The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[styles]

Fair point. I need to pay attention to my own numbers.

Though it is also worth saying this is the poll today. Last summer, "quiet Labour" would have been able to take 2nd spot.

I am sticking with my prediction, but not putting money on it.

That's fair. A week is a long time in politics. It is 3 months until the big devolved government elections. I just can't see Labour recovering such significant public opinion losses between now and then.

 

[contrex]

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

But what is, or is not, "rot" in society is a subjective, personal, political judgement. Were the deaths of 6 million Jews, plus homosexuals, Gipsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, socialists, dissidents, etc, plus 50 million war casualties is a price worth paying? Not forgetting the Aktion T-4 programme in Germany (euthanasia of handicapped children and adults). With respect, maybe your moral, political, and/or social judgement might need re-calibrating?

 

[Egg Centric]

But what is, or is not, "rot" in society is a subjective, personal, political judgement. Were the deaths of 6 million Jews, plus homosexuals, Gipsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, socialists, dissidents, etc, plus 50 million war casualties is a price worth paying? Not forgetting the Aktion T-4 programme in Germany (euthanasia of handicapped children and adults). With respect, maybe your moral, political, and/or social judgement might need re-calibrating?

Whaaaaaat?

 

[AlterEgo]

It's hardly an unfair question - a lot of people seem comfortable with repressive regimes for a time "so we learn our lessons" - naturally they are rarely on the sharpest end of such regimes, and can comment from a distance.

"Hitler needed to happen to expose the rot" (the premise @martin butler was directly agreeing with) is a truly repulsive worldview.

 

[Harpo]

This is a massive deal in the political bubble but doesn't feel like it has anything like as much cut through amongst normies as the constant Boris car crash stuff did.

Quite. The Pincher issue has been mentioned as a parallel to Mandelson but it was a very late addition to the Johnson ‘P’s list.

Prorogation
Patel
PPE
Pandemic delays/deaths
Posh Paper
Patterson
Publisher peerage
Protocols
Pepper Pig
Partygate
Police fines
Porkies
Parliamentary standards committee
Pincher
Peerages denied

 

[martin butler]

It's hardly an unfair question - a lot of people seem comfortable with repressive regimes for a time "so we learn our lessons" - naturally they are rarely on the sharpest end of such regimes, and can comment from a distance.

"Hitler needed to happen to expose the rot" (the premise @martin butler was directly agreeing with) is a truly repulsive worldview.

I do not support what the Nazis did, it is evil in its purest form,

what I meant was as a warning, for people to wake up to what's going on around them, to not repeat the mistakes again,
Politicians in Germany, thought they would be able to control Hitler, back when the Nazi party was very small,
but they gave him the chance to instead control the narrative, they were the ones who ended up being controlled,

The advancing and acceptance of authoritismn and anti-immigrant views, is opening up the same opportunities of modern day nazis, but they never use that name, they call themselves patriots,

What i meant was that, in my view, The likes of reform, need to fail by their own policies, If they were to ever become government, they will soon fall apart and turn against each other, after trying to set the entire country against each other,

 

[edwin_m]

I do not support what the Nazis did, it is evil in its purest form,

what I meant was as a warning, for people to wake up to what's going on around them, to not repeat the mistakes again,
Politicians in Germany, thought they would be able to control Hitler, back when the Nazi party was very small,
but they gave him the chance to instead control the narrative, they were the ones who ended up being controlled,

The advancing and acceptance of authoritismn and anti-immigrant views, is opening up the same opportunities of modern day nazis, but they never use that name, they call themselves patriots,

What i meant was that, in my view, The likes of reform, need to fail by their own policies, If they were to ever become government, they will soon fall apart and turn against each other, after trying to set the entire country against each other,

Seems to me what you are warning against is precisely what you are advocating.

 

[contrex]

Whaaaaaat?

