The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[edwin_m]

He had the potential to be competent it's just his integrity prevented it. He was also more interested in his image and changed his views with the wind!
Don't doubt he was an intelligent person but he never put it to good use.

There's a big difference between being intelligent and being competent. Some of the brightest people are useless at getting anything done. Which, in the case of Johnson, is something we should be thankful for.

 

[Leyland Bus]

Tim Berners-Lee did not invent the internet, rather the World Wide Web, just one set of protocols. Ironically it was meant to be decentrailised, but has become increasingly centralised, especially by the likes of Musk, Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet... I do however miss the middle ages of the Internet (late 90s-mid 2000s)... Remember when Amazon was just a good place to buy books and CDs? Now it's a good place to buy very little, yet stocks everything. I can almost always find a better deal elsewhere if I take the time and haven't used them in years, anyway I digress...
I've never known a government though come under such an onslaught, it's almsot as if organised interests are against it. For that reason I'm glad I supported it, even if I've thus far been underwhelmed by actual policy output. I will not let them subvert our democracy, flawed though it is. The freebies scandal? Everything was declared and the vast majority if not all within the law. The fact they declared it seems to have given the right-wing media ammo, if it had been Johnson it'd have been done behind back doors. One rule for them, another rule for the rest of us. In particular the bile aimed at Angela Rayner gets my back up. She goes out in a cheap teal coloured dress and everyone bemoans how common she is and has no taste. She receives somehting smarter and declares it, it's corruption somehow. She buys something smart with her own money. She's an out of touch champagne socialist. Just what is she meant to do? It's almost as if for the working class, we shouldn't progress. We should know our place. That really grates with me.

Going off on a tangent, it's strange how monopoly capitalism, similar to that of the gilded age, has returned, together with all of the power that entails. We were told free market economics would bring more competition and place power back with the individual consumer. Yet see when Uber didn't get its way in London a few years ago, people rallied around the monopolist, who was able to deploy its PR machinery, rather than the officials they themselves had elected. Now people seem to willingly empower monopolies, those who control them and few seem to mind, despite it leading to worse service. I've not signed into ex-Twitter in a while now. I doubt I will interact with it again in any meaningful way. Frankly, the righties seem to live in a parallel universe, devoid of truth and made up soleley of newspaper headlines and throwaway quotes from the likes of Musk, Farage et al. There were once Conservatives, both large and small 'c', that I could respectfully disagree with, not all moderates. Now I struggle to find those I admire at all, at least in this country. I disagree with some of the things the new governemnt is doing and it could be better, but compared to the main alternative it's bloody marvellous.

What upsets me most is that the old solutions and values are now inadequate against various forces in the world (Russia, Trump, Billionaire tech bros, to name but a few), I fear it will be a long time before we return to a balanced economy, the global village, more liberty but combined with a degree of social justice etc. twenty or so years, after the Cold War were a golden age for people like me, for people who want to see people free, but nobody fall down too hard, and we didn't even seem to realise. Things weren't great, but they sure weren't this bad. Starmer can't do right for doing wrong. News quantity is greater than ever, but its quality worse and its ownership more concentrated than ever. Even the BBC has had to learn to operate on the terms of this enviromnent to maintain its credibility against a biased yardstick.

If my point about monopolies seems unrelated, it's that a few wealthy people now have such a disproportionate influence that I'm not sure democracy as we know it can survive. I think that, along with some poor early decision making and overpromising, are what is doing for Starmer. A democracy requires mass participation, mass access to knowledge to make informed decisions and by definition broadly equal influence. ie. one person, one vote. Whilst the formality of the latter may be maintained, the way in which that vote is influenced has changed dramatically. The mass media of old for all its paternalism, in particular broadcast media, maintained at least a reasonable degree of fairness between views which were seen as reasonable. Now that's gone. I'm beginning to see @Gloster 's point in other words. The solution would probably be to break the tech monopolies at least in the sort to medium term, as well as restore some order to broadcast media. This means more freedom of speech, not less. It means everyone or almost everyone get a say, not just the media owners. No doubt the media owners will howl censorship, but I think the restoration of imparitality rules and their actual enforcement is important to democracy.

I have to, personally, say, that was a well written piece and I enjoyed reading it...

It's posts like that that make me glad I signed up to the forum.

I thought that it was extremely interesting and for me, I'd say very much on point.

 

[Richard Scott]

There's a big difference between being intelligent and being competent. Some of the brightest people are useless at getting anything done. Which, in the case of Johnson, is something we should be thankful for.

