Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Starmer - should he stay or should he go? What difference would it make either way?

155 replies

IwantToRetire · 12/05/2026 18:08

Four ministers resign over Starmer leadership as Lammy says no-one has support to stand against PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1e2n923v1lt

More than 100 Labour MPs have signed a statement urging Sir Keir Starmer not to stand down
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-resign-cabinet-live-updates-b2974932.html

More than 100 Labour MPs sign statement against Starmer leadership challenge
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/12/labour-mps-sign-statement-against-starmer-leadership-challenge

Four ministers resign over Starmer leadership as Lammy says no-one has support to stand against PM

Zubir Ahmed follows Jess Phillips and two other ministers in quitting government. Meanwhile more than 100 Labour MPs are understood to have signed a statement backing the PM.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1e2n923v1lt

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
TempestTost · 12/05/2026 21:07

I think it's too bad in a way, it's the last thing the country needs, more shenanigans like this. And I don't think it's very clear that the new leader will have any better ideas.

There is something really wrong when neither of the major parties can keep a PM in harness. And there wasn't necessarily anything deeply wrong with them, Boris's problem was lack of self-disapline mainly and a kind of laziness, but Sunak would I think have done a good job.

I'd be very surprised if they called a GE after though. The might go a little earlier than they would otherwise, but whoever is the new leader will want a bit of time to consolidate and then will wait until things look to be about as good as they are likely to get. They will want to set up the conditions to give themselves the best chance.

Ultimately unless they start to really look at the electorate with some level of clarity, they are not going to be able to make it work. it's the same as the Democrats in the US at the moment, they are so unable to honestly look at the public that they are incapable of maintaining public trust or messaging in a way thatis effective.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 12/05/2026 21:43

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

EasternStandard · 12/05/2026 22:02

They’re kind of stuck. He’s in limbo and no one moving. I can’t imagine Labour gaining support after this, but losing it more to other parties.

GallantKumquat · 12/05/2026 22:52

The UK is in a slow moving economic crisis - with debt >90% of gdp and gilts at historic levels, the UK is very close to a doom loop where increases in gilt yields will cause UK budget to lose credibility causing gilts to ratchet higher. Almost any replacement of Starmer would be viewed worse by the bond markets which is strong motivation for Labour (the financially literate ones at least) not not take action against his leadership. It also clouds leadership discussion over-all because explicitly saying: "we're not going to replace Starmer because the markets won't like it," will also make the market react negatively.

It's very peculiar - the most important aspect of the debate is taking place behind closed doors and only referenced obliquely.

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 12/05/2026 23:59

The all-important US take:

Asked about Keir Starmer's future and whether he should stay or go, President Donald Trump said: "That's up to him".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1e2n923v1lt?post=asset%3Ac5c8d398-1948-488e-9cfe-e2f624fe9fb4#post

Paul2023 · 13/05/2026 00:09

Regarding Burnham , he’d obviously have to find someone to give up their seat. Who and why would any MP do that ?
It would also mean a by election. Burnham might not even win, there’s no safe Labour seat anymore .

moto748e · 13/05/2026 01:33

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

If Lisa Nandy stood down, I'd vote for him! 😂

Floisme · 13/05/2026 07:14

I find it really distasteful that they’re even contemplating an unnecessary by election purely to try and stack the cards in their favour. Incredibly arrogant. How much does it cost to set one up and run it? Who pays for it? They’ve got 403 MPs and if they can’t find a potential leader in their own ranks then they’ve got problems no ‘saviour’ from outside is going to fix.

WaffleParty · 13/05/2026 07:21

I want Starmer to stay for now. I’m no fan of his but he seems like a safe and steady pair of hands which is what we need right now. I see no point switching to Wes Streeting - that’s just copy and pasting. Ultimately I’d like to see the Labour Party move back to the left with Burnham and Raynor.

Shortshriftandlethal · 13/05/2026 09:44

Any new leader right now is going to have their legitimacy questioned, especially if they move to the Left on the sort of platform that Labour were not elected on ( Fiscal responsibility etc).

Personally, rate Shabana Mahmood, and can see how she could 'steady the ship' and bring people back on board from across quite a wide spectrum.

RosieHosie · 13/05/2026 10:15

IwantToRetire · 12/05/2026 20:04

Interesting thought.

But part of me thinks that after this (ie Labour weren't exactly winners at the last election) that Labour or Labour MPs should do what Tory MPs did. Those who were basically making the Tories a failing Government eg ERG all left and went to Reform as an explicit right wing group which they just didn't have the guts to do.

And Labour which now still has elements of old left, Blairites and the not quite sures should part companies.

The those who consider themselves left could have a left vote without having to take on the Green nonsense.

And those who aren't so left could have their middle of the road managerial party.

Just need the electoral system to get up to date and have PR.

But I think the last days of the Tory Government and this althought still early days of the Labour Government show that they dont work where there are such distinct political groupings in one party. As it all goes on behind closed doors.

Better to have it out in the open with smaller groups saying this is our sticking point in public.

