Do you want a change of leader?

[Arewethereyetarewe]

BBC are predicting the PM should stand down. I know this is not news, but why can we not have a period of stability?

Andy Burnham is much lefter in terms of policies and may not follow the manifesto Labour got in on.

Left or right the country needs a longer term plan.

What do others think?

I’ve got a suggestion for Starmer to make change and be decisive- just reverse those stupid manifesto commitments about not raising tax. We live in a different world than before we needed to massively increase defence spending. So start with that, get some money flowing in, and take it from there.

Absolutely not. Its ridiculous.if we think we are badly off now, wait til that man gets in.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the man with a young family forced tp resign to make way for Mr Burnham.

The country is not a football team requiring a revolving door of managers.

However, Rachel does need to go, and also her advisors.

I'm really disappointed labour playing party politics rather than running the country. Kier Starmer is a decent man with some decent plans. I think he's done a lot of good in a bad situation with an awful legacy from the tories.

I like AB for Manchester mayor or even to put in at the end of 5 years and take through GE. I don't think switching now is a good idea and will guarantee labour will lose next GE.

I'm not sure how Burnham would handle Elon Musk let alone Trump.

Look at the comments on one of the other pages on this about "2tier Keir" and him seemingly being complicit with rape gangs. He wasn't of course but the mud has stuck. I'm not quite sure what they will get Burnham on but it's going to be something

No. We need stability now.

@MushMonster Never going to happen! I don’t entirely agree hard working is the right criteria for politicians. They all are. The bigger issue is lack of ideas for the long term. They are short term plotters. None have the intellect to bring about the changes we need because they all listen to loud minorities and expect others to pay and pay and pay. The position of Burnham is just “nice guy” with no policies! It’s frankly appalling!

It's the privatisation fuck ups that have cost this country dearly. Most aren't even reported or known about in the wider press but if you have access to some of the data on this you'd be shocked. Billions of pounds spent on trying to rectify failures of private companies.

@Watercooler Some privatizations are not great but I guess you are too young to remember the woeful British Rail and other nationalized industries that were starved of investment for decades because the governments of the day would not invest! It’s easy to look at a few companies and see a disaster but its regulation that is at fault. The premise that the market invests isn’t wrong. The problem is the onward sale of the companies and the failure to regulate how they operated. I don’t want every treasury round to be about what money nationalized industries get. It’s bad enough with the NHS taking up far too much of our shrinking resources. We simply don’t have government money to invest at the levels needed.

I agree with you, fully, on this self serving short term patches that they seem addicted to.
I mean, people seem to fall for that. They seem to love basking on this impotence, hopelessness vacuum, with only immediate "solutions". And blaming others. Of course. Plenty of others to blame!

But, I think it is still possible. Challenges are actually opportunities. Huge ones! Here hoping for someone who can see that and be willing to lead the country!
I have not lost hope. And I will not.

such a shame that it has come to this. Utterly pointless resignation. Whatever your political persuasion there is something really bizarre that a decent fair man has to bow to the demands of pure media froth. Chris Mason and Laura K will be delighted. They can melodrama all summer long now. At least their jobs are safe. Not sure that’s going to be the case for the rest of us as a result of the political instability that will now follow. So sad.

Privatisation doesn't work with industries where they tender every 5 years or more. There's no competition or choice for the consumer. I can't decide to get a different branded train this morning. I can't turn off one water company's tap and choose the other. It's not about regulation, it's about those the premise of privatisation being completely unsuited to the problem at hand.

But all parties change leaders, why make it party political?
You recall the last changes under the conservatives? And that the Lib Dems made the coalition decision?

Politics is about elected people making decisions.

Whether I like Burnham or not, he's no less justified in becoming PM than someone who was already elected by a single constituency .

I agree. I'm old enough to remember the woeful British Rail, and waiting months for Post Office Telecommunications to get around to installing our first home telephone line.

People seem to forget that the public voted for privatisations, demutualisations, etc. It wasn't just Maggie doing it on a whim. It was part of party manifestos, and agreed enthusiastically by the public. Same with "mutual" societies such as life insurance/pension firms and building societies - it was their "members", i.e. customers who voted for demutualisations as they wanted their windfall profits!

And let's not forget it's not just the Tories who had "unelected" prime ministers. Gordon Brown became prime minister without a leadership election when he pushed out Blair and no one stood against him! Just like Sunak, again, no election, but no one stood against him. It's not party political when both major parties have done exactly the same thing.

Of course it’s not just ‘media froth’. Labour MPs want a different leader to shore up their jobs. It might not work and they lose the next GE anyway. But it’s MPs driving this.

Oh great. We are a banana republic now.
Burnham will not be able to magically fix the country, and neither will Farage or Kemi or Lowe.

Over on the green woes thread, the upcoming competition for votes has already been likened to a "dick swinging contest", Kemi excepted.

It's going to be Burnham, Farage, Lowe and Polanski. Will no one think of Ed Davey

Absolutely not. This is a huge mistake.

Saw a comment elsewhere that in 18 months labour MPs will be at the same position and wondering if Darren Jones could make a good PM.

Burnham's whole schtick seems to be that he likes Angles Rayner is more in touch with the party's soul because Northern. The assumption is that he will try and level up the north as it were. But here's the thing. The population is increasingly below the midlands in terms of residence. Quite a lot of the decreases in funding have been because of the funding formulae that base sums on population count. I'm not sure Labour except for London, which he seems to think is too dominant, quite wants southern supporters

No, I want a change in policies which will benefit the uk. The leader is irrelevant.

💯

The pound seems to be going up slightly. Which means the market expects a Chancellor to come in and a PM who is less left wing, not more. Someone who is going to cut costs.

Market expects Burnham and eg Streeting as Chancellor to make difficult decisions.
Those on the Left, be careful what you wished for. If a more left winger comes in especially as Chancellor, we will all be screwed. The pound will tank, it will be worse than Liz Truss.

Starmer in at number 43 of prime ministers by tenure. He's still PM but has resigned as Labour leader so he can still clock up some more mileage

He's actually overtaken Sunak

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_length_of_tenure

Why on earth would he want to 'clock up some more mileage'? The sooner he's gone the better - this morning's debacle was a complete humiliation for him.