sex abuser, paedophile and human trafficker.

I've already given my answer - read my previous post.

No you haven't answered my question. You stated a 'wild card' and Andy Burnham. But enough already. Unless we are members of the Labour Party we have no say anyway.

Theoretically, but realistically no, a non MP would never be PM.

If you think the calls for Starmer to go are loud.....!

Er no. I think he is a leader with integrity who despite the need to send someone to deal with the orange clown, would never have appointed him had he been fully aware of the facts.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-controversies-timeline-why-resign-b2260174.html

gamerchick · Today 17:26
This is a bloke who stood up to the biggest bully we've had the misfortune to clap eyes on and said no. That takes stones. Just let him do his bloody job and stop constantly whining.
THIS^

FFS get a grip and look seriously at our future and what we are really facing and stop all this shrieking and nonsense about SKS. Let him do his job.

Are you saying that the Labour Party don't want to help Britain? 🤔🤷

Stop being so ridiculous and open your eyes. Starmer needs to go.

I really really don't like him. He has done a lot of harm to my family because of his idealogical policies. He has misled parliament and shown himself to be weak and self interested. He appointed someone as ambassador who was sacked twice before, where was his judgement? BUT I still don't think it is in the best interests of the country for him to go. We need stability, if the PM changes lots of the ministers change, and we're back to square one. I want them to get their heads down and get on with their bloody jobs, learn some economic sense and pull together. But more likely we'll lurch through this, then lurch through the may elections, there'll be a pointless reshuffle at some point and loads of in fighting. I can't stand it.

Agreed but it has actually happened several times - ie the Duke of Wellington. It even happened last century with Sir Alec Douglas-Home in the 1960s, although he did then stand in a by-election as PM (and won it).

We very nearly had a non-MP as leader during WW2 - Lord Halifax was seen as more likely to get the job but it surprisingly went to Churchill instead.

Exactly.

I think he'll stay until the the May elections and then fall on his sword.
Labour have two weeks to choose a successor.

Good historical knowledge!

previous incumbents didn't seem to want that. Truss and her markets and of course Brexit, migrants etc.

Thought you were talking about Boris but realised you left out Russian friends and failing vetting when Foreign Secretary and being sacked twice plus all the chaos around him. Starmer hasn't hid in the fridge (yet)

What? This is a pathetic post.

I'm tired of this whole pathetic Mandelson drama. Yeah let's set fire to ourselves because the other fires in the world today aren't battering us enough.

Who would be a better replacement for Starmer, right now? No matter how he has conducted himself, is it worth the upheaval to the common person and their pocket? I don't even vote for Labour, I'm just so tired of this crap.

History now sees Lord Halifax as an accomplice of Neville Chamberlain and 'peace in our time'.

Presumably so Der Fuhrer Nige gets in.

It's (not very good) code for "Reform are going to save us!" 🤢

The only things they want to save are their own wallets...

Would that be the David Lammy who thinks transwomen, aka men, can grow a cervix?

Why?

In answer to your question, of course he can stay in post...

Assuming Chris Wormald's testimony tomorrow doesn't contradict Starmer's, I really don't see that Starmer has done anything that would require him to step down.

Is he a good PM? Ehhh...

• on world affairs, he's been very good.

• domestically, I think his instincts are fine for the most part but he hasn't been able to persuade his own party of that, leaving the UK's direction pretty unclear.

• if part of the PM's job is to maintain popularity in order to get reelected, he has been an abject failure. Yes, he's up against a hostile press and is trying to be the sensible centrist in an age where voters seem to be increasingly polarized, and you'd have to be an amazing communicator to overcome that...but he's a terrible one.

Given the other options, I'm happy with him as PM in the short-term - unfortunately, it is near impossible to see anything but a brutal loss at the next GE for Labour if there isn't a change in leader. Badenoch and Farage would each be an absolute disaster so, ultimately, I think I reluctantly want Starmer to make an exit at some point over the next year or so.

ultimately, I think I reluctantly want Starmer to make an exit at some point over the next year or so.

I think Labour would be sensible to free up Andy Burnham when the Mayoral election comes round in 2028, or have him go for a by election seat in 2027, bringing forward the Mayoral election if that's possible.

I just can't see anyone else in Labour being capable enough to either bring people back to Labour or fend off Reform.

I'm not a Labour supporter but think Burnham's done a decent job, and has gained good experience in Gtr Manchester.

Tbh everyone is missing decent quality politicians. What's happened to them all?

Johnson failed the vetting as Foreign Secretary - but the media are so bloody pro Tory, it didn't even get a mention yet alone cause May's or Johnson's downfall. Get some balance please.