To think Keir Starmer might resign tomorrow (Monday)

[Viviennemary]

I think he might. But who knows. He must know he can't possibly stay until the next General Election. It's very disrespectful to the electorate to not listen.

Of course this is one of the more obvious political situations, I’m not sure why it’s being disputed at this point.

Starmer and co blocked him due to leadership threat.

I think it might be your post that doesn't age well, not that I think it is a good for thing for us to be dealing with this level of turmoil. Time will tell.

Burnham might not win a bi-election (I think he would have done a few weeks ago had he been allowed to stand) so there is no clear path to a Burnham PM-ship.

Your example does indeed p prove my suggestion. It’s the rule that all comments go through the chair.

Except they didn’t. They simply didn’t change the rules/conventions to allow him to risk the Labour mayoralty in order to stand to be an MP. It would be a stupid risk to take. Did it have the side effect of not risking a Burnham challenege to Starmer? Sure. But remember the Labour Party members have rejected him twoce already. That’s why he stopped being an MP and ran for mayor.

They were not being asked to change any rules or conventions. There were no rules or conventions involved other than the one requiring Burnham to get the NEC's permission to stand, and they were not being asked to change that. They were blocking him simply to protect Starmer. Their cover story was that this was to avoid the expense of a mayoral election - nothing to do with your fantasy about rules. But the reality is that it was all about protecting Starmer.

Yep. Hence Angela Rayner saying it was the wrong thing to do.

He absolutely can do it without changing the rules, they just need to not block him through votes.

By the way, the rule used to block Burnham was introduced last year. Before that, Burnham would not have needed anyone's permission to stand for parliament. Starmer and his supporters on the NEC introduced the rule that directly elected mayors and PCCs needed NEC permission to run for parliament so that they had a mechanism to stop Burnham.

If that is true I think it just sums Starmer up in a nutshell

This debate about what led the NEC to block Burnham is a bit unreal.

Of course Burnham was blocked by Starmer because Starmer didn’t want him within 200 miles of Westminster. The “you must see out your mayoralty” reason is transparently got up and bogus.

It does. He’s fixated on stopping him.

BBC and Sky news seems to think Wes Streeting supporters are expecting a challenge tommorow - he seems to be under some pressure to make one from his supporters.

I read earlier that the SNP had tabled a last minute request for a vote of no confidence in Starmer to go into the Kings speech. Not sure if this happened. He's toast. But I've been saying that for days and he's still clinging on.

According to the Chief Political Correspondent for the Times:

Wes Streeting has told allies that he is preparing to resign and trigger a leadership contest as soon as tomorrow.

The health secretary confronted Sir Keir Starmer this morning during a meeting ahead of the King’s Speech that lasted just 16 minutes over the turmoil engulfing the Labour Party.

Allies of Streeting who have spoken to him directly said that he has made clear that he is “going to go for it”. They said that he is likely to resign on Thursday and mount a formal challenge for the leadership.

One Streeting ally who has spoken to him said: “He is going to go for it. He’s going tomorrow.”

Discussions have also been held to prepare for MPs to sign Streeting’s nomination papers, according to one of those with knowledge of the plans.

Another who has spoken to him said that claims by Starmer’s allies that he has “bottled it” are wide of the mark and that he made clear in private that he will make a bid for the leadership.

A third senior source organising for Streeting said: “If they [Starmer’s supporters] think this is over, they’re going to be disappointed. I’m expecting a move before the end of the week.”

A spokesman for Streeting said: “Wes is the Health Secretary, he is proud of his record of falling waiting lists and a recovering NHS. He is not planning to say anything following his meeting with the Prime Minister that might distract from the King’s Speech.”

Note that the comment from Streeting's spokesman is definitely not a denial.

I doubt that will succeed. Labour MPs may want Starmer to go, but I doubt they will vote against the government in a confidence vote. That would likely trigger a general election rather than dislodge Starmer.

Maybe Burnham can run in a possible Clacton by-election?

I think you misunderstood my use of the term "hanging on". I was responding to a previous poster who had said that Starmer was not hanging on, it was only a few MPs causing trouble. That poster was clearly using "hanging on" in the "hanging on by a thread" sense, so I responded the same way.

I don't know if Starmer will survive but, with so many MPs wanting him to go, he has been severely damaged.

This is getting tiresome. The rule was he needed permission. He didn’t get it. Neither would anyone else in that situation. If it’s a foregone conclusion people get it then there wouldn’t be a necessity to ask. One more MP, whoever it was, wasn’t worth the risk of losing Manchester to Reform. Or the reputational damage to both Burnham and the Labour Party of him promising to serve a full term then buggering off when he thought he could see a better career path. Of course the fact he was prepared to makes him unsuitable to be PM (or an MP really) and anyway Party members have already rejected him twice.

He’d probably win if he went for it this time, Starmer is likely aware of that.

This is getting tiresome.

Yes, your increasingly fantastical attempts to deny reality are getting tiresome.

Neither would anyone else in that situation. If it’s a foregone conclusion people get it then there wouldn’t be a necessity to ask.

Your second sentence is the important one. If Labour had wanted a blanket ban on directly elected mayors running for parliament, they could have put that in the rules and it would have been entirely lawful. They did not. Instead, they said that directly elected mayors wishing to run for parliament must get permission from the NEC. That means there is no blanket ban. The NEC must consider each application on its merits. And, if the answer is always no after careful consideration, the courts would say that they were operating an unlawful blanket ban.

But you have completely failed to see the logic of what you have just written. You insisted that Burnham was not blocked from returning to parliament. If the rules prevented him from returning as you tried to claim, you would be right. However, they do not. The NEC had the option of giving him permission. They chose not to do so. Burnham was therefore blocked. You can argue about the reasons - you appear to be one of the few people who actually believe the publicly stated reasons, whereas most believe the rule requiring Burnham to get permission was brought in last year to protect Starmer from challenges and that is why he was blocked. But your original position that Burnham was not blocked is clearly contrary to the facts.

You keep stating mayors without clarifying that mayors do not need permission to resign but if they wish to stand for the Labour Party then Labour may have a say over that. This is nothing to do with the position of Mayor.

It has to do with be8ng a Labour mayor I’ve never said it’s about mayors in general. But people keep wilfully misunderstanding. I’m out.

You have only ever stated ‘Mayors’ - so mayors in general - not ‘Labour Mayors’. Labour mayors are still allowed to resign if they so wish.

Can I introduce you to the concept of context?
Hiding this thread now.

From The Spectator.

The Private Eye cover is a lot more classy and funny