The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Bevan Price]

Starmer is caught between two extremes. The right who want him to do what the Tories failed to do in 14 years, and the far left who want him to adopt Corbyn-style (but election-losing) policies.

So - for example immigration on small boats - how to you stop it ?

Send a few gunboats - that might have been the 18th century policy, but not acceptable now.

Use warships to block access across the Channel for small boats ? Probably far too expensive, and lefties would create big protests.
Pay France to stop all the small boats ? Not been very successful so far.

Ban local councils from housing / feeding illegal immigrants ? Probably too controversial.

And does anyone really believe that Reform would do any better ? Seem to be too many windbags proposing silly ideas to me.

 

[Railwaycat]

It’s the most miserable conspiracy theorist peddling things I’ve ever seen

I came across it when I took my car to the local garage we use, one man business and a kind, gentle man - my wife knew him from when they both worked for a further education college, he left and set up on his own, very good mechanic and totally trustworthy. He had a pile of them on a bench, I think I remember him being anti covid vaccination (didn't take one as I got the gist of the rag from the headline...). We looked it up online only recently - one story was about the war in Ukraine, only read the first couple of sentences...need I say more? (clue - it's a war of liberation for the Donbass!)

 

[generalnerd]

I came across it when I took my car to the local garage we use, one man business and a kind, gentle man - my wife knew him from when they both worked for a further education college, he left and set up on his own, very good mechanic and totally trustworthy. He had a pile of them on a bench (didn't take one as I got the idea from the headline...). We looked it up online only recently - one story was about the war in Ukraine, only read the first couple of sentences...need I say more? (clue - it's a war of liberation for the Donbass!)

I think most of the places with them out just get given a dump by some, generally older woman, as I tend to find, and take them in. One woman gave them out along the whole carriage a Manchester tram, no one took them up. Tremendous waste of paper.

Edit: have just read up on the paper, and it is worse than I thought.

 

[Bayum]

Starmer and Labour need to get into attack mode. They need to seize on the formula the right have built on in the last ten years. All Reform (and now bloody Restore) are doing is following that same playbook. Less of the nicely nicely and more bulldog.

 

[Falcon1200]

But is that because they are objectively worse, or how they compare wtih expectations?

I had hope for Keir Starmer's leadership, that hope has been utterly dashed.

 

[nw1]

Starmer is caught between two extremes. The right who want him to do what the Tories failed to do in 14 years, and the far left who want him to adopt Corbyn-style (but election-losing) policies.

So - for example immigration on small boats - how to you stop it ?

Send a few gunboats - that might have been the 18th century policy, but not acceptable now.

Use warships to block access across the Channel for small boats ? Probably far too expensive, and lefties would create big protests.
Pay France to stop all the small boats ? Not been very successful so far.

Ban local councils from housing / feeding illegal immigrants ? Probably too controversial.

And does anyone really believe that Reform would do any better ? Seem to be too many windbags proposing silly ideas to me.

Cutting all anti-immigration rhetoric would be a first step. Plus the questionable stance on trans rights. Social conservatism should not be part of Labour's message. They shouldn't even try to compete in that market; let the Conservatives do the job of taking socially-conservative votes from Reform. It just puts off the centre-left and left-wing voters who might have supported them; they could I suspect lose a lot of votes to the Greens, Lib Dems and left-wing independents on that matter. People will only stick with Labour in marginal seats which they are at risk of losing; in inner-cities they may well feel empowered to vote for the Greens or independents because right-wing parties will have no chance.

If they'd have adopted a socially-liberal, economically centre-left position and just kept to that, I suspect they'd be in a better place by now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I had hope for Keir Starmer's leadership, that hope has been utterly dashed.

Largely because he U turns every time Reform say they don't like something he is doing. Which is odd so early on in a Parliament - now is the time to do unpopular but necessary things so you don't need to do them just before a general election.

 

[Falcon1200]

Largely because he U turns every time Reform say they don't like something he is doing.

Not just Reform, many of his own MPs, who think money grows on trees! (Or rather, can be extracted ad infinitum from a dwindling group of taxpayers).

 

[nw1]

No problem, I know what you mean! I certainly don't agree with everything published in the Mail, but for me that applies to all newspapers.

Incidentally what's your reasoning for considering Starmer worse than even Boris or Truss?

To me the winter fuel payment issue was a big mistake - but then again, just about every government has implemented similar unpopular policies. The Mandelson business smacks of cronyism - but then again, cronyism has been a feature of just about every Government. So it almost seems "business as usual", given that just about every Government has been some degree of bad.

To me if there is one word I would describe this government, it is "bland". It hasn't done enough to help people's lot - but then again, have others?

Put it this way, it reminds me of Aesop's fable involving the frogs, the log and the stork. The log, in this case, is called Keir. Boring, bland, ineffectual, not improving the frogs' lot, but also not eating them up. The frog-eating stork might be called Nigel, but it might have previously been called Liz.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2026 ==

Not just Reform, many of his own MPs, who think money grows on trees! (Or rather, can be extracted ad infinitum from a dwindling group of taxpayers).

