• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
4,856
That there are calls for one does not mean one will take place. Of course the Opposition would like an election when they'd likely win one - doesn't mean they will get one as they have no power, aside from triggering a vote of no confidence, to cause that to take place. And a vote of no confidence would fail due to Labour's majority.
Indeed, there were calls for immediate elections when both Brown and Sunak took over. Both were in power for a couple of years before they had an election. I don't recall whether there was anything similar when Major took over, but that was a less fevered environment.

That is true but I expect many will join Corbyn’s new party
I suspect that although they're a noisy bunch, the left-wing of the Labour party aren't actually likely to jump overboard en-masse. They're in government and as we've seen from things like the winter fuel payments, they have the power to force Starmer to bend to their will.
Why abandon that to howl in the wilderness?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Thirteen

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2021
Messages
1,897
Location
London
Starmer isn't going call an early election, this is just Farage and the right wing media drumming up support.

Farage thinks Reform can win in London but given they were fifth in the last Mayoral Election, I suspect that might be a pipe dream.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,384
Location
The Fens
Check what he said about the Truss budget to see how good this guy is at predicting market collapses.
Anybody and everybody predicted market collapse after the Truss budget. Anyone can be right once when predicting a certainty.

Market collapse doesn't force a General Election. That would need the government's response to the collapse to be voted down by parliament.

Note that the Truss budget did not lead to a General Election.
 
Last edited:

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,909
Location
Fenny Stratford
Would the collapse of the money markets or poor results at the Scottish and Welsh elections not trigger an early election anyway? Im sure most analysts have said the next election will be 2027.
On what basis? There is no mechanism to force an election unless the government loses a confidence vote or fails to get a budget approved. Does this seem likely with a massive labour majority?

The economy could "Liz Truss", the flag waggers could act up, aliens could land and the king could come out as the Queen all at the same time and still not force an election!

I know your man Farage is wittering on about this but how does he expect to deliver an election in 2027?
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,927
Location
First Class
Though we probably don't want them to be too difficult to be gotten rid of by any means other than the ballot box. Not sure we'd really be a democracy at that point if you could easily get rid of an MP without recourse to the ballot box!

That being said perhaps the recall mechanism could be a little looser on the criteria that qualify that would trigger a recall petition. Erskine May (Parliament's "Rule Book" for lack of a better term) describes the process thusly:




I could see that perhaps adding some trigger that that is available to the wider public (perhaps if you can get a 1,000 witnessed signatures of registered voters in the relevant constituency that could trigger a recall petition?) but I'd be extremely wary of making it too easier to remove MPs outside of General Elections (or the current Recall of MPs process).

You've raised some good points there with which I agree. It certainly shouldn't be too easy for reasons of democracy, and the likelihood of politics becoming even more of a circus if it were!
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,396
Location
LBK
Tell us who he is and give us a quote, instead of hiding behind an access restricted link.
If you click on the link you'll see it is Allister Heath, editor of the Telegraph, saying in the headline

"Kwasi Kwarteng’s Budget is a moment in history that will radically transform Britain

With one move, Britain’s competitiveness, its investor friendliness and its attractiveness to top talent has been hugely amplified"

He went all in on the budget. As did several other commentators.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,396
Location
LBK
The link is restricted access.
No it isn't. You can click on it and read exactly who said the thing in question. You just need to pay to read the rest of the drivel.

The editor is a journalist not an analyst. Not the same thing. The editor writes what he is asked to write by his proprietor, not on the basis of any analysis.
You said anyone and everyone could see there would be a crash. He couldn't.
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
12,977
Location
Up the creek
No it isn't. You can click on it and read exactly who said the thing in question. You just need to pay to read the rest of the drivel.


You said anyone and everyone could see there would be a crash. He couldn't.

Maybe he did, but His Master’s Voice told him to say the Truss and her bunch was the greatest thing since sliced bread. So what does a loyal Sunday Telegraph editor do in that situation…but say, “Yes, sir’.
 

