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.

And that’s exactly why they’re acting.

What will you do when Starmer gets replaced? Stop moaning about Labour or continue to moan about the next PM?

It is extraordinary that anyone should think any PM should be above criticism.

Who is thinking that?

This hasn't aged well, has it. Starmer is clearly hanging on.

I think you are confused about the rules. The rules do not say he has to finish his mayoral term before he can return to parliament. They say, " Directly Elected Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners must seek the express permission of the NEC/SEC/WEC (as applicable) before seeking nomination as Labour candidates for the Westminster Parliament" - Rule 5.IV.2. Burnham therefore needed NEC approval to run in the Gorton and Denton by-election. Starmer and his allies on the NEC blocked him. That isn't media spin. That is fact.

If Burnham is prevented from returning to Parliament until his term as mayor is over, it is unlikely he will become Labour leader prior to the next general election. The election must be held no later than July 2029, although it is likely to be earlier than that if Labour's poll rating picks up. Burnham's term as Mayor ends in May 2028. It is unlikely Labour would want to change leader with only a year to go to the election.

In terms of where we are, it is clear that, even if Starmer manages to carry on, he is fatally damaged due to the number of MPs who have openly called for him to go. The Labour party is historically bad at regicide so he may be able to struggle on, but at the moment the contest seems to be between those who want a "swift" timetable for his departure (Streeting's supporters who want a quick contest whilst Burnham is not eligible) and those who want an "orderly" transition (a slower change of leader that allows Burnham to return to parliament).

Streeting and his supporters clearly want a quick contest as he is unlikely to win if Burnham is a candidate. However, the left and soft left want Burnham, so if there is an early contest they may put up a "stop Streeting" candidate. I understand some are suggesting that Ed Milliband could be that candidate.

Lol no one on here thinks that.

Yes to this, another small element is the NEC is up for election in June which could see change to Starmer allies. I can’t see how he’ll continue with such a loss of authority, it’s moved far past a few ‘doubters’ as per speech. That speech was the clincher.

That speech was a total insult. People don't want to listen to any more of his 'Trust me know what's good for you' speeches. He really is just winding folk up now with his daft I'm not going anywhere talk and they will be more determined than ever not to vote for him and his party.

Yeh it was dire. Even the markets thought that as he was speaking.

Looks like you might be pretty close with your thread title, despite the mocking and swearing from a few at the start of thread.

He’s not ‘hanging on’ the majority still support him. He’s just being PM with some critical voices. He may go, he may not, but the ‘hanging on’ rhetoric is silly.
And yes, they need the permission of the NEC to resign as mayor and stand because normally it’s outwith the rules. It’s not what mayors do.

20% of his MPs calling for him to stand down is more than "some critical voices". When a PM loses this much support in their own party, they are seriously damaged. He is hanging on. If those who want him gone unite around a single leadership candidate, his time will be up. Even if they don't, the damage is done.

And yes, they need the permission of the NEC to resign as mayor and stand because normally it’s outwith the rules.

Whose rules? Mayoral positions are not governed by Labour Party rules.

There is no such rule. The Labour party does not have any such rule and the law specifically provides for a mayor to resign by written notice to the relevant Chief Executive. Burnham would not have broken any rules by resigning as mayor and standing in Gorton and Denton provided the NEC approved. Starmer and his allies on the NEC blocked him for fear that he would be a genuine threat to the leadership. Pretending that this is not the case and that Burnham was somehow attempting to break the rules is ridiculous.

Personally, I think Burnham would be a disaster as PM and don't understand why, after two previous poor leadership campaigns, so many in Labour view him as the king over the water. The fact that some of his supporters are saying that the bond markets will have to fall into line with Burnham's agenda shows that they are detached from reality. As the Truss disaster demonstrated, governments have to fall into line with the bond markets, not the other way round.

Meanwhile, Starmer's meeting with Streeting today was very short. Starmer's allies are briefing that no-one has the numbers to challenge him and that Streeting has blown it, with some of his support falling away. However, government whips apparently believe that Streeting does have the numbers and will make his move later this week, after the King's Speech. They also believe that, as well as the 87 MPs who have publicly called for Starmer to go, there are as many who privately want him to step down. If they are right, that is nearly half the parliamentary party.

