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.

Well if they weren’t he would have won the GE.

He did. He was widely acknowledged to have handled the crisis better than any other country.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/feb/21/gordon-brown-saved-banks

Yet got voted out in 2010 due to how shit he was! 😂

Yep that pretty much sums it up.

The Guardian would say that though wouldnt they?

He wasn’t shit.

Oh he was. And even when he lost in the 2010 GE he did a Starmer and tried to cling on to power by trying his damndest to form a coalition to keep Cameron out from what I could remember because he didn’t want to accept that he had lost. Cameron and Clegg united in the end though and formed their own coalition.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261560611001604

It was a joke. No need to go researching more articles.

You mean Clegg dithered for days about which way to go.

I mean Gordon Brown lost GE but didn’t want to accept it. A bit like Starmer not accepting he is no longer wanted. Seems to run in the Labour genes. Not sure what Clegg ‘dithering’ has to do with that!

He was the incumbent at the time and therefore as no one had an outright majority, he had the right to try to form a government.

There was no other combination on that election that would have realistically worked. Labour and Lib Dem wouldn't have had enough seats. They would have had to run as a minority government.

if I can remember, it was a hung parliament with Cameron getting the biggest majority but not quite enough to form a government. Yet Brown didn’t want to accept that and didn’t want to do the decent thing and step down gracefully. I think it’s fair to say that when you can see the voters were starting to dessert Labour then the best thing to do would be to acknowledge that…. But no let’s be power hungry!

If Clegg had gone into coalition with Labour they’d have outnumbered the Tories.

How quickly could Burnham become PM? Was watching Jacob R-M talk about it, and he reckoned that if Starmer accepted that he was beaten by early next week, there would be no leadership race as no other candidate would put themselves forward, in the interests of party unity and the desire to avoid a long protracted contest involving the membership. That Starmer will probably decide against a humiliating failure to maintain his leadership as his ministers resign, and that Burnham could potentially be appointed by the King within days.

Why are they saying there would be no contest?

Has Streeting decided not to run after all?

Where has Wes Streeting gone?
Maybe he’ll just wants a job in the cabinet and not going for the leadership challenge? Surely other people will though ?

Winston Churchill was voted out in 1945 and then reelected in 1951. Prime ministers don't have to 'be shit' to be voted out. Sometimes the electorate just want a change.

Streeting seems to be the only potential spanner in the works right now. He must be quite alarmed at the prospect of the party lurching left without a mandate. But surely he knows that the membership are all very left-leaning anyway, he would not have a mission in a contest (especially given his ties to Mandelson).

If the respective support for Starmer and Burnham is approaching equal (it isn't I don't think) Streeting could possibly get in due to being most people's second choice in the 1,2,3 voting system, I suppose? Not sure though.

He hasn't gone anywhere.

He will very likely throw his hat into the ring next week if/when Burnham triggers a leadership challenge.

Yes I agree. I'd like to see Al Carns throw his hat in the ring and upset the apple cart.

Sorry if this sounds stupid, but who exactly 'decided' on Burnham? Which MPs and activists are behind this coup (because that's what it is really)? The more I learn about him, the more uneasy I become. He wasn't particularly impressive while in govt and he's left a ton of debt in Manchester. It all feels deeply undemocratic besides.

Burnham has the highest approval rating of any UK politician. You saw in Makerfield his ability to engage and influence.
Labour is severely hampered by Starmers unpopularity. Labour supporters want to see a Labour government continue, and swapping out an unpopular leader for a popular Labour politician makes sense to a lot of us at every level in the party. And when we have the most popular politician in the country standing in front of us willing to serve, well, its all rather obvious.
Not everyone in Labour thinks this. Many feel Starmer is doing a good job. Some think he's doing a good job but take the approach that in the context where politics is increasingly about personality, sometimes you have to do the pragmatic thing. Others believe Burnham has ideas and vision that will make him a better leader than Starmer.
Had Burnham been an MP rather than playing a different role for Labour, it would have been straightforward, he'd have just challenged, but obviously had to change role first, which has led to a fuss and drama that has made it seem like 'somethings going on'.
However, nothing unlawful has been done, and the people who have acted so far, Simons and Burnham, have been transparent about what they are doing.
No one has decided on Burnham yet. But I fully expect we will.