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,890
There is a threat that Corbyn's new party will cause Labour's vote to be less. Perhaps they'll even get less votes than them?!

Calling an early election, before Corbyn is up and running would prevent this. Reform will get in, and then 'the Left' could be rallied behind the Labour Party at the following election - after Reform "mess up the country".

Could that be a plausible thought behind a reason for an early election?
Better to lose to Reform, than to enable another Left Party to grow and split the vote in the decades ahead...?
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
12,977
Location
Up the creek
I don’t think that Corbyn’s Ego Party is a long-term danger, but there will be a point of danger when it is starting to get itself moving, but the sheer lack of understanding of voters’ interests by Corbyn and his starry-eyed acolytes has not become obvious to the country at large. An election called then could see a damaging number of Labour votes defecting, but later on they will see how futile he is. The worry is that he will take a few votes that would otherwise go to Labour, but never to Reform: he is hardly the Red Wall’s dream.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,384
Location
The Fens
You can click on it and read exactly who said the thing in question.
Access restricted is what it says on the tin.
You just need to pay to read the rest of the drivel.

I don't need to do anything. You need to provide quotes and attributions to support your case, not access restricted links to a source that, by your own admission, is all drivel.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
11,136
Location
Redcar
Access restricted is what it says on the tin.


I don't need to do anything. You need to provide quotes and attributions to support your case, not access restricted links to a source that, by your own admission, is all drivel.

There you go, knock yourself out. The first paragraph will do, comedy gold.

This was the best Budget I have ever heard a British Chancellor deliver, by a massive margin. The tax cuts were so huge and bold, the language so extraordinary, that at times, listening to Kwasi Kwarteng, I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn’t dreaming, that I hadn’t been transported to a distant land that actually believed in the economics of Milton Friedman and FA Hayek.

But Liz Truss and Kwarteng are very much for real, and in revolutionary mood. The neo-Brownite consensus of the past 20 years, the egalitarian, redistributionist obsession, the technocratic centrism, the genuflections at the altar of a bogus class war, the spreadsheet-wielding socialists: all were blown to smithereens by Kwarteng’s stunning neo-Reaganite peroration.

Hardcore, unapologetic liberal Toryism is back. This fiscal statement is in some ways an even bigger deal than that previously greatest of Budgets, Lord Lawson’s extravaganza of 1988, so long ago that my generation cannot remember it. All the taboos have been defiled: the fracking ban, the performative 45pc tax rate, the malfunctioning bonus cap, the previous gang’s nihilistic corporation tax and national insurance raids. The basic rate of income tax is being cut, as is stamp duty, that dumbest of levies. There will be more reforms, more deregulation from a Chancellor explicitly committed to a flatter and simpler tax system.

It wasn’t merely the policies that were astonishingly good: just as remarkable was Kwarteng’s language, the arguments he deployed to explain his decisions, the lucid free-market philosophy from which they emanated. He spoke of the need to bolster incentives, to encourage business investment, to increase work, to reward savings. He explained that this meant that the returns on capital and labour had to be improved. He wants to usher in a new Big Bang in the City and launch dozens of new Canary Wharfs on steroids.

At a stroke of a pen, Britain’s competitiveness, its attractiveness to investors and top talent, has been transformed. Money and jobs will flow in, especially from the Eurozone. Britain’s central pathology is low growth, held back by faulty economic, fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies: higher spending begets higher taxes, which lead to a vicious cycle of even lower growth, and hence yet more taxes, and so on.

Kwarteng is desperate to smash the logjam. His challenge is that the only way to urgently push through a supply-side revolution given the cultural centrality of our welfare state is to borrow a lot more, at least until growth accelerates. This extra deficit - separate from the temporary cost of the energy bailout - should be seen as an “investment” in a new pro-growth infrastructure, including a new tax system, in a manner similar to building roads or nuclear power. But Kwarteng must, sooner rather than later, find meaningful spending cuts, and restrain expenditure growth.