Agree with this

anyolddinosaur · 13/05/2026 11:08

The country is ungovernable because many people are financially illiterate and want things no government can deliver. Starmer is hampered by his party, who have forced on him things like abolishing the benefit cap and setting too high an income level for removing the winter fuel payment. He's been unlucky with international events, no government could cope well with war in Iran. Any other leader - from any party - will probably spook the markets and make our economic woes worse. It's a job no sane person would want now.

moto748e · 13/05/2026 11:40

It often seems to me that any attempts by governments to marginally improve the lot of ordinary folk are branded as 'financially illiterate', or inflationary. That never seems to be said when governments hand money to the already rich, as they often do, via tax cuts etc. Meanwhile we all wait for the crumbs from the rich men's table.

Beowulfa · 13/05/2026 11:40

I despise the concept of "safe seats". As well as treating the electorate like idiots it results in this kind of scheming. Wouldn't it be glorious if Burnham stood in a by-election on his arrogant way to Number 10 and got beaten by an independent candidate hot on local issues?

It's exciting for the media to have constant leadership challenges and changes, but it's really bad for the stability of the nation and any kind of medium term planning.

anyolddinosaur · 13/05/2026 12:28

@moto748e Instead of waiting for the crumbs from the rich men's table maybe get off your arse and earn your own money. If you are earning then look for ways to improve your earning power. It is a fact of life that countries that tax the rich too heavily lose them to countries that dont. Until there is some international agreement to standardise taxation then it IS financially illiterate to think you can keep increasing taxes on the rich and expect them to stay around. We need people that pull money into the country and there are not many of them in Britain.

There are limits to what any government can do and if you really think that changing the leader of the party in government matters much you are deluded. If you think Reform would hand money to anyone except the rich you are deluded - Farage's strategy is low taxation to attract millionaires to live here and he doesnt give a shit for the poor. As for the Greens - the markets would hate them and the poor would suffer further.

If Starmer wasnt fighting his party all the time maybe the lot of the poor might actually improve. He was the best chance in years. Yes he's a disappointment but that's because Labour activists have lost touch with working people.

mrshoho · 13/05/2026 22:12

Labour are in some mess and it's looking more and more likely Ed Miliband is being lined up to be Starmer's replacement. I'd prefer Wes Streeting but fear he'd be ousted by those hardline leftist MPs before his feet touch the floor. What a depressing thought that we could soon end up with Ed Miliband as PM. If Starmer goes it's not going to magically solve the woes so I'd rather he stays.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 13/05/2026 22:54

I frequently wonder what would have happened if David rather than Ed had won the leadership back in 2010…🤔

Cannot quite believe I am saying this but I feel a bit sorry for Starmer. This is a total shit show that I can see no positive outcome for.

I have no idea if I will ever put an X against a candidate name in another GE. I have only ever voted Labour but spoiled my ballot in 2024.

Paul2023 · 13/05/2026 23:05

A candidate would need 81 people to nominate them anyway. As for Burnham , people forget that he can’t just go straight into government, he’d need to find someone to give up their seat. This would trigger a by election- and who can guarantee the outcome ?

Waxingmoons · 14/05/2026 00:00

Media driven push.
UK has got soo used to five minute PMs. Oh, the drama!
Dislike Starmer but sometimes the “better the devil you know” premise is worthy of consideration

IwantToRetire · 14/05/2026 01:46

I do think another aspect is that over the years that the 2 party default system existed both Labour and Tory were / are actually made up of groups who may vaguely be "left" or "right" but actually dont have that much in common.

Both Labour and Tory have had many, many stories written about internal dynamics and rivalries and genuine differences as to the best strategy which and if they got into power.

Not sure how in the dim distance past this was "managed" by either party, or whether factionalism within either party has become more riven added to which are the personal dislikes.

So it is just a likely that even if on paper there is a shared manifesto when it comes to putting it into action, sooner or later there is going to be disatisfaction within the party, just as much with voters.

That's partly why I said up thread I would prefer for the future we have more smaller parties who at least (you would hope) spend less time with their internal vendettas.

Judging by vox pop interviews very few people had any idea of policies, but knew a lot about who was fighting who. Or just came up with the "they're all the same".

Now that we have both the Tories and Farage, Labour should accept that dont have a shared concept for the Party.

OP posts:
Peoplesfrontofjudea2000 · 14/05/2026 08:15

I don’t agree with proportional representation as that way parties get into power with minority of votes and control agenda. Voters have no say in which party forms coalition and don’t really know what they are voting for. First past the post makes it clear that winner had majority votes even if it results in turkeys voting for Christmas. PR makes voters even less heard imo.

mrshoho · 14/05/2026 09:35

IwantToRetire · 14/05/2026 01:46

I do think another aspect is that over the years that the 2 party default system existed both Labour and Tory were / are actually made up of groups who may vaguely be "left" or "right" but actually dont have that much in common.

Both Labour and Tory have had many, many stories written about internal dynamics and rivalries and genuine differences as to the best strategy which and if they got into power.

Not sure how in the dim distance past this was "managed" by either party, or whether factionalism within either party has become more riven added to which are the personal dislikes.

So it is just a likely that even if on paper there is a shared manifesto when it comes to putting it into action, sooner or later there is going to be disatisfaction within the party, just as much with voters.