That's true but I still believe he could have been competent but his ego meant he didn't stand a chance.

 

[Harpo]

That's true but I still believe he could have been competent but his ego meant he didn't stand a chance.

Johnson was too lazy to become competent. He famously did little with his briefings. His Pepper Pig meltdown seemed to demonstrate that.

 

[Richard Scott]

Johnson was too lazy to become competent. He famously did little with his briefings. His Pepper Pig meltdown seemed to demonstrate that.

I don't doubt that hence why I said he could have been, obviously he ended up not being competent.

 

[Falcon1200]

Slightly surprised that there have been no comments on Sir Keir's recent troubles, namely losing a 3rd (third) Minister in just over 6 months in power, and another Labour MP now embroiled in the issue;

Second Labour MP apologises over WhatsApp comments

Burnley MP Oliver Ryan says his comments in the group were "completely unacceptable".

www.bbc.co.uk

Second Labour MP apologises over WhatsApp comments​

Burnley MP Oliver Ryan has become the second MP to be suspended from the Labour parliamentary party over his membership of a WhatsApp group which contained offensive messages.
Ryan was summoned to a meeting with Chief Whip Sir Alan Campbell, after the Mail on Sunday published the messages.
Ahead of the meeting he issued an apology in which he said the comments in the group had been "completely unacceptable" and he regretted "not speaking out at the time".

Cannot help but think that if these had been Tory MPs there would have been something of an outcry.

(Edited to add quote as requested by Moderators)

 

[takno]

Slightly surprised that there have been no comments on Sir Keir's recent troubles, namely losing a 3rd (third) Minister in just over 6 months in power, and another Labour MP now embroiled in the issue;

Second Labour MP apologises over WhatsApp comments

Burnley MP Oliver Ryan says his comments in the group were "completely unacceptable".

www.bbc.co.uk

Cannot help but think that if these had been Tory MPs there would have been something of an outcry.

There would have been outcry because Labour would have been crying out and the Tories would have been half-heartedly backing the minister for a week until they gave up and resigned. In this case the Labour government has been fast and effective at clearing up the problem, and the Tories in opposition are in any case absolutely hopeless at making anything of it.

It's worth bearing in mind that both the Tories and Reform would struggle to make that much of this, since it sounds like the messages which are causing the outrage are broadly in line with their own stated values.

 

[Howardh]

Cannot help but think that if these had been Tory MPs there would have been something of an outcry.

Think you'll find there is one heck of an outcry - and I'm one who (reluctantly) voted for Labour to want them hung, drawn and quartered and not necessarily in that order.

Voting Labour was supposed to reduce all this nonsense but it appears some cannot be sensible on unsocial media. They aren't fit to govern. However the former lost his job immediately (hopefully followed by the latter) and their constituences call them in for a by-election. maybe the reason there isn't such a big "outcry" however is that it was dealt with swiftly, as opposed to the Tory scandals which ran and ran and ran..???

 

[dosxuk]

Cannot help but think that if these had been Tory MPs there would have been something of an outcry.

Because the Tory leadership would have stuck by them, defended the comments, tried to pretend nothing happened and then a week later u-turn and sack them (normally after at least one junior minister had been sent on live TV to defend them).

 

[Leyland Bus]

Think you'll find there is one heck of an outcry - and I'm one who (reluctantly) voted for Labour to want them hung, drawn and quartered and not necessarily in that order.

Voting Labour was supposed to reduce all this nonsense but it appears some cannot be sensible on unsocial media. They aren't fit to govern. However the former lost his job immediately (hopefully followed by the latter) and their constituences call them in for a by-election. maybe the reason there isn't such a big "outcry" however is that it was dealt with swiftly, as opposed to the Tory scandals which ran and ran and ran..???

No party can ever be "totally clean" or never slip up or make a gaff or whatever. Humans will always do this stuff, regardless of who they are or what they represent... What matters is how those who drop the peverbial are dealt with. As has been shown, you mess up, you're out. Simple. No messing about, no cover ups, no lying about it etc etc. It's just as it should be and I'm glad of it. As has been said above, other parties would have dragged it out for so long before succumbing to the inevitable. Atleast that's one thing that has "changed"...

 

[DarloRich]

Cannot help but think that if these had been Tory MPs there would have been something of an outcry.

Perhaps. However, the difference is surely Starmer hasn't asked his MP's to " for square around the Pritster" or some such nonsense like Johnson. He hasn't tried a bodged coverup, sent his ministers out to lie about the problem and defended the wrong doer. He sacked the wrong un on the spot. Rightly.