Britain boasts the second lowest debt relative to GDP in the G7: borrowing an extra 1.9pc of GDP a year is tolerable. A bigger challenge is that the interest rate on national IOUs will rise, as they are everywhere, but compounded by the fact that the financial markets, baffled by endless changes of UK Government and ideological u-turns, don’t quite understand what is happening. The Bank of England’s strange behaviour, and its decision not to raise interest rates enough while dumping even more gilts onto the markets, is contributing to sterling’s slump.

Reforms of this order of magnitude should really have happened after the referendum in 2016, or after Boris Johnson became Prime Minister in 2019: with time now desperately short, Kwarteng and Truss must compress a complete overhaul of the economy into just a few months. The question remains: will there be enough time for the stronger growth to materialise? After years of leftist propaganda, including by supposedly Tory governments, will Truss be able to explain herself, to remake the case for low tax, to show how unleashing enterprise and investment will generate the growth we so desperately need?

Yet she was right to gamble everything on radical, sometimes unpopular, policies that she passionately believes are right for our country. Doing nothing would simply guarantee defeat. Now she has a fighting chance to save Britain, and her party, from oblivion.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,396
Location
LBK
Access restricted is what it says on the tin.
No it doesn't.

I don't need to do anything. You need to provide quotes and attributions to support your case, not access restricted links to a source that, by your own admission, is all drivel.
You could always just click the link and read the headline which contains the funniest part but you are too lazy and too dismissive to realise that, in fact, quite a few people wrote drivel thinking the Truss budget was going to be great. Of course I think it is drivel; so do you.

I was just proving your unsubstantiated, unattributed, unquoted assertion that nobody thought the budget was going to lead to a crash. He didn't. And as @OhNoAPacer points out, Heath has significant form for this type of thinking. That is why he the editor of the Telegraph; he thinks that way.
 
Last edited:

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,384
Location
The Fens
You could always just click the link
No I couldn't. As I said above, it is for you to provide quotes and attributions. Show your argument in the open here.

I was just proving your unsubstantiated, unattributed, unquoted assertion that nobody thought the budget was going to lead to a crash.
That isn't what I said, you are misquoting me, what I said was:

Anybody and everybody predicted market collapse after the Truss budget.
Anyone who predicted that the response to the Truss budget would be glowingly positive I don't regard as analysts because they clearly hadn't done any analysis.

But the key point isn't the Truss budget, it is the prediction that there will be a market crash leading to a general election in 2027. You still haven't come up with any evidence that serious economic analysts are predicting that, with names, quotes and attributions.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,531
Location
Isle of Man
If you turn Javascript off in your browser (in Chrome you can do it for a specific website) then you can read The Telegraph in all its wonderful glory. They can't even manage to build a paywall properly.

Allister Heath is pure comedy gold. He has to be a parody character created by a left-wing comedian. There's no other explanation; his articles are bat guano insane. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/a/ak-ao/allister-heath/. Apparently "Starmer’s Britain is descending into anarcho-tyranny".

Shame really, as the Telegraph's travel section is probably the best one around.
 

J663738

Member
Joined
20 May 2025
Messages
339
"If you turn Javascript off in your browser (in Chrome you can do it for a specific website) then you can read The Telegraph in all its wonderful glory. They can't even manage to build a paywall properly."

I have one browser setup to always disable Java, most websites just hide the content behind a java popup, but like the text to be seen by search engines to not inhibit web traffic!

Is Keir Starmer now about to lose his American Ambassador? with news just coming out That Peter Mandelson, wrote to Jeffery Epstein after he was convicted, saying "Pals standby pals".

This could be a first in British politics that someone gets sacked 3 times!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Sir Keir is in a bit of a bind to be honest, if he sacks Peter Mandelson, for his previous associations with Epstein, Trump might take it as a personal attack on himself, but if he doesn't sack him, that too will look rather weak. I hear Emily Maitlis is free next week if Mandelson needs to do another interview.
 
