Almost 80 MPs have called for Starmer to Resign. Streeting making his move before Burnham has a chance to get in. Leadership election between Starmer, Streeting & Rayner, & a few MPs looking to make a name. Official Tue 12th?

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Link to spreadsheet of Labour MPS calling for resignation - https://x.com/GuidoFawkes/status/2053925699824574889

Streeting has to make his move now, Starmer will never be this weak and he has the chance to go now.

Burnham might be more likely to win, but he is not in, and where exactly is a safe seat by election they could parachute him in for? (nowhere)

So - Streeting will never have a better chance of being PM, he pulls the trigger NOW or he never pulls it at all.

I did say on Thursday that I thought it would be Friday or Monday.... Tuesday is a pretty good guess.

This is a quiet Bat People moment... That Speech... not worth remembering...

I think its not the case of " no British born wants to do" just that these jobs make it impossible to pay going rents %mortgages and the general cost of living.
I love in a rural area and during covid there was all the concern about crops and labour to harvest the.. Many applied bit received no response.
At the same time thousands of migrants where flown here to provide this labour.
So the transport of labourers was against covid rules at the time.
They were usually housed in caravans, and therefore this would have been against covid rules at that time. However there is usuly only verbatim evidence from the labourers themselves from what I recall.
The wage was about £9 p/hr I think minimum wage possibly at the time. However my point is dud they get a reduction for their accommodation?

Insecure, and zero hours contracts do not offer stability for people to meet their bills, so safer to remain on benefits, as it would create greater instability financially not to do so. Of course there are always those gaming the system. I also understand the need to keep people in work, but feel it's a bit outrageous that UC an be used to top up wages. However it is probably ly better than people not working and all the associated consequences, not just financily that entails.

Streeting used to be pretty appalling on this subject but he did a 180 when the tide of opinion started to change.

That’s what I mean about him being a career politician - he did pretty well overall for the NHS imo - but he will follow whatever makes him popular. As soon as he realised gender ideology was falling out of favour, he switched his views entirely.

That’s why I view him with suspicion. His whole resignation letter was hilarious - it was just self promotion. Compared to all the other resignation letter, it tells you who he is.

And although they hold fairly different views and lean different ways politically, I think Burnham is exactly the same.

Absolutely agree. Streeting seems as if he has a very thin smear of a Vaseline over himself at all times.

I don’t think he’d be a very good prime minister, though better than Starmer, based on the hope he’d actually do something. Almost anything. Just not sit and stare at disaster charging toward him. Based on no priors at all that.

Greetings thread - it’s been brought to my attention I may have upset user @Thefastandthecurious5

they have not asked me to do this - but I am making a public apology for any upset caused, my intent is not and never is to upset people personally. I am vigorous and spirited in debate, as I think it should be, none the less it’s not supposed to actually upset people.

Talking is important. It’s better than fighting. We should keep doing a lot more of it.

I PM’ed you because I was upset that you called me a ‘shitty Socialist’ and ‘epically thick’. Why do you feel the need to publicly announce your apology to me? I agree we should keep talking to each other, and totally support that, but I’m a bit confused about what that has to do with your insults to me on this thread.

@SingleSexSpacesInSchools we should be able to debate ideas etc without name calling ?

@IsabellaVireauxLaurent - you are absolutely right we should....

I'd rather have Streeting than this due..

https://x.com/PatrickChristys/status/2054980194780262739

SO - no idea how long a by-election takes to organise, and no idea how long Labour will take to elect a new leader - looks like the country is stuck with more paralysis until then. Real shame, not going to go well with the money.

Don’t worry. There’s no paralysis. Starmer is leader with a huge majority and they are getting on with the rest of their manifesto - most of it has been achieved or is in progress already.

Fastest end to end - 10 weeks

Realistic 15

Longest - all the way to September/November time.

I Reckon September - and if it takes that long, only 6 moths to turn it around - GE before Easter 2027

Whatever you are smoking I want some.

Most of the manifesto has been achieved? I will have to go find out what that actually was....

Well if you don’t know what’s in it you won’t know what’s been done will you? Giving a strong opinion while admitting ignorance of the topic is an odd thing to do.
Here’s a tracker for you - make it a bit easier to catch up. https://fullfact.org/government-tracker/

• Labour promised the highest sustained growth in the G7, but the economy is still crawling.
• They promised not to raise taxes on working people, then raised employer National Insurance, which hits wages, prices and hiring.
• They promised stability after Tory chaos, but now look like a government already eating itself.
• They promised 1.5 million new homes, but housebuilding is nowhere near the required pace.
• They promised to get Britain building, but planning reform has not yet translated into homes, cranes or confidence.
• They promised lower energy bills, but voters are not feeling any clean-power dividend.
• They promised NHS reform, but most of what voters see is still queues, strikes, rationing and poor access.
• They promised a dentistry rescue plan, but NHS dentistry is still a practical impossibility for many people.
• They promised to smash the gangs, but small boats are still arriving and the slogan now looks childish.
• They promised to end asylum hotels, but they are still being used.
• They promised to clear the asylum backlog, but the system still looks slow, expensive and out of control.