 

[MotCO]

Perhaps. However, the difference is surely Starmer hasn't asked his MP's to " for square around the Pritster" or some such nonsense like Johnson. He hasn't tried a bodged coverup, sent his ministers out to lie about the problem and defended the wrong doer. He sacked the wrong un on the spot. Rightly.

But Andrew Gwynne's comments were very crass to say in the first place, and impossible to defend. I don't know if any Tory misdemeanours were that bad.

 

[brad465]

But Andrew Gwynne's comments were very crass to say in the first place, and impossible to defend. I don't know if any Tory misdemeanours were that bad.

William Wragg's honeytrap scandal was very crass; while there wasn't any offensive language, it endangered the security of several MPs. Then there were multiple sexual misconduct incidences, including the Chris Pincher row that was the last straw in Johnson's premiership. Beyond those I can't recall any Tory MP rude language scandals. Reform however had to dissociate from several candidates who had said or done some very offensive things, but their poor vetting process had not picked up.

I would say these sorts of scandals are more common not just in the absence of poor vetting, but in one or combination of the following: a snap election, or one where a party (or parties) win a number of unexpected seats. This is where poor quality candidates are most likely to be found. The last election was very strongly the last point, and to a lesser extent the former as well. The most notable example of this I think though was in 2017: the snap election, combined with Labour exceeding expectations, led to some dodgy candidates winning. The most notable was Jared O'Mara: won in Sheffield Hallam, which was both a shock and unseated Nick Clegg, but the hasty selection process and unexpected win saw someone completely unfit in parliament, as O'Mara used his position to commit serious fraud. He's now in jail for it, but improved vetting could have prevented this.

 

[MotCO]

William Wragg's honeytrap scandal was very crass; while there wasn't any offensive language, it endangered the security of several MPs. Then there were multiple sexual misconduct incidences, including the Chris Pincher row that was the last straw in Johnson's premiership. Beyond those I can't recall any Tory MP rude language scandals. Reform however had to dissociate from several candidates who had said or done some very offensive things, but their poor vetting process had not picked up.

I would say these sorts of scandals are more common not just in the absence of poor vetting, but in one or combination of the following: a snap election, or one where a party (or parties) win a number of unexpected seats. This is where poor quality candidates are most likely to be found. The last election was very strongly the last point, and to a lesser extent the former as well. The most notable example of this I think though was in 2017: the snap election, combined with Labour exceeding expectations, led to some dodgy candidates winning. The most notable was Jared O'Mara: won in Sheffield Hallam, which was both a shock and unseated Nick Clegg, but the hasty selection process and unexpected win saw someone completely unfit in parliament, as O'Mara used his position to commit serious fraud. He's now in jail for it, but improved vetting could have prevented this.

Yes, I can understand how poor vetting of candidates can lead to problems. In seats where a candidate is not expected to win, any candidate worth their salt would not even attempt it, leaving no-hopers to fill the list. Then if they win, the problems start. However, I don't think Gwynne falls into that category, and he was even appointed a Minister!

 

[Falcon1200]

I agree that Labour has done the right thing regarding these two MPs, however the fact remains that neither thought there was anything wrong with comments which were, seemingly, racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-Semitic - Did I miss anything? The fact also remains that losing three Ministers after being in Government for just half a year is surely a serious issue for Keir Starmer and his judgement.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't know if any Tory misdemeanours were that bad.

Really? You cant recall all of the nonsense we have with Johnson and Truss & Sunak? There was loads but off the top of my head:

• Pincher the Pincher
• Wragg and his honeytrap sexting scam
• Driving to Barnard Castle to test my eyesight
• Owen Patterson & Randox
• Partygate - i couldn't attend my uncles funeral but he and his top tory chums could have a party.
• Telling lies to the queen around prorogation
• Tractor porn!
• Benton (?) and his lobbying
• Patel was sacked twice for dodgyness!

I am not trying to play this event down but these are canny bad like!

 

[Broucek]

It seems that neither party is good at testing potential MPs for racism, antisemitism, general idiocy.... I mean, what kind of politician is dumb enough to put IN WRITING that they hope a member of the public dies?

 

[MotCO]

Really? You cant recall all of the nonsense we have with Johnson and Truss & Sunak? There was loads but off the top of my head:

• Pincher the Pincher
• Wragg and his honeytrap sexting scam
• Driving to Barnard Castle to test my eyesight
• Owen Patterson & Randox
• Partygate - i couldn't attend my uncles funeral but he and his top tory chums could have a party.
• Telling lies to the queen around prorogation
• Tractor porn!
• Benton (?) and his lobbying
• Patel was sacked twice for dodgyness!

