Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Burnham has won. More turmoil?

753 replies

KatiePricesKnickers · Yesterday 05:51

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Katemax82 · Yesterday 10:29

Flyingintotheunknown · Yesterday 10:28

People on the right get accused of racism just for having concerns about immigration yet some people think it’s ok to post a despicable clearly racist comment like that! If they had made a comment about them being a brown leader there would be uproar on this thread! But no it’s somehow acceptable to be racist against white people for some reason!

I know it's disgusting

ClarkeandNewman · Yesterday 10:30

Flyingintotheunknown · Yesterday 09:51

Yes I agree… however, they didn’t get as unpopular as Starmer and certainly not so unpopular within their first 12 months. They won the biggest majority in a hung parliament in 2010 and formed a coalition with the Lib Dems, then won 2 further general elections before being voted out in 2024. Even the Blair/ brown government lasted 3 terms too before the point of becoming so unpopular. KS has managed it within record time. Thats what I’m saying.

I think that can be at least partly attributed to our severely outdated voting system. Labour ostensibly won a landslide but the majority was shallow. They didn't enjoy any depth of goodwill or support right from the start. Then perceived corruption set in, along with the abandonment of many genuinely left wing policies and commitments - the racist speech was inexcusable. We really do need a different electoral system if disillusionment and lack of representation in political power is to be reversed.

Flyingintotheunknown · Yesterday 10:33

ClarkeandNewman · Yesterday 10:30

I think that can be at least partly attributed to our severely outdated voting system. Labour ostensibly won a landslide but the majority was shallow. They didn't enjoy any depth of goodwill or support right from the start. Then perceived corruption set in, along with the abandonment of many genuinely left wing policies and commitments - the racist speech was inexcusable. We really do need a different electoral system if disillusionment and lack of representation in political power is to be reversed.

Edited

Yes I agree. Plus I believe a lot of it was tactical voting just to get the tories out as well.

The Lib Dem’s campaigned for a different voting system in 2012 though and we had a referendum yet FPTP won. I wonder what the results would be if we were to have the same referendum again.

Happyjoe · Yesterday 10:34

Swiss177 · Yesterday 06:15

I genuinely don’t understand how a single person votes Labour. I can only assume they are supportive of others subsidising them. There is no other rational answer. They simply have to be economically selfish.

And yet the tories left us with a bigger debt than Labour ever did, together with a messed up, broken country with nothing working and high unemployment and benefits bill. Ah, but yeah, all Labours fault eh?

ByGraptharsHammer · Yesterday 10:36

The timing is clever. Most of any contest will be over the summer, when voters are least likely to be thinking about politics, and then they could have a new leader by conference. Burnham to win it, all the rest are bidding for jobs in Cabinet.

Starmer has been a poor leader with a very bad deck of cards given to him. Still he made some serious mistakes upfront on welfare and spending. He probably regrets not being more impassioned now, but no one voted for a chief lawyer. They vote for hope.

DandelionFarmer · Yesterday 10:37

ForGreenHiker · Yesterday 08:26

Because the statement I assume (and don’t want to speak on behalf of the poster) was meant that white males are over represented in positions of high office. Wanted a change from that is not sexist or racist.

it also plays into the far-right notion of their being “anti-white racism” in this country. Which is bollocks. There is racism in this country. It is increasing. And it isn’t against white people

How is racism and sexism defined then?

DandelionFarmer · Yesterday 10:44

jobnotsure · Yesterday 08:46

They have produced quite a few female politicians who could be prime minister.

Angela Rayner, Shabana Mahmood, Yvette Cooper, Bridget Phillipson, Lisa Nandy just to name a few.

Many people are more interested in policies rather than playing politics and culture wars - which is what people are doing when they focus on the sex of the Labour Party leader rather than the policies.

Edited

Mahmood is possible...the others well you are deluded.

Whoopiedooo · Yesterday 10:47

It's almost as if they saw the Tories do it and want a go too.
It's a rare PM that's great.
Starmer is as good as most, and we need stability.

DandelionFarmer · Yesterday 10:47

Flyingintotheunknown · Yesterday 09:28

“I can’t wait to no longer hear KS’s “my dad was a toolmaker””

And “let me be clear” and “I have a mandate”

Indeed...and don't forget "smash the gangs"..... oh no wait....

ToWhitToWhoo · Yesterday 10:48

YABU, but simply because defeating the far right (yay!) outweighs just about everything!

Well done Makerfield!

LikeASoulWithoutAMind · Yesterday 10:48

moose62 · Yesterday 06:18

To me it is not really about the person but the fact that the party in Government can vote in whoever they want as PM without the people who voted for them having a say. This goes for all parties.
Perhaps Burnham will be good, perhaps he will be a shambles, but either way he wasn't voted in by the people.
I know he was mayor but that doesn't mean he can run the country....I would feel the same if they said Sadiq Khan was going to be PM.

You know he's previously held several major shadow cabinet positions including education and health? He's not new to this.

Flyingintotheunknown · Yesterday 10:48

DandelionFarmer · Yesterday 10:47

Indeed...and don't forget "smash the gangs"..... oh no wait....

Oh I forgot that one haha!

