The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Purple Train]

Keir Starmer is IMHO the worst and most ineffectual PM we have ever had, and I include Liz Truss in that assessment; She at least did not last long.

I mean, I don't think he's brilliant - but really? Really? Honestly? Truly? He came to power after a Sunak government whose only real actions were to salt the earth as much as they could, as opposed to crashing the economy completely unprovoked, and yet somehow he's worse?

I'd place him on a par with Theresa May, with a few brownie points removed for somehow managing to employ a chief advisor who makes Dominic Cummings look like Alastair Campbell.

 

[Falcon1200]

I mean, I don't think he's brilliant - but really? Really? Honestly? Truly?

Yes, really! Has any other PM ever had to abandon or dilute as many policies in as short a time as this one? His judgement in so many areas has proved to be substandard and in the case of Mandelson, catastrophic.

 

[Purple Train]

Yes, really! Has any other PM ever had to abandon or dilute as many policies in as short a time as this one? His judgement in so many areas has proved to be substandard and in the case of Mandelson, catastrophic.

Liz Truss abandoned the only policy she had... But I agree that his judgement is appalling.

 

[brad465]

Mandelson now been reported to the police:

Mandelson being investigated by police over claims he leaked emails to Epstein

The Metropolitan Police has launched a criminal investigation following allegations that Mandelson passed market-sensitive information to the late sex offender.

www.bbc.co.uk

SNP and Reform UK report Mandelson to the Met Police
​

The SNP and Reform UK have reported Peter Mandelson to the Metropolitan Police.

It comes after emails released in the Epstein files suggest that Mandelson forwarded internal government information to Epstein when he was then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown's business secretary.

The Leader of the SNP in Westminster - Stephen Flynn - said in a letter to the Met Police commissioner: "If such allegations are investigated and proven, it is gravely serious – for Peter Mandelson, for the Labour Prime Ministers who appointed him and for the UK government as a whole. That is why I believe it is now clearly in the public interest that all of these newly released emails and files, and Mandelson’s entire period in UK Labour Governments, must now be criminally investigated."

The SNP leader continued in the letter, saying "grounds for such a criminal investigation are already well established in law. In the Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868 the court said that the misconduct must amount to: '… an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder'."

Speaking to the BBC, Flynn says: "What we've seen is an email exchange - or multiple email exchanges - of information which appears to be market sensitive that was shared with, the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown being shared by Lord Mandelson with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Now that's a profoundly serious matter it's something which yes the government should be investigating through the Cabinet Office, but I firmly believe the police should be looking at this too as a matter of potential criminality."

Reform UK have confirmed to the BBC they have reported Mandelson.

The BBC has approached Mandelson for comment. He has previously raised questions about the authenticity of some of the documents that were recently disclosed by the US justice department.

If anyone in the US is reading this, this is what you should be doing with your president and a long list of other big names.

 

[Egg Centric]

Keir Starmer is IMHO the worst and most ineffectual PM we have ever had, and I include Liz Truss in that assessment; She at least did not last long.

Ineffectual maybe (certainly hard to call Truss that!) but worst?

He's more or less what I was looking for when I voted for him - punish Tory party - who needdd punishing - at election and don't do a lot while we (by which I mean the country) come up with ideas. In this he's going a great job. The country isn't holding up its part but I guess we get what we deserve then. Atm I'm going for greens for drug legalisation. Just need to make sure I move my assets out of the country first

 

[edwin_m]

Ineffectual maybe (certainly hard to call Truss that!) but worst?

He's more or less what I was looking for when I voted for him - punish Tory party - who needdd punishing - at election and don't do a lot while we (by which I mean the country) come up with ideas. In this he's going a great job. The country isn't holding up its part but I guess we get what we deserve then. Atm I'm going for greens for drug legalisation. Just need to make sure I move my assets out of the country first

Nowhere near as bad as Truss, but I fear by failing to manage expectations Starmer is opening the door for Farage. Who would be at least as bad as Truss and harder to get rid of.

 

[martin butler]

Nowhere near as bad as Truss, but I fear by failing to manage expectations Starmer is opening the door for Farage. Who would be at least as bad as Truss and harder to get rid of.