I am not trying to play this event down but these are canny bad like!

I know there were misdemeanours, but no Tory in my recollection called for their electorate to die as Gwynne did. That is completely unacceptable.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I know there were misdemeanours, but no Tory in my recollection called for their electorate to die as Gwynne did. That is completely unacceptable.

Didn’t a donor call for Dianne Abbott to be shot and also made him want to hate all black people. They accepted three lots of donations from him, despite him never actually apologising for the racist remarks.

 

[simonw]

I know there were misdemeanours, but no Tory in my recollection called for their electorate to die as Gwynne did. That is completely unacceptable.

Boris Johnson said no more ******** lockdowns – let the bodies pile high in their thousands

 

[MotCO]

Boris Johnson said no more ******** lockdowns – let the bodies pile high in their thousands

When the Tories were said to be thinking about withdrawing the Winter Fuel Allowance, Labour said that this would lead to 4000 extra deaths of the elderly over the winter. So presumably Labour are happy for 4000 deaths this winter.

 

[simonw]

When the Tories were said to be thinking about withdrawing the Winter Fuel Allowance, Labour said that this would lead to 4000 extra deaths of the elderly over the winter. So presumably Labour are happy for 4000 deaths this winter.

No idea, I'm not a Labour supporter. I was answering your lack of recollection.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I know there were misdemeanours, but no Tory in my recollection called for their electorate to die as Gwynne did. That is completely unacceptable.

If we’re playing top trumps, the Tory MP Charlie Elphicke sexually assaulted his electorate and then his mates all piled into court to defend him.

I’m more interested how these WhatsApp chats ended up with the Daily Mail. Apparently Labour HQ knew about them a while ago but they’ve only been leaked now.

Andrew Gwynne is from the left of the party. We know Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney was the one who leaked all the stuff about Sue Gray. And McSweeney was the one who leaked everything about Louise Haigh. There’s been a book out this week detailing all about how McSweeney has been leaking about Starmer, describing him as “thinking he’s a train driver but sitting on the DLR”.

I can’t help but think McSweeney I’d behind this too.

McSweeney is exactly the same as Dominic Cummings and if Starmer doesn’t deal with him then he’ll do to Labour what Cummings did to the Tories.

 

[Gloster]

Frankly, if in a couple of years‘ time they are governing reasonably competently and the economy is not doing too badly, even though that might just be ‘hasn’t tanked as much as everywhere else’, they should get back in, even with various scandals. It is also possible that in year or two the worst of the dodgy members will have been dealt with and relative respectability returned. I suspect that the Conservatives will still be infighting and Reform may crash and burn, so modest competence may, despite the MailyExpressoGraph, be seen as better than the alternatives. But the actions of the orange one are likely to be the root of the most intractable problems.

 

[Yew]

McSweeney is exactly the same as Dominic Cummings and if Starmer doesn’t deal with him then he’ll do to Labour what Cummings did to the Tories.

In industry, it's fairly common to have nondisclosure agreements, and robust cybersecurity protocols. I find it amazing that such basic protocols are not in force in the higher echelons of our national government, instead anyone can tell-all and share the whatsapps.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2025 ==

Frankly, if in a couple of years‘ time they are governing reasonably competently and the economy is not doing too badly, even though that might just be ‘hasn’t tanked as much as everywhere else’, they should get back in, even with various scandals. It is also possible that in year or two the worst of the dodgy members will have been dealt with and relative respectability returned. I suspect that the Conservatives will still be infighting and Reform may crash and burn, so modest competence may, despite the MailyExpressoGraph, be seen as better than the alternatives. But the actions of the orange one are likely to be the root of the most intractable problems.

I do think it's interesting that this thread hasn't had any discussion about policies announced recently, and only was revived for this relatively minor scandal of an unimportant minister.

 

[nanstallon]

Crass though Gwynne's behaviour was, I find it hard to blame Starmer in any way for this episode. He dealt promptly with the matter, unlike the way that Johnson dealt with scandals.

Worst of all in my view was the Patterson scandal, where Johnson three line whipped his party into voting for a bill specifically aimed and timed at getting his crony off the hook.

It was the incompetence, arrogance and corruption of the Tories which made me (normally a Tory voter when the party is behaving sensibly) vote Labour last year. Sunak was a lot better than Johnson and Truss were. Had he not insisted on continuing with the Rwanda scheme, I'd probably have voted Tory; Hunt was a reasonably decent Chancellor.