StressedLP1 · Yesterday 10:49

Flyingintotheunknown · Yesterday 09:51

Yes I agree… however, they didn’t get as unpopular as Starmer and certainly not so unpopular within their first 12 months. They won the biggest majority in a hung parliament in 2010 and formed a coalition with the Lib Dems, then won 2 further general elections before being voted out in 2024. Even the Blair/ brown government lasted 3 terms too before the point of becoming so unpopular. KS has managed it within record time. Thats what I’m saying.

A lot of that is the press trumping it up. They are never going to play defence for Labour. In real life no one I know thinks Starmer is bad. After the revolving door chaos of Tory PMs I think some have become accustomed to the drama and tear the office like a the bloody England football manager. Not the press though - chaos sells.

DandelionFarmer · Yesterday 10:49

Passingthrough123 · Yesterday 09:14

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.

2 years beginning of july

DandelionFarmer · Yesterday 10:50

Flyingintotheunknown · Yesterday 10:48

Oh I forgot that one haha!

So has Starmer!

AllJoyAndNoFun · Yesterday 10:52

Happyjoe · Yesterday 10:34

And yet the tories left us with a bigger debt than Labour ever did, together with a messed up, broken country with nothing working and high unemployment and benefits bill. Ah, but yeah, all Labours fault eh?

Right- but there were 2 big inflection points in the national debt - sharp increase immediately after GFC until 2010, when Labour were still in power and had been for the previous decade (increase slowed after 2010) and covid - I mean they could have just let it rip or not paid anyone furlough but I dont think Labour would have done that either.

EasternStandard · Yesterday 10:55

He’s speaking now.

nomas · Yesterday 10:56

Dragonscaledaisy · Yesterday 06:03

That expectation was set by Labour themselves. Unless you voted Labour in the last election, you have no need to be embarrassed. The current shambles is entirely of Starmer's own making and sums up his entire short premiership with the party lurching from one psychodrama to the next, creating ongoing instability.

What shambles?

Do you have a list?

AllJoyAndNoFun · Yesterday 10:58

ToWhitToWhoo · Yesterday 10:48

YABU, but simply because defeating the far right (yay!) outweighs just about everything!

Well done Makerfield!

But this could be a case of "win the battle but lose the war". If Burnham now becomes leader and takes Labour further left, as seems likely, then this could give Reform a greater advantage at the next election. One more reform MP at the moment= no real impact. Lose majority at next election = disaster.

All this comes down to Labour being too broad a church. I suspect St Andy will have exactly the same problems as KS in terms of getting anything done because one side of the party will rebel against him.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · Yesterday 10:59

Luddite26 · Yesterday 06:06

A lot of the instability is being caused by the Reform leader pushing his narrative. If the Reform candidate had won they would be calling for a GE which is what they have been pushing for since day 1 of Starmer moving into Number Ten. Starmer has shown a strong leadership on the world stage. He has weaknesses which Reform have exploited . He left himself wide open for a lot of criticism too.
I doubt Farage even wants to be PM he wouldn't be able to earn all his extras and he would have to attempt to fulfill his pledges. He is no friend of the British people he is self serving.

Yes it's Reform, who have never been in powers fault, not Labour who have been in with a massive landslide for 2 years. Definitely Reform.

anotherside · Yesterday 11:01

KatiePricesKnickers · Yesterday 05:51

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.

YABU. The UK has been in constant turmoil for 15 years, as in the economy and public services are falling apart. A bit more disruption isn’t necessarily bad in that context and given that Farage’s Tory Misfits government is looming on the horizon.

Yesterday was arguably the most hopeful day in British politics in decades.

ClarkeandNewman · Yesterday 11:02

Flyingintotheunknown · Yesterday 10:33

Yes I agree. Plus I believe a lot of it was tactical voting just to get the tories out as well.

The Lib Dem’s campaigned for a different voting system in 2012 though and we had a referendum yet FPTP won. I wonder what the results would be if we were to have the same referendum again.

Hopefully we wouldn't have the same referendum again. Firstly because it was for a system of AV rather than PR, which was fairly incomprehensible, even if you have an interest in the technicalities of the voting system. Secondly because a referendum is totally unnecessary - no need for governments to hold them on everything. Just make the necessary change on the basis of your mandate as an elected government!

ByGraptharsHammer · Yesterday 11:02

A clever speech Burnham is giving on nationalisation and work placements for young people. People’s bills and employment for the young. That is legitimately something the state can do.

This man doesn’t look like he will be chasing Reform’s agenda. They will have to chase him, I think.

EasternStandard · Yesterday 11:04

ByGraptharsHammer · Yesterday 11:02

A clever speech Burnham is giving on nationalisation and work placements for young people. People’s bills and employment for the young. That is legitimately something the state can do.

This man doesn’t look like he will be chasing Reform’s agenda. They will have to chase him, I think.

The HMO Britain part surprised me. Labour are mad if they don’t switch to him. He has better policies so far. I like the focus on youth employment and work placements.

ClarkeandNewman · Yesterday 11:05

DandelionFarmer · Yesterday 10:37

How is racism and sexism defined then?

It's systemic. What you describe is prejudice - and it's a shaky argument to say that pointing out white male bias in power is prejudicial.