Last edited:

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,462
Location
Taunton or Kent
The timeline for the labour deputy leadership election has been published and can be found here:https://labourlist.org/2025/09/labour-deputy-leader-process-revealed-nec/


As always it is an "involved" process!
Bridget Phillipson and Lucy Powell are the two favourites as things stand. Both would maintain the deputy post as a northern woman. I have wondered if a crank candidate would try and get in the running, however quite a few of them don't have the whip, and/or are forming an alternative party. The ones left over are unlikely to be numerous enough to reach the 80 MP threshold needed to be in the contest.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,909
Location
Fenny Stratford
Bridget Phillipson and Lucy Powell are the two favourites as things stand. Both would maintain the deputy post as a northern woman. I have wondered if a crank candidate would try and get in the running, however quite a few of them don't have the whip, and/or are forming an alternative party. The ones left over are unlikely to be numerous enough to reach the 80 MP threshold needed to be in the contest.
i think it will be the former. I also think there is a bit of a decoy in the candidate list. There seems to be 2 x Downing Street candidates. Thornberry wants it badly to get back at Starmer for not having her in cabinet but i cant see it.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,462
Location
Taunton or Kent
i think it will be the former. I also think there is a bit of a decoy in the candidate list. There seems to be 2 x Downing Street candidates. Thornberry wants it badly to get back at Starmer for not having her in cabinet but i cant see it.
With over half the Labour MPs (236) having given their backing to someone, Phillipson has 116 and Powell 77. Thornberry only has 13 backers and is on par with the other 2 candidates, so I doubt any of those 3 will get enough as those yet to endorse will clearly see where the wind is blowing.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,909
Location
Fenny Stratford
Pressure is growing on the PM to dismiss the ambassador to the USA for his links with Epstein. I think Mandelson's position may become untenable if more revelations appear in the press. .


Sir Keir Starmer is facing pressure over US ambassador Lord Mandelson, after the emergence of fresh revelations about his links to the late convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

It comes after US lawmakers released a number of documents, which included a letter in which the Labour peer called Epstein his "best pal".
 

J663738

Member
Joined
20 May 2025
Messages
339
If Prince Andrew has been cancelled over his links to Epstein, after his conviction, and quiet rightly so.
I can not see why Mandelson won't, I suspect there is a lot more correspondence to come out. If someone is found guilty of child abusive as Epstein was, what was going through Mandelson's mind to send notes to say 'we will fight this together'
When he does go, which he will have to, this will be the fourth person Sir Kier Starmer had full confidence in before their eventual departure.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,091
Location
Redcar
The only reason I can see why he's clinging on to his position is that the scandal that he's embroiled in is the very same scandal that Trump is embroiled in. So having an ambassador in the same boat could be seen as being beneficial in helping to ingratiate us with Trump, whilst sacking him for being involved in that scandal could be seen as a slight against Trump.

Because I cannot see any other good reason why you wouldn't sack him for coming out with stuff like this:

In an email from June 2008, which was not disputed by his spokesperson, Mandelson wrote to Epstein: “I think the world of you and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened.

“I can still barely understand it. It just could not happen in Britain. You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.”

It continued: “Everything can be turned into an opportunity and that you will come through it and be stronger for it.”

In an email on the eve of Epstein being sentenced, Mandelson wrote to him: “You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.

“The whole thing has been years of torture and now you have to show the world how big a person you are, and how strong.”

The emails, also reported by Bloomberg, show Mandelson helped Epstein with strategy. It showed Epstein pushing Mandelson to ask “your guy” to have a discussion with a “mr big” for him.

Another email from Mandelson to Epstein in February 2008 said: “Reminder. You are fighting back so you need strategy, strategy, strategy. Remember the Art of War.”


What is it with these people and the sickening fawning they all do? Trump's card to Epstein was worse, obviously, but it had the same sickeningly sweet language in it. My friends and I never speak to each other in those sorts of tones. Then again we're also not joking about the vulnerable girls we've been abusing so maybe that's the missing factor?
 

Top