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.

Earlier this week it was being reported that Streeting would launch his challenge today. However, there are still rumours suggesting he does not have the numbers to do so. He is a better communicator than Starmer, but it is not clear if he would be different in other ways. The soft left and left view him as continuity Starmer and don't want him. He is the least transfer friendly of all the likely candidates, so unlikely to win unless it is just him vs Starmer.

Burnham is the favoured candidate of many in the party, but he is not an MP so is not currently eligible to run. Yesterday, two seats were being floated as ones where the existing MP would be willing to stand down to allow Burnham to get back into parliament. One of the MPs involved has specifically denied that he would stand down for Burnham, and it is by no means certain that Burnham would win either seat if he did run. His naked ambition over the last few months has been an unedifying spectacle. He has run for the leadership twice before and proved to be a poor candidate on both occasions. His comments about the bond markets and suggestions from his supporters that the bond markets would have to fall in line with Burnham's agenda shows a detachment from reality. Governments fall into line with the bond markets, not the other way round. If the government wasn't so heavily in debt (£2.9 trillion and rising, the highest level relative to GDP since the 1960s) it may be able to ignore the bond markets, but that is not where we are.

The announcement that Rayner has cleared her issues with HMRC makes her a possible candidate. My view is that she would be a disaster as PM. Her history suggests a carelessness and lack of judgement which is not a good look for a PM. I don't think she has gravitas. And she has almost no track record in the economy, defence and foreign affairs, all of which are central issues at the moment. However, it isn't clear if she will run. She appears to support Burnham rather than wanting the job for herself, but if she runs she is the likely winner with the members, although it is not impossible that a Streeting vs Rayner vs Starmer contest could result in Starmer winning on second choices.

Milliband was being touted as the "stop Streeting" candidate a few days ago. However, with Rayner's tax issues apparently resolved, I doubt he will run.

At the moment, all the other possible candidates I have seen mentioned are either viewed as too strongly tied to the past or too low profile.

It is an interesting time in politics. Whether it is good for the country is another matter.

The worst possible outcome for Labour would be for Starmer to win as the “not the other one” candidate. They’d be trapped with a man widely hated and ridiculed by the country and in his own party.

The other likely options don’t offer much, and will themselves all provoke Labour division, but they are mildly more appealing and do offer a bit of a fresh start.

Streetings resigned from cabinet but they are not expecting a slew of resignations to follow him.

Not clear if he has the votes for a leadership challenge - assume we'll find out soon.

The most crucial paragraph of Streeting’s letter in terms of what happens next is his penultimate paragraph, where he says this:
“It is now clear that you will not lead the Labour Party into the next general election and that Labour MPs and Labour Unions want the debate about what comes next to be a battle of ideas, not of personalities or petty factionalism. It needs to be broad, and it needs the best possible field of candidates. I support that approach and I hope that you will facilitate this.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwy21gpr1kzt

Look like he'd like Stamer to go on a timetable and at least looks like he might be up for waiting for Burnham to get a seat - or at least appear like that. I had heard reporters saying left threatened civil war if Steeting took out Starmer before they were ready and other MP saying they want Stamer to leave on his own terms.

I think Starmer will try staying to bitter end - and may if he can hang on through the inital crisis manage to stay in post long term- I'm not sure this prolonged uncertainity is great for the country or looking like strong leadership either.

I disagree. Because I would rather have Keir Starmer than Angela Rayner. If labour want to ensure a total disaster then they should elect her.

Given this afternoon's events, Burnham appears to be favourite. However, even if he is allowed to stand this time, it is by no means certain he will win a by-election in this seat. In the local elections, Reform got over 50% of the votes in those wards in Makerfield.

Yes that is concerning

Tories might not put someone up

And I’m sure AB was favourite to win in 2015

He was the clear favourite to win in 2015 - until he opened his mouth and the Press started digging into his history and financials.

He was never favourite in 2010 - but was considered a real contender. He ended up finishing 4th out of 5.

His latest little ego trip has every chance of blowing up in his face - Labour could easily lose both the Mayoralty and the by-election.

His latest little ego trip has every chance of blowing up in his face - Labour could easily lose both the Mayoralty and the by-election.

How hilarious that would be. The vanity project of a proven loser to seize the top job from a hopeless incompetent ends up destroying the party. Outstanding.

I think it's very possible he might not win. He had a better chance in that recent by election in Manchester but they wouldnt let him stand. What is it about labour and their terrible decision making.

To be honest, I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole if I was Andy Burnham.

British politics is now fundamentally unserious. It used to be stable, solid, and the people in it were serious people, even if you disagreed with them.

Now it’s a total farce, chopping and changing leaders constantly, no consistency. It used to be the best and brightest, now, with the odd exception, it’s a load of also rans because no one talented would even consider a political career.

Its all our own fault too, we ultimately get the politicians we deserve.

Not the politicians we deserve but definitely the ones who make the best story for our 24h rolling news outlets

How would that even be possible? The King's Speech is written by the government. An opposition party can't "request" to put anything in it. Is this just something else you've made up?

@HelenaWaiting, the proposed articles of the Kings speech are debated in the HoC in the coming weeks. Opposition parties can add amendments to the motions, as has done the SNP.

The Kings speech is therefore a two part process.

In this case the objective is to force MPs into a vote of confidence, or not or to abstain from voting, which is self explanatory, given Starmer’s situation.

To correct @MNLurker1345 slightly, it isn't the speech itself that is amended. The debate is technically about the humble address - the Comnmons' response to the speech. Whilst this is often referred to in the press as the Commons debating the King's Speech (and, indeed, most of the debate is about the content of the speech), it is formally referred to as the Debate on the Address. During this debate, the Speaker can select up to four amendments to the humble address. The last time an amendment was successful was in 2016 when the government accepted an amendment regretting that the speech had not included a bill to protect the NHS from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. So it isn't the speech itself that gets amended, it is the response to the speech.

Thanks @prh47bridge, I did give a very flattened response to a very complex affair.
Which you have appropriately expanded and corrected.

In all honesty, I doubt the SNP's move will achieve anything. For a no confidence motion to succeed, a large number of Labour MPs need to abstain or vote against the government, thereby bringing the government down. That is unlikely. However, Starmer is currently a lame duck - in office but not in power. I haven't seen anything from him that suggests he has the ability to turn it round. The question is who replaces him and when.

The markets are reacting badly to the possibility of Burnham taking over. They believe his economic vision implies higher taxes and borrowing, and they don't like his comments about bond markets or the suggestion from his supporters that the bond markets will have to fall into line with his agenda.

Burnham is being allowed to run in Makerfield, which makes it abundantly clear that blocking him from Gorton and Denton was nothing to do with the risk of losing Manchester to reform or reputational damage as another poster alleged. It was all about protecting Starmer. Now that Starmer is a lame duck, there is no longer any point blocking Burnham.

Well, you can get your popcorn out then

Quite. The notion that the NEC blocked Burnham for reasons other than Starmer running scared of a challenge is so absurd as to be laughable.