I fear that that will happen, but in a way, it will need to happen, because whilst you can blame minorities for the ills of the country, they are not, and the truth will be exposed about just what reform really are, because how will their xenophobic followers react when it becomes clear?

See stopping boats leaving a foreign shore, requires working with a foreign government, then there's the legal side, you just can't let people drown, leaving the ECHR, means, that no one has any rights,

Then there's the economic reactions to measures such as tax cuts, that do nothing to stimulate growth, there's the NHS, and healthcare in general, vast numbers of people who might vote because they hate immigrants, then complain because those same immigrants were nurses and doctors and are no longer here.

 

[DarloRich]

Keir Starmer is IMHO the worst and most ineffectual PM we have ever had, and I include Liz Truss in that assessment

are you, erm, sure about that. Have you been in space for the last 15 years?

 

[contrex]

I fear that that will happen, but in a way, it will need to happen

Like Hitler or Mussolini, or Trump 'needed' to happen?

 

[Broucek]

It's interesting that, unlike the revolving door of recent Tory PMs, Starmer and Reeves actually had time to prepare for government in a similar way to Blair and Brown.

And yet there is very little sign of such preparations, particularly from Reeves who caused huge damage by flying multiple kites ahead of the last budget before settling for a mix of tinkering (salary sacrifice) and increasing the cost of employing young or low skilled workers.

 

[edwin_m]

It's interesting that, unlike the revolving door of recent Tory PMs, Starmer and Reeves actually had time to prepare for government in a similar way to Blair and Brown.

And yet there is very little sign of such preparations, particularly from Reeves who caused huge damage by flying multiple kites ahead of the last budget before settling for a mix of tinkering (salary sacrifice) and increasing the cost of employing young or low skilled workers.

Part of the problem Starmer and Reeves are facing is that they can't replicate what Blair and Brown did in the first few months of their government, where people who remember it will probably recall that "things were only getting better" and feel let down now. The Tory stewardship of the economy running up to 1997 was actually relatively good, giving Labour scope to do things that made a difference or at least appeared to do so.

This time it's different. Austerity, Brexit, Covid and Truss have crippled the economy, all caused or made worse by Tory governments, so there is little scope for extra public spending without painful choices on tax or borrowing - plus of course most of the media will be amplifying failures and playing down success.

That's not to say that Starmer and Reeves are anywhere near absolved of blame. But they have been dealt a pretty poor hand.

 

[Broucek]

That's not to say that Starmer and Reeves are anywhere near absolved of blame. But they have been dealt a pretty poor hand.

Can't argue with that. Blair and Brown were both lucky and well-prepared. Starmer and Reeves have been neither.

 

[Falcon1200]

are you, erm, sure about that. Have you been in space for the last 15 years?

Yes I am sure, having been able to vote, and having indeed voted, in every General Election since 1979. Who would you suggest, of all the PMs we have had since then, is worse than Starmer? Even before the most recent, extremely alarming, revelations about Mandelson, it was obvious from his past conduct that he should never have been appointed, again, to any political role whatsoever, let alone the single most important diplomatic post we have.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes I am sure, having been able to vote, and having indeed voted, in every General Election since 1979. Who would you suggest, of all the PMs we have had since then, is worse than Starmer? Even before the most recent, extremely alarming, revelations about Mandelson, it was obvious from his past conduct that he should never have been appointed, again, to any political role whatsoever, let alone the single most important diplomatic post we have.

Thatcher, obviously. She had over ten years in power, and her legacy of society-breaking is felt even by people being born today.

Brown was worse than Starmer too, a very ineffective PM.

 

[Richard Scott]

Can't argue with that. Blair and Brown were both lucky and well-prepared. Starmer and Reeves have been neither.

Not an excuse, they knew what they were taking on yet seem to have done nothing to improve matters. Seems they're just making things worse.

 

[jfollows]

Yes I am sure, having been able to vote, and having indeed voted, in every General Election since 1979. Who would you suggest, of all the PMs we have had since then, is worse than Starmer? Even before the most recent, extremely alarming, revelations about Mandelson, it was obvious from his past conduct that he should never have been appointed, again, to any political role whatsoever, let alone the single most important diplomatic post we have.

