The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[dcbwhaley]

Just have one chap running it all. Works in North Korea.

And the USA

 

[Acfb]

Interesting that Douglas Alexander has replaced Ian Murray as Scottish Secretary. I don't actually have an issue with that TBH even though Ian Murray is my MP. Bit of a surprise that Ian Murray was sacked but I was surprised Douglas Alexander didn't go straight to the actual Cabinet last year.

 

[jfollows]

Starmer, and Rayner, should have done what they would have demanded, and probably have demanded, of any opposition politician in a similar situation; She should have resigned as soon as she knew what had happened, and when she did not Starmer should have sacked her.

Agreed, I said so in post #1,664 and the court of public opinion clearly agreed. Westminster politicians lose the ability to read the public mood once in power. It would have been better for her and Starmer if she’d gone at the start. It’s clear she is no different from the Conservatives she replaced, sadly. I think it opens up the way for Reform all the more based on a plague on all their houses, and Farage will be even worse, but he’ll get the votes.

I also think the Labour party in government has to communicate what it stands for which is different from Conservative or Reform. I don’t think it is doing this. The campaign for a replacement deputy leader will expose a huge rift in the party.

Starmer resets after Rayner row, but Labour turmoil is a gift for Reform

The start of this political season has been wild, writes Laura Kuenssberg, and Labour now has Reform UK breathing down its neck.

www.bbc.co.uk

For Labour in general, it undermines again, their claim to be different to those who went before, to return government to the "service of the people", as Sir Keir said so many times – to be competent, with clean heels.

 

[J663738]

The campaign for a replacement deputy leader will expose a huge rift in the party.

This may well not happen if the NEC are lent upon.

 

[Yew]

It seems like a reasonable investigative process has been followed, and a conclusion reached relatively promptly.

 

[J663738]

It seems like a reasonable investigative process has been followed, and a conclusion reached relatively promptly.

Yes I agree, leaving politics aside, it amazes me how long some enquiries are dragged out.

 

[brad465]

This may well not happen if the NEC are lent upon.

I think the election should be decided by MPs only (ideally all the time, but most especially while Labour form the government). Members of any particular party are a long way from the general electorate, and they shouldn't be directly deciding senior government positions through a party vote. Likewise, they shouldn't be voting for a new PM outside a general election; a rule that if applied to the Tories would have prevented Liz Truss (and Boris Johnson, though he'd have won a pure MP vote, whereas Truss was 2nd amongst MPs).

 

[J663738]

I honestly don't get why Sir Kier moved everyone around like musical chairs? (I know all PMs do it)
Image a company and the CEO says we need to have a change and HR Director goes to Sales, Finance Director becomes Marketing and IT manager become the New HR Director. etc etc Exactly, it would never happen, but all political parties do it and no one comments on how stupid it is. If you are not talented enough at the Home Office, why would you be a huge success at Foreign affairs?

 

[GusB]

I've refrained from commenting so far as I wanted to find out what the outcome of any investigation would be. It was fairly clear from the beginning that Rayner's coat was on a shoogly peg but I'd rather establish whether or not a "mistake" was genuine before baying for blood.

As it turned out, it was deemed that Rayner breached the ministerial code and she has resigned accordingly. This was the right thing to.

For information, the letter from Laurie Magnus can be found here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68bac57c536d629f9c82ab4b/Letter_from_the_Independent_Adviser_to_the_Prime_Minister.pdf

I won't quote the whole document in full, but there are a few bits that are worth a mention:

With Ms Rayner’s full cooperation and assistance, I have reviewed relevant documentation
from the property transaction. This has included the advice she received at the time from the
legal firms involved and the associated documentation that was prepared for her to effect the
purchase. This advice gave rise to Ms Rayner's understanding - which I consider to have been
held in good faith - that the lower rate of SDLT was applicable when purchasing the property
in Hove.
It is not necessary for me to detail the specific contents of this advice or the associated
documentation but, having reviewed it, I would draw four conclusions:
a) Ms Rayner was open about the existence of the Trust and considered that, between
them, the firms advising her had appropriate knowledge and awareness of the details
and circumstances of the Trust;
b) on the basis of the advice she received, Ms Rayner believed that the lower rate of
SDLT would be applicable; indeed she was twice informed in writing that this was the
case; but
c) in those two instances, that advice was qualified by the acknowledgement that it did
not constitute expert tax advice and was accompanied by a suggestion, or in one case
a recommendation, that specific tax advice be obtained; and
d) if such expert tax advice had been received, as it later was, it would likely have
advised her that a higher rate of SDLT was payable

Ms Rayner deeply regrets the mistake she has made in relation to the underpayment of SDLT
for the purchase of her property in Hove. On realisation of this error, she has sought quickly
to correct the mistake and to refer herself to HMRC in order to ensure that she pays the
correct amount. I have no doubt that she has been motivated in the management of her
property and financial arrangements by a desire to act in the best interests of her children, and
with the intention to pay all appropriate taxes and fulfil all her legal obligations.

