To think Andy Burnham will not make Labour any more electable.

[4thweekofjuly]

I think there is little appetite for a new PM and a new Labour leader will make 0 difference to their chances of winning. I also think the best the public can hope for, from any government, is a slow, well managed decline. I don't think there is much of a future in the UK and the public need to accept the social contract is no more. .

Things are already tough for Labour. Have been from day one 🤷‍♀️

Starmer seemed quite chipper at PMQs all things considered. Maybe he is in "fuck 'em all" mode, and who can blame him. Badenoch was rather over excited. Soviets!

I think the gilts market is about extra borrowing rather than Saint Andy of Burnham per se, but it follows him around because even though he was originally a Blairite he's been tacking to the left while out of government and he promises anything his audiences want to hear while remaining silent on how to pay for it.

And, of course, he stated that we "shouldn't be in hock to bond markets." Well, if someone owes you nearly £3 trillion pounds (96% of GDP) and the man responsible for the debt thinks he can ignore your wishes, you're going to want a higher reward in exchange for the increased risk if you're going to lend any more at all.

Similarly, if you're about to bail out a company which has debts of £20bn by investing in it, and it suddenly looks like someone else might come along and take it away from you, because that's what they've said they'd do, you'd be foolish not to think twice about going through with it.

So it could actually be good for Labour on these two fronts if St. Andy loses the by-election?

It would be best for the country, never mind the Labour Party, if Sir Keir and Rachel Reeves remain exactly where they are, delivering the mandate they won in a LANDSLIDE less than two years ago.

I don't disagree tbh. Although that would mean stomaching Reform winning the by-election.

“Labour” isn’t a hive mind. Some left leaning voters don’t like the process, some don’t like Burnham, some see him as the best hope.

No confusion and I didn’t need the help.

I think you totally overestimate him. It's probably wishful thinking.

well if by "the right" you mean Reform, yes of course they are. He's the only Labour politician that gives them a chance in the by-election. But even if they lose to Burnham, it won't be a tenth as damaging to their GE momentum as it would be for Labour if Burnham loses. The whole thing is massively risky for the Labour party.

I am not so sure a loss at Makerfield will have an effect on Labour's chances in 2029, unless you believe that only AB can save Labour. Having said, the polls are pretty favourable for him right now.

Interesting times.

"I am not so sure a loss at Makerfield will have an effect on Labour's chances in 2029"

That could be interpreted to mean you think they're sunk either way!

It's about a certain perception of momentum shift. They lost first two by-elections since the GE, they're not expected to win Aberdeen South, and it's only because it's Andy Burnham that they're polling well.

They would inevitably have lost the seat without him, and he can definitely win it. So the question really becomes whether that will set off a chain of events including him winning the leadership context, which will see him increasing their chances at the next GE.

Personally I don't expect it to work, but it's going to be a fascinating spectacle.

They wouldn’t have lost the seat without him because without Burnham’s ego there wouldn’t be a by election in which to lose the seat. It’s a nonsense.

Greens candidate Chris Kennedy has withdrawn for personal reasons. He’d just been announced. Now he’s out.

That’s two in as many days. If only they could clone Hannah Spencer …

Maybe they need to go along with what Caroline Lucas advised and just not field a candidate for Makerfield at all? They then wouldn’t split the left-wing vote, and would make a Reform win less likely.

Labour won their seats by default due to the Tory vote collapsing under Sunak. Starmer got virtually the same votes as Corbyn did 5 years earlier when he lost by a "landslide". Sadly, it's just the way FPTP voting works with no actual proportionality between votes and seats. There was no "landslide" towards Starmer/Labour.

I understand the numbers. But getting more seats for fewer votes means the votes are more helpfully spread. Plus a lot of people voted tactically so it’s not really easy to tell how ,any people wanted a Labour government really. But it’s irrelevant. They have a massive majority and that’s all the matters.

As far as I can see she's done little but endless photo ops with Zack Polanski and drone on about the bars in the House of Commons.

Listening to Andy Burnham now. Please please go through with making care homes NHS run and yes improve train prices..I like Starmer but do think AB is possibly our best bet.

Regardless of whether you personally like her she’s an electoral asset to a party that’s generally not exactly brimming with prospective candidates with that level of appeal.

The press started savaging Starmer literally on day one- he never stood a chance. They also savaged Corbyn and they will rip apart the next Labour leader too. Whoever that is. They have a pretty clear agenda.

Agree about Burnham, disagree that the UK only faces decline.

The old 2 party system is a busted flush, they just morphed into a uniparty.

Id like to see a Restore Britain government ideally, thats exactly what we need imo.