Everyone has a different view.
Mine is that Liz Truss and Boris Johnson were much worse.
Rishi Sunak was pathetic and Theresa May was sabotaged by her own party.
David Cameron was OK in coalition but the cause of most of our problems today once free of this.
Brown I disliked and Blair I didn’t trust.
I was too young to vote in 1979 but have voted since then.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes I am sure, having been able to vote, and having indeed voted, in every General Election since 1979. Who would you suggest, of all the PMs we have had since then, is worse than Starmer? Even before the most recent, extremely alarming, revelations about Mandelson, it was obvious from his past conduct that he should never have been appointed, again, to any political role whatsoever, let alone the single most important diplomatic post we have.

Another vote for Truss (managed to crash the economy and people's pensions in only 49 days, so bad even the Tories got rid of her) and Johnson (totally unsuitable, totally untruthful).

 

[Egg Centric]

Yes I am sure, having been able to vote, and having indeed voted, in every General Election since 1979. Who would you suggest, of all the PMs we have had since then, is worse than Starmer? Even before the most recent, extremely alarming, revelations about Mandelson, it was obvious from his past conduct that he should never have been appointed, again, to any political role whatsoever, let alone the single most important diplomatic post we have.

How many times has Starmer invaded Iraq?

 

[Sorcerer]

Yes I am sure, having been able to vote, and having indeed voted, in every General Election since 1979. Who would you suggest, of all the PMs we have had since then, is worse than Starmer?

In my admittedly shorter lifespan, and by extension fewer elections to have voted in, I am still pushed to nominate Boris Johnson for the (dis)honour of being the worst Prime Minister. Ineffectual as he may be in Number 10, Starmer as a statesman still has some strengths such as his diplomacy that would better suit him for the role of Foreign Secretary. I've been happiest with him when he's dealing with a certain individual who shall not be named.

But Johnson was straight utter incompetence from beginning to end, and I cannot name a single positive thing about his government except possibly supporting Ukraine, which you could just as well attribute to Ben Wallace. From the pandemic response that was a failure on so many levels to all the partying and sleaze scandals. Not a single person who has ever worked with Boris Johnson seemed to have a positive thing to say about him.

Others will nominate Liz Truss but to be fair it's easy to forget she ever was Prime Minister in the first place given she was outlasted by a lettuce.

 

[Harpo]

The discussion of previous PMs has a theme that’s consistent through to today with Reeves and Starmer, the Peter Principle of promoting people to a level beyond their competence, albeit with some running out of talent several levels earlier.

I can’t see anyone else among Labour MPs who could step up to PM without continuing the Peter Principle either.

 

[Broucek]

The discussion of previous PMs has a theme that’s consistent through to today with Reeves and Starmer, the Peter Principle of promoting people to a level beyond their competence, albeit with some running out of talent several levels earlier.

I can’t see anyone else among Labour MPs who could step up to PM without continuing the Peter Principle either.

Through work, I've met a few Thatcher-era ministers and I've also met Rachel Reeves. The comparison does not flatter her.

I fear that's a commentary on the current generation of politicians (all parties) rather than her personally. Of course many prior generations had careers of one sort of another before going into politics.

 

[Falcon1200]

I don't disagree, at all, that some of our PMs have been poor, for various reasons, but maintain that in my adult life Starmer is the worst. Regarding Thatcher, we have to remember the state of the country in 1979, and why she won power - I voted Tory then and did not have cause to regret it, unlike my choice in 2024.

 

[brad465]

I don't disagree, at all, that some of our PMs have been poor, for various reasons, but maintain that in my adult life Starmer is the worst. Regarding Thatcher, we have to remember the state of the country in 1979, and why she won power - I voted Tory then and did not have cause to regret it, unlike my choice in 2024.

There is something of a negative feedback loop in politics; politicians are attacked in the press and public as incompetent, greedy, selfish, etc., which puts good people off from going into politics, so only incompetent and/or greedy people go into it, which then reinforces the stereotype, and the cycle repeats.

If we want better politicians, then the following reforms are required as a minimum:

- Better pay for MPs and Ministers
- All second income banned while a sitting MP
- Tougher conditions that reduce expenses and make dismissal for misconduct easier
- All private donations to political parties become illegal (their only funding should be membership fees and a portion of taxpayer's money proportional to how many candidates stand in each election)
- All lobbying of MPs and Ministers is at the very least transparent, but ideally illegal altogether (Mandelson being a prime example of why this reform is essential).