It is highly unfortunate, however, that Ms Rayner failed to pay the correct rate of SDLT on
this purchase, particularly given her status and responsibilities as the Secretary of State for
Housing, Communities and Local Government and as Deputy Prime Minister. She believed
that she relied on the legal advice she had received, but unfortunately did not heed the caution
contained within it, which acknowledged that it did not constitute expert tax advice and
which suggested that expert advice be sought. I am conscious of the acute challenges
Ministers face - perhaps uniquely - in managing the demands of their personal lives and their
public responsibilities. However, the responsibility of any taxpayer for reporting their tax
returns and settling their liabilities rests ultimately on themselves alone. Given the
conjunction of the acknowledged complexity of her family circumstances, her position in
Government (most importantly as Deputy Prime Minister) and the consequences of getting
such a calculation wrong, it is deeply regrettable that the specific tax advice was not sought.

I believe Ms Rayner has acted with integrity and with a dedicated and exemplary
commitment to public service. I consider, however, that her unfortunate failure to settle her
SDLT liability at the correct level, coupled with the fact that this was established only
following intensive public scrutiny, leads me to advise you that, in relation to this matter, she
cannot be considered to have met the “highest possible standards of proper conduct” as
envisaged by the Code. Accordingly, it is with deep regret that I must advise you that in these
circumstances, I consider the Code to have been breached.

A major blunder was made, certainly, but I don't think there was any dishonesty going on here. Rayner 'fessed up, referred herself to the relevant people and now she's gone. I'm not really sure what else she could have done. The letter acknowledges that her situation was fairly complex.

I'm not a big fan of the Labour administration but I'm saddened that the government has lost someone who genuinely cared about their brief.

I honestly don't get why Sir Kier moved everyone around like musical chairs? (I know all PMs do it)

It's Keir.

 

[Harpo]

I honestly don't get why Sir Kier moved everyone around like musical chairs?

While leaving Reeves in situ, an enormous liability and creator of huge own-goals.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As a rail forum, you have to wonder if the new Railways Bill, when it appears, will get through its legislative process before the government implodes.
The impregnable 5-year majority of 2024 seems ever more unstable.
The Scottish and Welsh elections in 2026 will be critical to Labour's survival.

 

[dangie]

I honestly don't get why Sir Kier moved everyone around like musical chairs? (I know all PMs do it)
Image a company and the CEO says we need to have a change and HR Director goes to Sales, Finance Director becomes Marketing and IT manager become the New HR Director. etc etc Exactly, it would never happen, but all political parties do it and no one comments on how stupid it is. If you are not talented enough at the Home Office, why would you be a huge success at Foreign affairs?

In business you tend to be promoted due to your competence. In politics you tend to be promoted beyond your competence.

 

[telstarbox]

Still pretty stable in my view. Labour have 399 MPs today accounting for those suspended. Even if 40 more MPs split off to the left (which they could have done already), they would have 359 which is the level Boris started at in 2019.

It's also different from the 2017-19 position in that the second largest party, the Tories are way down on 120 MPs, so have basically no chance of forming an alternative government.

 

[Magdalia]

I honestly don't get why Sir Kier moved everyone around like musical chairs? (I know all PMs do it)

A cabinet reshuffle was coming anyway. Being in government is very different from being in opposition. In the first year a new Prime Minister learns a lot about their cabinet colleagues and it is inevitable that they will want to do a reshuffle to put people with particular strengths in the posts where those strengths are most needed.

Image a company and the CEO says we need to have a change and HR Director goes to Sales, Finance Director becomes Marketing and IT manager become the New HR Director. etc etc Exactly, it would never happen, but all political parties do it and no one comments on how stupid it is.

Although a cabinet has some similarities to a company board, this comparison isn't relevant. Every cabinet post involves a bit of sales, a bit of marketing, a bit of finance and a bit of HR. But which are most important varies considerably between departments, and over time.

If you are not talented enough at the Home Office, why would you be a huge success at Foreign affairs?

It isn't about not being talented enough, it is about where the talents are most effectively deployed.

