Burnham has won. More turmoil?

[KatiePricesKnickers]

Now Burnham has won, it will trigger a leadership contest, and if he wins, a new chancellor of the exchequer.

Surely this cannot be good for the country, or its finances?

YABU - Burnham is a true leader who will improve the UK for everyone and be a competent and respected leader.

YANBU - FFS, here we go again.

Of course he might not do that well. His policies might be weak too and promised change doesn’t happen for him either.

But the same again, Labour really will have to look at themselves rather than blame others if they do lose the GE.

all Reform have learned here is they need to pick better candidates and give them media training, honestly the idea this is some kind of turning point against reform when labour played their best striker in the entire region…anyway Andy gets it, but he’s got a fight on against the talentless London Labour party now…

I reckon KS will be gone in a week. What an absolute shit show

I went to 10 Downing St recently. There is a staircase which has portraits of each PM, getting more recent as you climb up. They'll need to build a new floor, rate were going

Interesting how they confounded the many who assumed that because Makerfield is not generally an affluent area, and given that the population voted for Brexit, that they’d pretty much be a shoo-in for Reform.

Equally interesting to me was the Aberdeen South by election, going to the Tories! Almost entirely down, evidently, to Ed Miliband and his net zero policies - perhaps particularly after the current mess of Trump’s making, oil and the Straits of Hormuz, etc.

How much has all this cost taxpayers? A by-election? holding another election for mayor? Just to get someone into a position to challenge for the leadership of a party.

Labour was voted in. With Starmer at the head. Democratically.

What an absolute waste, and why the heck should we have to pay for this.

I’m happy for turmoils to get rid of Starmer and Reeves.

Lisa Nandy as PM material ?😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Shaba Mamood I could definitely get behind as PM but it would never happen because unfortunately, in Labour Party land women are not seen as leaders.

The next general election isn't till 2029. What would be sensible would be for Starmer to give Burnham a cabinet post to give him a period of time to get used to being in Westminster again and to learn the scale of the challenges that government is facing, with a plan to hold an orderly leadership contest no earlier than 2028 so that whoever wins is still in their honeymoon period when the general election approaches.
They will not do this.

🤣🤣

You'd hope they'd not actually kill the economy in the first 2 years though.

But they did.

I thought Burnham had said he didn't want a cabinet position?

The tories took 14 years to become unpopular! Starmer has trumped that by becoming the most unpopular PM ever and he did that within his first 12 months of his premiership so nice try

Labour put hundreds of man hours and many leaflets into this campaign. I hope it all gets accounted for properly in their expenses.
They knocked 8 times on every door apparently and dropped 8 leaflets... That's an unbelievable workload.

And U-turn-Burnham flipflopped on so many things but you know he believes in Remain and that men can be women and that women are mean because they don't let blokes into their single sex spaces.

He is a bad man in terms of conviction. Which sadly is what we already have in number 10.
The only man with conviction is a dangerous net-zero zealot.

Oh come on! What Labour members have said time and again is that their numerous female MPs are somehow not quite good enough to lead them. Not quite as ' statesmanlike' as giants like Jeremy Corbyn or Ed Milliband. It goes deep. It's nothing to do with policy. We don't have a Presidential system. It's the Labour Party and the bias they largely seem to have. The problem Labour have is that they never look at themselves, their infighting, their endless purity spirals, their obsessions with how terrible everyone else is, patting themselves on the back about how ' progressive and non racist they are etc. They are the Guardian of political parties. Spouting on about their moral righteousness while being sued for unfair dismissal and racism and hounding staff out of their jobs.

Perhaps Burnham got the majority as people voted primarily in a belief he’d get rid of Starmer.
Perhaps Reform achieved around a third of the vote as people wanted to signal and unhappiness with the established parties.
Perhaps that’s why Conservative received just over 2% and the LibDems 0.36%.
I don’t take this as any endorsement of Labour policy at all.

It's been more than 6 months, ad things are substantially worse....

But this was exactly the best opportunity for Reform to give Labour a bloody nose, upset Burnham's plans for a coup and prove it can win the next GE – and they fell far short. In fact, Reform and Restore added together still fell short. Which suggests Labour has a Starmer problem rather than a Reform one.

It's been only 18 months and in that time we've also had increasing global uncertainty and a new war in the Middle East that's driving up prices, impacting inflation and stagnating the economy and interest rates. It would've been the same if Reform, the Tories or the Monster Raving Looney Party was in Number 10.

Actually, scratch that. It would've been worse because Farage would've taken us to war to suck up to Trump.

Look at what happened in Caerphilly last year.

Yep

All this. A leadership contest plays right into the hands of Reform. And Starmer is correct in saying Burnham will face the same issues he has. Burnham may be a better speaker and communicator but he's got the same problems piling up, the same limited room for manoeuvre, and will be hearing calls for a GE from the minute he takes office.

Is he likely to take away WFA Does he hate pensioners too

Burnham lost to Miliband and was trounced by Corbyn. I don't see the attraction ...?