The trouble with these reforms of course are; the public will go crazy if MP pay goes up significantly, especially if at a time theirs does not, while the other reforms are essentially self-harm for MPs and Ministers, so they won't hamstring themselves, plus lobbyists/donors won't want to lose access, so will fight tooth and nail to stop/water down any such proposals.

 

[Harpo]

- Better pay for MPs and Ministers

Agreed. In return for-
- A massive reduction in MP numbers
- Thorough modernisation of working practices
- Parliament focussed on national strategic issues, ditching the ‘my constituents in Little Puddlewick’ crap.
- Scrapping the Lords
- Move out of Westminster

Parliament has to move on from its current bloated and byzantine form and be a fit for purpose UK PLC.

 

[DarloRich]

but maintain that in my adult life Starmer is the worst.

You are, of course, free to express such a view. Personally I don't think it stands up to logical or evidential scrutiny but each to thier own.

Regarding Thatcher, we have to remember the state of the country in 1979, and why she won power - I voted Tory then and did not have cause to regret it, unlike my choice in 2024.

You weren't on the receiving end of the Thatcher lash then. Many were. Personally I have never voted Tory and i never will.

 

[styles]

The trouble with these reforms of course are; the public will go crazy if MP pay goes up significantly, especially if at a time theirs does not, while the other reforms are essentially self-harm for MPs and Ministers, so they won't hamstring themselves, plus lobbyists/donors won't want to lose access, so will fight tooth and nail to stop/water down any such proposals.

Well, quite.

The establishment of IPSA to regulate things like MPs' salaries I believe was a good move.

However, it caused two secondary problems for voters.

The first was that they almost immediately jacked up MP salaries owing to the fact that they'd been frozen for years and were therefore real terms pay cuts.

The second is that each year they are raised in line with inflation.

Both issues are actually completely acceptable; the problem is the same doesn't happen in the rest of society. Junior doctors are campaigning to have many years of real terms pay cuts reversed. Most of my employers have had a general 2% 'cost of living' contractual increase, and only once have I had that CoL increase revised and it was at a time of exceptional levels of inflation.

I'm all for MPs earning decent salaries for the work that they do, with the sorts of conditions you attach, and that their pay goes up in line with the cost of living; but it will never be popular until the rest of the population feel the same benefit, which will be never.

 

[martin butler]

Like Hitler or Mussolini, or Trump 'needed' to happen?

Yes, to expose the real rot in society, only when you lose something you took for granted do you realise what you have lost,

Corruption at governmental level, is the real issue, as is unchecked social media, elites, only looking towards their own protection, and it transcends politics, both local and national

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, to expose the real rot in society, only when you lose something you took for granted do you realise what you have lost,

Corruption at governmental level, is the real issue, as is unchecked social media, elites, only looking towards their own protection, and it transcends politics, both local and national

That's at three real issues.

I don't believe corruption at governmental level is widespread, although when it is detected we hear a lot about it. That probably distorts people's perception.

And I certainly don't believe five years of a Farage government is a suitable remedy. Assuming MAGA gives way to a more rational government in 2028, it will probably take at least a decade for the USA to recover to where it was in 2024. Map that to the UK from 2029 and you're talking 2040 or later - probably the rest of my lifetime. The fact Trump got re-elected is evidence that even the most blatant corruption won't necessarily render someone unelectable.

 

[Broucek]

I don't believe corruption at governmental level is widespread, although when it is detected we hear a lot about it. That probably distorts people's perception.

Agreed. In fact, the fact that it *IS* news is probably a good sign....

I'm more worried at how out of touch politicians on all sides are. They are particulaly clueless about the needs of smaller private sector employers and people on low incomes

 

[jfollows]

Agreed. In fact, the fact that it *IS* news is probably a good sign....

I'm more worried at how out of touch politicians on all sides are. They are particulaly clueless about the needs of smaller private sector employers and people on low incomes

I agree, they’re disconnected from reality. I mean, I am also, I’m comfortable in a mainly white suburb, but I’m not pretending to represent people who aren’t.
My view is they at least identify a real thread on which they get elected, but then decide they know better and turn into disconnected autocrats.