Though I am a bit surprised that the reshuffle hasn't included a few more sackings, in particular to make way for rising talent among junior ministers.

While leaving Reeves in situ, an enormous liability

Reeves is an asset not a liability where it matters for Chancellors, which is in the bond markets.

The impregnable 5-year majority of 2024 seems ever more unstable.

Still pretty stable in my view. Labour have 399 MPs today accounting for those suspended.

The most important move in the cabinet reshuffle is Jonathan Reynolds to Chief Whip, and it has been the subject of almost no comment or analysis.

 

[dcbwhaley]

Agreed, I said so in post #1,664 and the court of public opinion clearly agreed. Westminster politicians lose the ability to read the public mood once in power. It would have been better for her and Starmer if she’d gone at the start. It’s clear she is no different from the Conservatives she replaced, sadly. I think it opens up the way for Reform all the more based on a plague on all their houses, and Farage will be even worse, but he’ll get the votes.

She is different from the Conservatives imn that the sums involved are much smaller

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2025 ==

I honestly don't get why Sir Kier moved everyone around like musical chairs? (I know all PMs do it)
Image a company and the CEO says we need to have a change and HR Director goes to Sales, Finance Director becomes Marketing and IT manager become the New HR Director. etc etc Exactly, it would never happen, but all political parties do it and no one comments on how stupid it is. If you are not talented enough at the Home Office, why would you be a huge success at Foreign affairs?

In a company those people have a specific skill set which suits them to the job.
In politics the politicians have no such skills and can thus apply there lack of knowledge to any department

 

[J663738]

In a company those people have a specific skill set which suits them to the job.
In politics the politicians have no such skills and can thus apply there lack of knowledge to any department

Maybe that's the problem with politics?

Remember when Belgium had a political crisis some years ago, when it was run by the civil service for about two years, by all accounts, it was rather successful.

 

[geoffk]

I’ve long held the view that parliament is the last great bastion of over-manning. It should be the place for strategic management of the country without debates with elaborate ruled hijacked by the needs of ‘my constituents in Lower Piddling’.

Way fewer MPs, no FPTP, no lords, archaic theatrics discarded, modernised debating, better pay.

..............plus electronic voting.

 

[Snow1964]

As a rail forum, you have to wonder if the new Railways Bill, when it appears, will get through its legislative process before the government implodes.
The impregnable 5-year majority of 2024 seems ever more unstable.
The Scottish and Welsh elections in 2026 will be critical to Labour's survival.

Just 8 months (and one day) away.

And as everyone forgets about politics over Christmas and New Year, effectively only got 7 active months to turn things around before Scotland and Wales elections. In Wales goes from 60 to 96 members, and has voting age of 16th birthday

 

[J663738]

I live in Wales and everyone I talk is so fed up with how Labour have run Wales over the past 20 or so years. Also, the way they have changed the voting system and enlarged the number of politicians, without any public support. Now you can't even vote for a named politician, just select a party and the party decides who will be on the list.
This will be a gift for parties, who don't have well known politicians for example Reform!
They may have well shot themselves in the foot.

 

[geoffk]

On Newsnight last night, the term Blue Labour, which I admit I'd not heard before, was used by panellist Baroness Hazarika, suggesting that the new cabinet represents a shift to the right. Is that what we need right now?

 

[jfollows]

With a shift to the right, the Labour government becomes more like the Conservative government it replaced. Other than not being the Conservative, which was sufficient for the election, they don’t seem to be able to formulate a doctrine and a reason for their existence.
Ministers get appointed on the basis of favours and perceived importance of the job. I was pleased in the past when Jeremy Hunt refused to go along with a reshuffle because he felt he was starting to get competent in his existing post.
As a scientist, I’m always dismayed by the pseudo-science which persuades ministers such as Gordon Brown to make huge mistakes.
Mind you Kyle called me a friend of Jimmy Savile for being against his Online Safety bill. So I definitely dislike him now.
More and more I see Reform laughing all the way to the next election.

 

[AlterEgo]

No management takes place in Parliament. What do you think a parliament is for?

The government manages the country, in government.

I’ve long held the view that parliament is the last great bastion of over-manning. It should be the place for strategic management of the country without debates with elaborate ruled hijacked by the needs of ‘my constituents in Lower Piddling’.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I've refrained from commenting so far as I wanted to find out what the outcome of any investigation would be. It was fairly clear from the beginning that Rayner's coat was on a shoogly peg but I'd rather establish whether or not a "mistake" was genuine before baying for blood.