See AlterEgo's answer below yours.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2026 ==

in my view, The likes of reform, need to fail by their own policies,

Would you say that about playing with matches in a petrol dump?

 

[Oxfordblues]

I've had enough of the lot of them. I was pleased to see Labour win power at last after the Dominic Cummings years, but now they've blown it. I can see Reform UK winning Gorton & Denton, but I'm reserving my vote for the Greens next time.

 

[martin butler]

I'm hoping that the next election will see a Greens/ LibDem/ labour coalition, A reform government will be a disaster economically, and socially.

It depends on how willing people are to accept the continuous PR campaign being waged by social media, botts, and paid influencers, to vote for something that will not be in their own interests,

 

[Topological]

I'm hoping that the next election will see a Greens/ LibDem/ labour coalition, A reform government will be a disaster economically, and socially.

It depends on how willing people are to accept the continuous PR campaign being waged by social media, botts, and paid influencers, to vote for something that will not be in their own interests,

Absoultely no chance

Whilst the Liberal Deomcrats include the Social Democrats, they are primarily Liberals. They wont join with Labour.

The Greens might join with Labour, but the Greens wont get many MPs.

I think that the Conservatives will win. Whilst people are keen to give the main parties a bloody nose in local elections. Reform would be such a massive disaster that the swing constituencies of middle England will not countenance one.

4 years out it might not look like it. But nothing that happens now in the polls affects anything. Only major scandals will stick in the memory come the election.

 

[YorkshireBear]

This isn't going away, my main frustration is that I don't think this should be the focus now we have such big issues in this country, Epstein should not be what brings down a government when it was just the US ambassador. It doesn't take anything away from the disgusting man, behaviour and my thoughts are with the victims. I don't believe Starmer knew enough of this to not appoint him. Because what motive would Starmer have for appointing him if he did know it?

I can't help but feel this is just being used by those who don't like Starmer, and we will continue to be a country with a new PM every few years and no stability or focus on the actual things that are stagnating in this country and the problems affecting people.

 

[kristiang85]

If Starmer held himself to the same standards he held Johnson and others, he'd be long gone by now.

Labour's problem is the lack of viable replacements, which might stop them from twisting the final knife.

Rayner? Has baggage, and very divisive to the electorate.
Streeting? Also has baggage and his own unsavoury links, albeit one of the better ones on paper.
Lammy? A laughing stock.
Burnham? They've now made that incredibly difficult.
Miliband? Has failed before, and has become such an eco zealot it will likely just push more people away from the party.

There are some left field candidates, but none with the gravitas and experience needed to be PM.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Epstein should not be what brings down a government when it was just the US ambassador.

It won’t be Mandelson’s actions that do that, it’ll be Starmer’s security brief and his response to it that causes his downfall.

 

[sor]

I don't believe Starmer knew enough of this to not appoint him. Because what motive would Starmer have for appointing him if he did know it?

I may be misreading this - but the information that was already public at the time of the appointment should have been enough, let alone what the security services may or may not have said, or what "assurances" Mandy gave to him

There is also the fact that Starmer broke convention. We don't do politically appointed ambassadors. "Easy" countries like the Anglosphere or most of NATO may not get the same scrutiny as the next ambassador to North Korea, but they're still a time served career diplomat who gets a few years of taxpayer funded wining and dining before they actually retire. By all accounts the incumbent - Karen Pierce - was liked by Trump's team.

 

[brad465]

If Starmer held himself to the same standards he held Johnson and others, he'd be long gone by now.

Labour's problem is the lack of viable replacements, which might stop them from twisting the final knife.

Rayner? Has baggage, and very divisive to the electorate.

Unfortunately under FPTP divisive is what someone needs to be in order to win. Rayner could well be divisive in the wrong places, but that particular trait is not on its own a barrier.

Streeting? Also has baggage and his own unsavoury links, albeit one of the better ones on paper.

If a leadership election doesn't go to members, I can see him being the winner.

Lammy? A laughing stock.

