To think Starmer will be gone by the end of Friday? Or will it be Monday evening?

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Whoever you are voting for today, it's probably not Labour - they might loose 2,000 seats.

How long exactly will it be before he resigns?

Today........

The NEC is controlled by Starmer. It is unlikely they will allow Burnham to stand for any seat until Starmer decides he is stepping down. That is why the preferred approach of Burnham's supporters is to get Starmer to set a timetable for his departure that allows enough time for Burnham to get back into parliament.

As far as the current challenge goes, I'm not convinced West will get enough backers to allow her to trigger a contest. If she does, Starmer would win but would probably be seriously damaged, just as happened to Thatcher when she was challenged by a joke candidate in 1989 (Sir Anthony Meyer).

West clearly wants someone else to move against Starmer. The question is whether any of the serious candidates feels this is the right time for them.

Burnham is a better bet, he currently has a poll premium. Whether he can get a safe seat, through the NEC and that premium holds is still a question.

But I can see why his allies want him to have the time to get in place.

Agreed - I’m increasingly of the view Starmer remains a limp dick PM, until Burnham is able to run, or Streeting/Miliband makes a move.

Oh profound joy for us in the interim.

It’s shocking it’s come to this. Two years ago they’d not have even considered burnham, who simply doesn’t have the knowledge, skill set, experience, or even ability to suddenly leap frog to pm. It just shows how bad it is in Labour this is one of their best hopes.

it is so bad, it’s not even a decade they will be out of power next time, it will be forever, and the two main parties will be reform and Tory.

Just to understand, can Starmer block him again, via the NEC?

I thought that had changed, and they wouldn’t next time. But not completely sure on that.

Re Starmer personally idk I’d assume they each just get a vote.

Thanks - I would be quite happy if Starmer were to attempt another blocking motion…

That bodes well for Burnham.

No, it hasn't changed. Starmer controls the NEC so is likely to continue blocking Burnham until Starmer sets out a timetable for stepping down.

Glad you joined us - jump in - the water’s lovely!

I don’t mean the process, I mean the specific question on whether the PM can veto votes.

Looking it up he doesn’t get to block votes, he has allies but they might not follow if Burnham comes up again.

Technically, Keir Starmer does not have a unilateral "veto" to block votes in the Labour Party; however, he can exert significant control through the National Executive Committee (NEC). As the party's leader, he is a voting member of the NEC, and his allies currently hold a majority on the body, allowing him to effectively "block" candidates or decisions by winning majority votes

Starmer does not have a unilateral veto but, given that the NEC is packed with his supporters, it would be very surprising if they allowed Burnham to stand as an MP given that he hasn't exactly been subtle about his leadership ambitions. That is why the preferred option for the Burnham camp is for Starmer to set out a timetable for his departure. That would take away the reason for the NEC to block him. Of course, even if this happens, there is no guarantee that he would win a by-election, no matter how safe the seat in which he was standing, so the obstacles to him becoming leader are huge.

I don't really get the whole Burnham will save Labour thing. Seems to be totally artificially generated coming from Burnham and tame media outlets!! He is not even in parliament, and he may not win a by-election. I guess there might be a total stitch up where the backbencher in the safest seat resigns in exchange for a place in the Lords. But maybe that in itself may cause a backlash.

I can only see bad news coming for the UK for the next 3 years (currency crisis anyone?) which would obviously stick to Burnham if he were in now. Maybe Labours best bet would be to let further bad news stick to Starmer and swap him out 6 months before the election with the message that Labour are going in a very different direction.

I expect he will be gone, due to incredibly irresponsible behaviour from Catherine West.

I’m no great Starmer fan, but who else in the Labour Party is really competent enough to be PM? I might not be thrilled with the policies introduced under Starmer, but any alternative leader would be more left-leaning, and Starmer is at least respected on the international stage which is good for Britain.

It’s also bad for our economy and international reputation to keep flip flopping between PMs.

So I don’t want Starmer gone, but I expect Catherine West will now have roused enough unrest within the party that others will stand and challenge Starmer’s leadership.

Ideally they’d all leave Catherine West to stand against Starmer, a contest she’d inevitably lose as a nobody MP.

I think that’s what has changed. They wouldn’t vote the same way. Although hard to know for sure without testing it.

I think with more saying a timetable needs to be put in place they’d switch by now.

But surely - SURELY Gordon Brown and HH will save us all now?! what a fucking mess for Labour, I knew they would be shit - but even I didn’t think it would be THIS shit!

It’s not just West who will do it.

Labour MP Josh Simons has been highly critical of Prime Minister Keir Starmer's leadership, stating that Starmer has "lost the country" and is "stuck in a politics of incrementalism".

In a recent article in The Times, he argued that Labour risks "marching towards extinction" and that the party's actions "do not meet the moment".

One of tne biggest hurdles as I understand it is the fact that he doesn’t want to right now, not now he’s seen the results. Neither does raynor. They have all just realised how big a shit show it is.

But instead of focusing on resolving it, they have descended into infighting, panic and running for cover. It’s every man or woman saving their own skin. Labour can’t win the next election at this point and burnham knows it.

They are in there attacking Starmer and suggesting each other to do it, none of them are saying I will. It’s get Starmer out and get him or her to do it, whilst him or her is giving it fuck off, I’m not doing it, you do it.

they also know it is overwhelmingly likely if burnham stood for mp the public would turn out in force to vote and block him and he’d lose. Thus no longer being mayor and no longer being an mp. He would lose his livelihood. None of them want to risk losing their jobs and the cash they get from those jobs.

so Starmer will stay until they think they are more popular and the are guaranteed to still have a job at the end of it.

Yes, but it is Catherine West who has formally triggered this leadership contest. The first commentary post-local elections came from Bridget Phillipson giving her support to Starmer. The official position was clearly that he wouldn’t be stepping down, until Catherine West stuck her oar in.

She has now opened the floodgates for others to contest the leadership, potentially extending our run of political instability. It is frankly embarrassing internationally, and bad for us as a country, to have such an incredibly high turnover of PMs.

Josh Simons is obviously mouthing off out of spite after effectively being forced to resign from his ministerial position following some pretty dodgy behaviour. When he was leader of the think tank Labour Together, the organisation hired the PR firm APCO Worldwide to investigate journalists who had written critical stories about the think tank’s undeclared donations. So he has a vested interest in criticising Starmer.

Again, I’m not a Starmer fan. I just think this leadership contest is a media circus which won’t benefit our country.

Well that’s politics. They’re concerned Starmer in place gives rise to Reform. Looking at the votes they’re not wrong.

The thing is, if someone else becomes Prime Minister now. They are will be just as unpopular as Starmer is now by the time the next election comes.

Why would they? There’s three years left to start addressing some of the issues people clearly care about - there’s already been a start on immigration and the NHS, there’s time for a coherent strategy to get young people into work. A new PM could be transformative and deliver some of things those of us who voted for this government in 2024 thought we were getting.

No, we won't know for sure without testing it, but I can't see any reason why a group of Starmer loyalists would allow Burnham to stand, nor can I see anything that indicates they have changed their minds.

I think Thursday’s results might have focused their minds.