Certainly, Labour have disappointed me - a poor start on matters of integrity with the gifts to senior politicians, which surely are not given without hope of gaining influence, despite Rayner saying these were normal.

Reeves is out of her depth and like Starmer is out of touch with the public. Instead of the 'cliff edge' approach to the fuel allowance, Reeves could have carried on with it being paid to all pensioners, but made it subject to income tax so that those who most needed it would get it all, many would get it less 20% tax and those who were well off would get it less 40% tax. She was also irresponsible in exaggerating the state of the economy, which was a silly thing to do once you have won the election and need to maintain confidence in the country's economic stability.

The alleged black hole didn't stop her caving in to the unions on pay, with a lot of others now thinking 'me, too' which bodes ill for the future on inflation. To be fair, she has adopted a nuanced approach to Inheritance Tax for farmers, which seems reasonable.

Unless Labour get their act together, and/or the Tories move back into the middle ground, I can see Farage becoming PM in 2029 - a truly ghastly prospect. Sadly, moderation is not very fashionable these days.

 

[Howardh]

When the Tories were said to be thinking about withdrawing the Winter Fuel Allowance, Labour said that this would lead to 4000 extra deaths of the elderly over the winter. So presumably Labour are happy for 4000 deaths this winter.

Tories would withdraw from everyone, leaving the poorest the most vulnerable, under Labour the poorest still get WFA and those, like me, who don't really need it don't get it?
That's how I read it!

 

[Yew]

The alleged black hole didn't stop her caving in to the unions on pay, with a lot of others now thinking 'me, too' which bodes ill for the future on inflation.

Typically wages have a relatively small impact on inflation, the main drivers recently have been political instability in Ukraine and around the Suez Canal. Of course, there are also the record profits and dividends that are being paid

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2025 ==

Crass though Gwynne's behaviour was, I find it hard to blame Starmer in any way for this episode. He dealt promptly with the matter, unlike the way that Johnson dealt with scandals.

Part of me is very aware that it sometimes feels like lots of the working public is socially along the lines of Farrage, but economically somewhere to the left of Jeremy Corbyn. I worry that the modern Labour Party, which economically is closer to Thatcher than Atlee, simply isn't something all that appealing - particularly when reform are blaming all our ills on foreigners and thus appealing to one of those bases.

 

[JonathanH]

The alleged black hole didn't stop her caving in to the unions on pay, with a lot of others now thinking 'me, too' which bodes ill for the future on inflation.

Politicians can't win with this one. When disputes cost more to continue to fight than settle, it seems odd to continue to fight. The best thing to do is then take all the pay increase back by tax.

 

[GusB]

A couple of idiots from the governing party make idiots of themselves, get found out and get fired. It certainly doesn't look good but the action was swift. That's all that matters as far as I'm concerned. I'm no fan of the currently Labour administration but I think that the leadership did the right thing here.

Meanwhile, you have the likes of Suella Braverman getting away with stuff like this:

Suella Braverman Says The UK Could Become 'The First Islamist Nation With Nuclear Weapons'

The former home secretary said Britain could "fall into the hands of Muslim fundamentalism" and become like Iran.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

Suella Braverman has suggested that the UK could become “the first Islamist nation with nuclear weapons”.

The former home secretary said Britain could “fall into the hands of Muslim fundamentalism” and become like Iran.

She made the incendiary comments in a speech to the right-wing Heritage Foundation think-tank in Washington.

Braverman said: “Vice-president JD Vance said at the National Conservatism conference, at which I also spoke in the summer, that the UK was going to be the first Islamist nation with nuclear weapons. I don’t think he was joking.

“Is it an impossibility that 20 years from now it will be the UK, not China or Russia, that will emerge as the greatest strategic threat to the USA?

“Born out of a broken relationship and weak leadership. What happens if the UK falls into the hands of Muslim fundamentalism, our legal system gets substituted for Sharia Law and our nuclear capabilities vest in a regime not too dissimilar to that of Iran today?

“Regardless of whether one thinks that is a realistic outcome, which I do not, should we not have the courage to ask these questions?”

I get a bit tired of people playing the anti-semitism card while completely ignoring anti-Islamic rubbish like this. Having said that, the only UK media outlet that actually seems to have reported this was the Mirror, so I'm not entirely surprised that it has gone completely un-noticed. I didn't cite the Mirror's article because I'd probably have been ridiculed for doing so, but other non-UK outlets have also covered this.