He's nowhere in the event of a leadership election, so I wouldn't worry about him.

Burnham? They've now made that incredibly difficult.

Even if Burnham had made it in and become leader, he also has past baggage and the manner in which he'd have got there (as a very public backstabber) would have damaged his authority anyway.

Miliband? Has failed before, and has become such an eco zealot it will likely just push more people away from the party.

He won't go for it again, he'll just try and settle for remaining in cabinet.

There are some left field candidates, but none with the gravitas and experience needed to be PM.

I could see a left-field candidate entering a race to increase their profile for the leadership election after the next one. Badenoch did this in 2022 and no doubt helped her become leader in 2024.

 

[Topological]

I dont think Labour can have a leadership election without going to the members.

It just really suprises me that he has not got rid of Sweeney yet. That would have felt like an obvious step given how many Labour MPs do not like him.

 

[kristiang85]

Unfortunately under FPTP divisive is what someone needs to be in order to win. Rayner could well be divisive in the wrong places, but that particular trait is not on its own a barrier.

If a leadership election doesn't go to members, I can see him being the winner.

He's nowhere in the event of a leadership election, so I wouldn't worry about him.

Even if Burnham had made it in and become leader, he also has past baggage and the manner in which he'd have got there (as a very public backstabber) would have damaged his authority anyway.

He won't go for it again, he'll just try and settle for remaining in cabinet.

I could see a left-field candidate entering a race to increase their profile for the leadership election after the next one. Badenoch did this in 2022 and no doubt helped her become leader in 2024.

Fair analysis.

It just really suprises me that he has not got rid of Sweeney yet. That would have felt like an obvious step given how many Labour MPs do not like him.

Maybe he knows where too many bodies are buried, and Starmer is fearing a reprisal if he sacked him much like Cummings did to Johnson.

That's the only explanation I can think of.

 

[brad465]

I dont think Labour can have a leadership election without going to the members.

It just really suprises me that he has not got rid of Sweeney yet. That would have felt like an obvious step given how many Labour MPs do not like him.

Maybe he knows where too many bodies are buried, and Starmer is fearing a reprisal if he sacked him much like Cummings did to Johnson.

That's the only explanation I can think of.

This has long been my belief as well, to the point I've made several jokes about it elsewhere (that probably won't get past moderators on this site).

Perhaps what we need is for McSweeney to call Starmer's wife "Princess Nut Nut."

 

[Egg Centric]

It could be as simple as Starmer is a basically honourable man with the political skills of a potato. The stupidest possible thing to do would be to defend McSweeny for the worst of it then just as things are getting better fire him. So that's what I expect to happen.

 

[Gloster]

It could be as simple as Starmer is a basically honourable man with the political skills of a potato.

I would agree with this, but add that Starmer also has the problem that he sees things with a lawyer’s eyes: he sees the detail, but not the broad picture. This is very useful in opposition when he can forensically take apart a government’s doings one by one, but not so good in government when he has to balance up a large number of factors.

 

[Topological]

I would agree with this, but add that Starmer also has the problem that he sees things with a lawyer’s eyes: he sees the detail, but not the broad picture. This is very useful in opposition when he can forensically take apart a government’s doings one by one, but not so good in government when he has to balance up a large number of factors.

That is a fair explanation for what we are seeing.

This is why I always advocate for governments having larger demonstrable projects. They seem scared becuase of headline figures, but one will have to be brave and just go for it. Identify projects where there is a profitable opportunity for private investment and then provide the certainty of future cashflows. Money will come in, the project will happen and the voters will see it. The only challenge then is that someone will say "why are we paying £x to the investors when it only costs £y to keep the project running". Then you just have to point out that the investment is why the project happened in the first place.

Borrowing is only problematic when the market does not trust you and needs compensation (higher interest) for the risk involved. For certain projects the cost of borrowing can be very low.

 

[edwin_m]

That is a fair explanation for what we are seeing.