You do have to wonder who leaked this to the press although I guess it would have come to light when she made a declaration.

As it turned out, it was deemed that Rayner breached the ministerial code and she has resigned accordingly. This was the right thing to.

Im staggered the No.10 operation doesn't have the back of Minsters to make sure they don't fall into a hole like this especially with Raymer previously having had the spotlight turned on her over sale of council house and has had a target on her back from the right wing press or perhaps they were happy to turn a blind eye. Also why do a micro reshuffle at the beginning of the week and then a wholesale reshuffle. Certainly suggests Mcfadden had gamed this and Starmer pressed the execute button when the opportunity presented itself to eliminate more of the soft left.
In the long run this ought to allow him to get back in control and prevent the sort of fiasco that emerged over the PIP payments. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of that policy the fact is they launched into it without managing the party and as a result of having to retreat they've ended up spooking the markets and forcing up interest rates on govt borrowing. This is the last thing they (we) need as their overall policy needs cash and plenty of it to make any sort of inroads into the parlous state of public services. So he now has the conference then the budget to get them back on side.

 

[brad465]

On Newsnight last night, the term Blue Labour, which I admit I'd not heard before, was used by panellist Baroness Hazarika, suggesting that the new cabinet represents a shift to the right. Is that what we need right now?

Blue Labour actually fits in with a sizeable proportion of the electorate who occupy the top-left quadrant of the political compass: they have socialist/left economic policies but are conservative/right wing on social policy. They are the sort of folk found throughout the "Red Wall". I don't agree with everything they stand for, but their existence is I think justified because not only do they represent a large voting block, arguably they hold views that have existed for decades. I think the problem is people hear the word "Blue" in the name and instantly think they are a Tory mole group, so the group calling themselves this are not helping themselves by giving themselves that name.

 

[Harpo]

No management takes place in Parliament. What do you think a parliament is for?

The government manages the country, in government.

Semantics. However it gets badged, 700+ elected members plus 800 casuals in the two houses is hugely OTT.

 

[sor]

Maybe that's the problem with politics?

Remember when Belgium had a political crisis some years ago, when it was run by the civil service for about two years, by all accounts, it was rather successful.

Unfortunately there is a commonly spouted belief that ministers should not have expertise in the departments that they head (because then they might challenge the supposedly experienced civil servants). This is why we end up with medical doctors serving as defence secretaries while the health secretary has no medical experience at all. Arguably it's not that different to the biggest British companies where CxOs seem to be interchangeable units and they jump between industries to perform "seagull management". Not hard to wonder why the FTSE has been in the doldrums for so long...

It would help if they were consistent in that belief. The top legal officers in government will have some sort of legal training and experience. Suella Braverman's appointment was criticised because while she had a legal background, she had not yet reached QC/KC through the usual merit driven process and would be given it as part of taking office. So why don't we expect the same of the other posts?

 

[Purple Train]

Blue Labour actually fits in with a sizeable proportion of the electorate who occupy the top-left quadrant of the political compass: they have socialist/left economic policies but are conservative/right wing on social policy. They are the sort of folk found throughout the "Red Wall". I don't agree with everything they stand for, but their existence is I think justified because not only do they represent a large voting block, arguably they hold views that have existed for decades. I think the problem is people hear the word "Blue" in the name and instantly think they are a Tory mole group, so the group calling themselves this are not helping themselves by giving themselves that name.

Interesting you should say this - I'm probably "Blue Labour" on balance under your definition, although their views on immigration put me off a little, and I'd only ever heard the term used to refer to weak, continuity economic policy. Thank you for that.

 

[Harpo]

Reeves is an asset not a liability where it matters for Chancellors, which is in the bond markets.

Unfortunately for her and her colleagues, it will be the electorate that they need onside in any elections and Reeves is not an election asset currently.

 

[317 forever]

Interesting that Douglas Alexander has replaced Ian Murray as Scottish Secretary. I don't actually have an issue with that TBH even though Ian Murray is my MP. Bit of a surprise that Ian Murray was sacked but I was surprised Douglas Alexander didn't go straight to the actual Cabinet last year.

It may even be that Ian Murray got the job almost by default for having been the only Labour MP with a Scottish seat available to shadow the role for a few years, until the by-election in Rutherglen and their new seat gains at last year's GE. Douglas Alexander may be the most experienced Labour MP with a Scottish seat, having been MP for Paisley South in 1997-2015.

 

[Richard Scott]

She is different from the Conservatives imn that the sums involved are much smaller

Oh, that makes it ok, then?