That's partly why I said up thread I would prefer for the future we have more smaller parties who at least (you would hope) spend less time with their internal vendettas.

Judging by vox pop interviews very few people had any idea of policies, but knew a lot about who was fighting who. Or just came up with the "they're all the same".

Now that we have both the Tories and Farage, Labour should accept that dont have a shared concept for the Party.

Before Blair and New Labour, the Labour party was as a whole traditional left, socialist, in step with the Unions. You knew what you were voting for. Blair brought the party to the centre and appealed to the aspirational young and working classes. He changed the Labour constitution. It seemed like the country could have the best of both; socialist values and a strong business economy and for a while it did. But it has evolved, maybe always was, a party divided. Some of their proposals and polices appear more in step with a Conservative government. The Labour Party as a broad church is surely going to continue to have this deep division. The conservative party is gradually breaking up with Reform etc. Maybe we will end up with smaller parties all round and hung governments.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 14/05/2026 10:10

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 14/05/2026 13:31

Resignation letter:

Dear Prime Minister,
The results are in and I am pleased to report that I have delivered against the ambitious targets you set for me when I became your Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Today's figures confirm that we surpassed our waiting times target despite strikes, and that waiting lists fell by 110,000 in March - the biggest monthly drop outside of Covid since 2008 meaning that we are on track to achieve the fastest improvement in NHS waiting times in history.
The only question that matters in government is whether we leave our successors a better situation than we inherited. Ambulance response times for heart attacks and strokes are now the fastest in five years. A&E waiting times are improving, with four-hour waiting figures also the best in five years. We've recruited 2,000 more GPs and satisfaction has risen from 60 per cent to 74.5 per cent since we came to office. We hit our target of recruiting 8,500 mental health staff three years early. We've achieved this at the same as balancing the books for the first time in nine years and smashing the 2 per cent NHS productivity target by achieving 2.8 per cent, which means the investment we're putting in goes further and that the public can have greater confidence that their money is being well-spent.
None of this would have been achieved without the brilliant leadership team of ministers, officials, and special advisers we have established in the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS - superbly led by Samantha Jones and Sir Jim Mackey, who has been a knight in shining armour and a brilliant leader of 1.5 million staff upon whom all this success depends.
The National Health Service is the embodiment of all that is best about Britain and our values. Thanks to our Labour government, it is on the road to recovery: lots done, but so much more to do.
These are all good reasons for me to remain in post, but as you know from our conversation earlier this week, having lost confidence in your leadership, I have concluded that it would be dishonourable and unprincipled to do so.
Last week's election results were unprecedented - both in terms of the scale of the defeat and the consequences of that failure. For the first time in our country's history, nationalists are in power in every corner of the United Kingdom - including a dangerous English nationalism represented by Nigel Farage and Reform UK. This represents both an existential threat to the future integrity of the United Kingdom, but Reform UK also represent a threat to the values and ideals that have made this country great. Progressives across our country understand this threat and our responsibility to confront it, but they are increasingly losing faith that the Labour Party is capable of rising to our historic responsibility of defeating racism and offering hope that Britain's best days lie ahead through social democracy.
There is no doubt that the unpopularity of this Government was a major and common factor in our defeats across England, Scotland and Wales. Good Labour people lost through no fault of their own. There are many reasons we could point to: from individual mistakes on policy like the decision to cut the winter fuel allowance to the 'island of strangers' speech, all of which have left the country not knowing who we are or what we really stand for.
You have many great strengths that I admire. You led our party to a victory few thought possible in 2024 and I was proud to fight alongside you in the trenches of that campaign. You have shown courage and statesmanship on the world stage - not least in keeping Britain out of the war in Iran.
But where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift. This was underscored by your speech on Monday. Leaders take responsibility, but too often that has meant other people falling on their swords. You also need to listen to your colleagues, including backbenchers, and the heavy-handed approach to dissenting voices diminishes our politics.
As a member of your government, I know better than most that governing is hard. It should be, because it matters. There are enormous challenges facing this country. For the first time in our history the next generation faces a worse inheritance than the last. We have wars raging in Europe and the Middle East that are making our challenges harder, not easier. We are in the foothills of a technological industrial revolution that has huge implications for every aspect of our lives - not least the future of work. It is not clear whether democracy or tyranny will define the 21st century. After the financial crisis, austerity, the disaster of Brexit, Liz Truss, the covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine and now the war in Iran, the country needs to believe again that things can be better than this and that politics is part of the answer, not the source of the problem. These are big challenges that require a bold vision and bigger solutions than we are offering. It is now clear that you will not lead the Labour Party into the next general election and that Labour MPs and Labour Unions want the debate about what comes next to be a battle of ideas, not of personalities or petty factionalism. It needs to be broad, and it needs the best possible field of candidates. I support that approach and I hope that you will facilitate this.
Serving as your Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been the greatest joy of my life and, regardless of our differences this week, I remain truly grateful to you for the opportunity to serve and I am deeply saddened to be leaving government in this way.
Yours sincerely, The Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP

Swipe left for the next trending thread