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.

Having said that, I'd be mildly interested to know what the "old fashioned fascist meaning" is and how it differs from the new. Has fascism really changed so much? Is it now credible and acceptable in some way that I've missed?

His Two Tier policing and White Lives Matter definitely point to that, both have their roots in far right and white supremacist circles.

That was what I had in mind. There seems to be a creeping normalisation of the claim that white people face systemic bias and prejudice too, which is concerning because it's finding its way into everyday language.

I don’t think that the vote shows that Burnham can beat Reform, much as I’d like to think so. A lot of people voted for him just because they wanted to get Starmer out and will probably revert to Reform in the GE.

That is just Reform's line, they are sore losers.

They fielded a sexist misogynstic candidate and other councillors stating they would vote for Savile before Labour.

All defended by the party.

Third by-election that Farage was forecasted to win and he lost.

Sponsored by Russia as well

Maybe, just maybe, women voted for Burnham because Reform fielded a misogynistic, sexist, rather stupid excuse of a man? Has any research been done on the gender breakdown of votes? Maybe its politics with a small ‘p’. Women said no to a sexist man.

The key demographic of Reform UK Party Ltd voters is uneducated males.

I also go by evidence. It works both ways.

Lovely. You'll be able to evidence your claim that the essential nature of fascism has changed then?

Not really. Why would I waste my energy on talking to closed minds.

😆 🤣

I agree - I saw the Makerfield by-election as nothing more than 'vote for Burnham to get rid of Starmer'. Hopefully, Starmer will finally put the country first and resign on Monday morning. I believe he's far too weak and too much of a coward to stand against Burnham in a leadership contest.

Ok no problem.

Don't underestimate the work that will be done to actively prevent that. The Left and centrists will unite, while the right divides and splits votes. No dirty secret of their dodgy candidates or example of their poor performance will go unrevealed. I've never before known a party so hated by all those in opposition to it from left right and centre, and for many people the top priority is keeping them out of government.

I hope Burnham will bring a change of direction, if he becomes leader. I'd like to see Blue Labour policies, people like Maurice Glasman make a lot of sense.

I hope he can tackle illegal immigration and the strain it puts on communities, start getting the NEETs into work, ditch some of the crazier DEI stuff, create policies that are good for business. It ought to be possible for a Labour leader to do this.

@ClarkeandNewman

The role and composition of Labour PLP and apparatus, his background, career achievements, lack of consistent values/program, electoral calendar, and the constraints of his current situation (candidate for the leadership) are facts.

If AB wants to win over the country, he needs to have free reins to implement radical changes, in a direction that the progressive wing of Labour simply cannot fathom.

People who find him alright without knowing him much (=most voters) hope they're gonna get a bloke who will go to the next PLP meeting, slam his hand on the desk and say in a no nonsense, Northern accent: "Stop your BS, I give Shabana Mahmood carte blanche, no more asylum seekers on the streets, Ed, you tone it down with Net Zero or else, Rachel, you're fired, to everyone, as of now, economic growth and defence are an absolute priority and not dirty words, we are going to cut benefits, and focus on British working people rather than the downtrodden of the earth, loving England or Britain is not a crime, the self-hatred has to stop, and women are women. You guys take it or leave it, and now back to work."

That's the Labour they would like to see and still yearn for, as his recent victory is proving. He would look right in the part, easy to see him in it.
But it won't happen.

Not even his fault, it is an impossible task: the apparatus of the governing party and the majority of the country see things more and more differently on more and more issues, and a PM/party leader must please and appease both.

I agree that leading one of the two former main parties is an difficult task in a fragmented system.

What would you say constitutes the progressive wing of the Labour party? Wouldn't they be the first to welcome radical change? Personally I think that Burnham needs to present an unashamed left-wing agenda; contrary to what we're told by the right-wing parties, social democratic policies are popular and perceived as fair.

Regarding your third paragraph, that seems more like the wishlist of the average Reform voter. Part of the reason Starmer failed as PM was his constant chasing of the Reform vote ("hero voters") to the detriment of his more traditional supporters. I'm not convinced that's what Labour voters want or expect if Burnham should become PM.

I am going to leave you to your delusions.

Ok.

I'd say the 'progressive' wing of the Labour Pary are trans activists, net zero, open borders, anti-business and the far reaches of DEI.

I don't believe this is what the country wants. People in Makerfield voted for AB because they want a change to the current policies and they hope AB can be that change.

If he can't, I think we'll see the rise and rise of Reform and Restore.

Some Labour people are economically left wing and socially conservative. That's closer to what the country wants.

Why do you think so? I see progressiveness as a broad-based political view/position rather than adherence to a narrow set issues.

I see "progressiveness" as anything but. It now seems to have a narrow focus where just one view of any given subject is allowed. Deviate from it and you will be labelled racist, homophobic, or the phobic de jour. There is no nuance, no pragmatism and no commen sense.

Ah, I reject that. Progressiveness is concerned with moving on and improving things, addressing structural issues which affects people disproportionately. I don't see it as the kind of "you're not allowed to say that any more" tyrant that so many describe. I think that's a total subversion of what being progressive is really about, one that's been cynically put in place and disseminated by people with powerful interests to protect. Think about who might not want us to progress, why, and how they go about ensuring we don't!