There are like, dozens of other points in the manifesto where they have failed. It's like an open goal.

Tell me what they have done thats so great though. Open ears.

See above post. Most of yours is nonsense, incidentally. Yes, the economy is only growing slowly but it’s doing better than the rest of the G7 at the moment, for a start.

Full Fact’s government tracker is a poor resource to use as proof that Labour is delivering, it is far too process-heavy and generous to government activity: reviews, consultations, taskforces, bills and early administrative steps can all sit under comforting labels like “in progress” or “appears on track”, even where the real world outcome has not improved at all. It also rewards vague manifesto wording by treating some promises as “unclear or disputed” rather than penalising Labour for making slippery pledges in the first place. The result is a tracker that may be useful as a bureaucratic checklist, but is weak as a political judgement: it can make a failing government look busy, organised and semi-successful while voters are still facing high costs, weak growth, broken public services, housing failure and uncontrolled borders.

People want change and they aren't seeing any...

That is a very selective defence. Yes, the UK had a decent single quarter in Q1 2026, with GDP up 0.6%, and that may have been the fastest in the G7 for that quarter. But Labour’s manifesto promise was not “we might have one good quarter”; it was “the highest sustained growth in the G7”. The OBR still forecasts weak UK growth of 1.1% in 2026, and the OECD has cut its UK forecast to 0.7%, describing the UK as heading for the second-lowest growth in the G7, ahead of only Italy. So no, pointing to one quarterly figure does not rescue the promise. It is classic cherry-picking, grab the flattering snapshot, ignore the trend, ignore GDP per head, ignore inflation, ignore productivity, and ignore the fact that living standards still feel rotten

No to mention if you're in the bin, any gains look good in the short term...

An apology for upset caused!

Blimey the OP is a politician…

Too many skeletons... Otherwise....

Your apology is pretty political, in the sense that it attempts to make your conduct better than it actually was. If you really want to debate, you need to be less emotional

Perhaps the problem lies with us voters.

Would we vote for any party that says, we’ll try our best but the issues with our national economy, immigration, rising numbers of both legimate and economic asylum seekers, lack of industrial strategy and our free at the point of need NHS are decades long in the making, reflect past choices driven by immediate needs at the time, are subject to the desires of financial and business elite seeking the highest returns to themselves and shareholders, subject to the vagaries of a global capitalist system that rewards complex financial markets that bet on absolutely everything, but is indifferent to the bread and butter societal work of nurses, firefighters, teachers and street cleaners.

No, we would not.

That is far too uncertain, uncomfortable and frightening. So election after election we vote out the last govt that couldn’t do the impossible in the predictable but insane belief that the new govt can turn water into wine. I expect we’ll carry on doing so and continue to find ourselves in trouble.

I mean, I’d vote for them, but, no you’re right the majority would not. People tend to vote with their gut anyway most of the time and a happy possible future is more appealing than “it’s going to be shot for about 15 years”

Oh without a doubt.
as soon as you get angry you make it personal the defences go up and nobody listens.

So you think all those things can be achieved with a click of the fingers and don't need some sort of legislative run in? Totally unreasonable.
Doesn’t seem to matter what evidence people show you, you just dismiss it as ‘bad’. There’s your opinion and the rest can be ignored. Like I said. No point in us continuing this ‘discussion’.

@twinklystar23 Insecure, and zero hours contracts do not offer stability for people to meet their bills, so safer to remain on benefits, as it would create greater instability financially not to do so.

I agree and know young people exactly in this predicament. Giving up secure benefits for insecure work feels like insanity at this point in time when the labour market is so uncertain. Especially for young people with SENs and who could’ve worked in the creative industries in past years, but which is being hit by AI. In many ways, it’s better for the UK that they do. Like a UBI almost.

Re unable to secure British workers for arduous physical work, of course it’s more complicated than simply British workers are more lazy. It’s a whole economic system structured around wage arbitrage by relying on workers from low income countries doing back breaking work because it pays much more than work in their own countries. Agricultural work though has never paid well.

Same story in the US, much of California agriculture industry has relied for decades on cheap Mexican or South America workers.