Yes to this basically. WS may have the numbers but I did wonder if it was knowing the left of the party would mobilise against him was a stopper. I guess we’ll see.

That was a very short meeting between Starmer and Streeting.

It's Wednesday, time for the next thread?

If you want a new thread, you can always start one

Not pointless endless criticism we get now. Social media, 24 hour news. I was watching Lamy give a statement last nights and the hacks - led by Mason and Rigby - were leaning in salivating like a pack of wolves. We are no longer a serious country.

We are no longer a serious country.

I disagree - it's the whole the country is ungovernable line that suddenly being pushed everywhere. I don't think it is - I think that's an excuse for poor leadership.

The Brown/Blare years were fraught with speculation in media as were Major years about leadership challenges. The post war Labour government had a backupt country and no track record and came in set up the welfare state and helped set up the UN. New Labour came in with plans they got on with immediately. I don't feel that with Starmer's government there is that energy or comittment or much direction.

Stamer could still deliver something that but clearly not all his MP agree with that - I'm not sure Streeting or Burnham are the solution - I really don't think Rayner is. Stamer postion as leader was already weaken after Mandeleson saga and they've had some dire election results - that not due to the media.

There are issues in the media no question - but some of that is the poltical messaging we can't change leader for x reason - we can and have in past - or the country is ungovernable - ie its' the media and public's fault.

Agree it’s a line being pushed, by current leadership possibly as an excuse. Plus many were happy to use SM and the news cycle against the last gov, including on here.

That demand won’t go away now the party they want is in.

Labour Party rules. Somewhat obviously.

@prh47bridge Burnham would not have broken any rules by resigning as mayor and standing in Gorton and Denton provided the NEC approved.
Yes. That’s what I said. Mayors need permission (or it’s against the rules to just do it) to resign and stand for something else. It’s not a difficult concept that something which needs special permission is outside the normal rules.

The fact that you need permission to do something does not mean it is in any way outside the normal rules. You seem to be having trouble with that concept.

If I lose a case in the High Court or the Crown Court I need permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and if I lose in the Court of Appeal I need permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. That does not mean appealing is in any way outside the normal rules. It clearly is not.

And you were trying to argue that the rules say Burnham had to finish his mayoral term (they don't) and that Starmer isn't blocking Burnham (he clearly is).

The last part sums it up. He can of course resign, there’s no stipulation anyone has to stay in a job, how could there be. He might have something else that he would have to resign for.

And Starmer plus allies blocked him, they probably have lost that part. Whether Burnham can get a seat is another thing.

In that scenario you don’t belong to an organisation from whom you are asking permission. Different situation. If you are in a club and you need permission from the ruling committee of that club to do something connected with that club, it means the thing you are asking to do is outside the normal rules.
Edit: pretty crap blocking since he’s said he’ll support him to be t selected once his Mayoral term ends.

Yes, of course he can resign. That’s not what he’s asking permission for. He could resign and stand as an independent in a by election whenever he likes.

I could point to several clubs of which I am a member where you require permission to do something perfectly normal. For example, many say that I need the permission of the chair to speak at a general meeting (although I'm sure you will again argue this is an exception to the general rule you have proposed). No, it does not mean you are asking to do something outside the rules. To say again, Labour does not have a rule that says mayors have to serve their full term. A Labour mayor is free to resign at any time. They do not need the NEC's approval to do that.

And of course Starmer will say he'll support Burnham to be elected once his mayoral term ends. For a start, that won't happen until 2028 which is close enough to the next election to mean that Burnham is unlikely to be an immediate threat to him at that point and certainly means Burnham is not a threat for the next two years, and in any case it gives Starmer plenty of time to change his mind. So no, it is not crap blocking. It is making sure Burnham is not an immediate threat to him.

However much you try to deny it, the reality is that Starmer and his allies see Burnham as a threat given his naked ambition plus the fact that many in the party view him as the king over the water, so they blocked him from standing for Gorton and Denton.