This is why I always advocate for governments having larger demonstrable projects. They seem scared becuase of headline figures, but one will have to be brave and just go for it. Identify projects where there is a profitable opportunity for private investment and then provide the certainty of future cashflows. Money will come in, the project will happen and the voters will see it. The only challenge then is that someone will say "why are we paying £x to the investors when it only costs £y to keep the project running". Then you just have to point out that the investment is why the project happened in the first place.

Borrowing is only problematic when the market does not trust you and needs compensation (higher interest) for the risk involved. For certain projects the cost of borrowing can be very low.

You're essentially describing a PFI project, and plenty of them have got into trouble under various governments over the last few decades.

 

[Senex]

Starmer and his allies are all spending today saying they were lied to by Peter Mandelson. But he was presumably responsible for having Mendelson positively vetted before sending him off to the Washington job. So what are we to think of the security services and the quality of their vetting? Or if you are rich enough and have the right friends, does vetting just mean that your answers to questions are not properly questioned?

 

[Falcon1200]

It could be as simple as Starmer is a basically honourable man

If that was the case Starmer would never have appointed Mandelson, to any position, let alone US Ambassador, as he has (finally) admitted knowing full well of his friendship with Epstein, never mind his previous double sackings.

 

[Topological]

You're essentially describing a PFI project, and plenty of them have got into trouble under various governments over the last few decades.

Essentially yes, though there are good and bad ways of implementing PFI. Certainly, big ticket projects that actually generate revenue (such as HS2) are more suited to PFI than cases where the government is the customer (like hospitals).

 

[Broucek]

It could be as simple as Starmer is a basically honourable man with the political skills of a potato.

I instinctively agree, although some of his behaviour with respect to Lords Alli and Mandelson doesn't seem that honourable. It's hard to imagine Teresa May or Gordon Brown doing similar things...

(edited for spelling)

 

[Egg Centric]

If that was the case Starmer would never have appointed Mandelson, to any position, let alone US Ambassador, as he has (finally) admitted knowing full well of his friendship with Epstein, never mind his previous double sackings.

Meh, at the time it made sense as a gamble imo.

FWIW I think there's a lot of performative condemnation of Epstein for the sex stuff (which while obviously reprehensible seems to completely forget what the world was like 20 years ago, at the time Epstein was doing this sort of thing girls of the same age were topless in The Sun - I honestly don't think he was a paedophile as opposed to an amoral pervert who hadn't realised society had moved on, but apparently it's just me and Meghan Kelly that think this) while completely ignoring the blatant corruption.

Much as we'd be insane to never take on a police informant or spy without a criminal record, sadly our closest ally has and had put us in a position where experience with dealing with a corrupt amoral pervert was a very useful skill for an ambassador.

 

[BAFRA77]

I instinctively agree, although some of his behaviour with respect to Lords Alli and Mandelson doesn't seem that honourable. It's hard to imagine Teresa May or Gordon Brown doing similar things...

(edited for spelling)

It depends on who is advising (or in this case - misadvising) him on the fitness of candidates.

Which again directly points back to one particular figure in his entourage who pushed for Mandelson’s appointment to the job (according to most reports)

 

[317 forever]

If Starmer held himself to the same standards he held Johnson and others, he'd be long gone by now.

Labour's problem is the lack of viable replacements, which might stop them from twisting the final knife.

Rayner? Has baggage, and very divisive to the electorate.
Streeting? Also has baggage and his own unsavoury links, albeit one of the better ones on paper.
Lammy? A laughing stock.
Burnham? They've now made that incredibly difficult.
Miliband? Has failed before, and has become such an eco zealot it will likely just push more people away from the party.

There are some left field candidates, but none with the gravitas and experience needed to be PM.

Other potential candidates are Shabana Mahmood, albeit less experienced in cabinet, and Bridget Phillipson.

Bridget would know how to speak skillfully against Reform and the Conservatives.