You could, however, say that it's better to raise money from taxpayers than to deprive the needy of the funds they need to lead a reasonable life, or the services they need to lead a reasonable life. I'm sure most of us would prefer something of a tax rise and get a better NHS in return, for example. Or a better safety net were we to become unemployed, including not only benefits but easy opportunities for re-training so we can find another job (and not need benefits anymore!)

Certainly speaking personally, my main support would go to politicians who would provide a safety net were I to fall on hard times (either financial or health-wise) and if my tax had to rise a little to allow this, so be it. Most of us need to feel more secure and so I am with the Labour left on this matter.

Is the main critique of Labour, thus, not that they are too right-wing in any case (e.g. the winter fuel issue) and this is why they have lost support? If they had been a little more left wing - not full-on Corbyn, but somewhere left of where they are - would they not have retained a lot more support?

 

[Lewisham2221]

Incidentally what's your reasoning for considering Starmer worse than even Boris or Truss?

{Snip}

Is the main critique of Labour, thus, not that they are too right-wing in any case (e.g. the winter fuel issue) and this is why they have lost support? If they had been a little more left wing - not full-on Corbyn, but somewhere left of where they are - would they not have retained a lot more support?

They were both awful, but they both did something. Yes, Johnson's handling of COVID was dreadful. He "got Brexit done" as much as it pains me to say it. Truss was a disaster with that budget. But they went bold, and did essentially stick to their pre-election word. Starmer promised change, but so far has just bumbled along on the same trajectory as the Tories, managing to alienate a huge amount of the Labour support based whilst simultaneously managing to stay just enough left leaning to be despised amongst the entire right as well. That's some going.

 

[Falcon1200]

Incidentally what's your reasoning for considering Starmer worse than even Boris or Truss?

Multiple issues, including u-turns, having the wool pulled over his eyes and appointing dubious characters to serious positions, accepting freebies for things most of us have to pay for ourselves on considerably lower income, the absurd Chagos capitulation, but mainly the economy, which he and his Chancellor are doing their best to wreck.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Multiple issues, including u-turns, having the wool pulled over his eyes and appointing dubious characters to serious positions, accepting freebies for things most of us have to pay for ourselves on considerably lower income, the absurd Chagos capitulation, but mainly the economy, which he and his Chancellor are doing their best to wreck.

The economy is full of Hobson's choices. The thing that's arguably wrecked it happened in 2016 (and then COVID didn't help). Different Chancellors are trying different things to fix it, none of which will work until the massive great elephant in the room is addressed.

 

[edwin_m]

They were both awful, but they both did something. Yes, Johnson's handling of COVID was dreadful. He "got Brexit done" as much as it pains me to say it. Truss was a disaster with that budget. But they went bold, and did essentially stick to their pre-election word.

Ramming Brexit through against the wishes of nearly every expert, Parliament and by the time it happened also public opinion, is not something that deserves any credit. Not least because someone in that position either knew or should have known it was going to be a disaster for the UK. Similarly Truss should have known what the impact of her non-budget would be, and the election you claim as justification was just a Tory leadership contest.

I'd prefer a leader that does nothing to one who actively makes things worse.

Multiple issues, including u-turns, having the wool pulled over his eyes and appointing dubious characters to serious positions, accepting freebies for things most of us have to pay for ourselves on considerably lower income, the absurd Chagos capitulation, but mainly the economy, which he and his Chancellor are doing their best to wreck.

And nothing Johnson or Truss did was that bad?

 

[BAFRA77]

Multiple issues, including u-turns, having the wool pulled over his eyes and appointing dubious characters to serious positions, accepting freebies for things most of us have to pay for ourselves on considerably lower income, the absurd Chagos capitulation, but mainly the economy, which he and his Chancellor are doing their best to wreck.

Partygate, Pincher, Prorogation, Wallpapergate, Discarding security to go party with a former KGB spy and then sticking his son in the House of Lords, Owen Paterson, “Let the bodies pile high”, Actually crashing the economy, “Form a ring around the Prittster”, Covid Contracts VIP Lane, etc. etc.

 

[Bevan Price]

Multiple issues, including u-turns, having the wool pulled over his eyes and appointing dubious characters to serious positions, accepting freebies for things most of us have to pay for ourselves on considerably lower income, the absurd Chagos capitulation, but mainly the economy, which he and his Chancellor are doing their best to wreck.

It was the Tories who started the discussion about the Chagos transfer to Mauritius. Labour just continued with that policy.

 

[nw1]

He "got Brexit done" as much as it pains me to say it.

You could say previous politicians from the 60s "got Beeching done".

Both were bad, regressive and backward things: just because they "got done" doesn't mean that people should take credit for them. Doing nothing is better than doing something destructive.

Following the line of argument, you could say that someone who successfully organised vandalism of a property, or a burglary, and didn't get caught should get credit for "getting it done" !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2026 ==

“Form a ring around the Prittster”

I actually completely missed that one !
I was aware of the Patel bullying allegations, but had missed that particular BoJo utterance.

 

[Lewisham2221]

You could say previous politicians from the 60s "got Beeching done".

Both were bad, regressive and backward things: just because they "got done" doesn't mean that people should take credit for them. Doing nothing is better than doing something destructive.

Well, there's misrepresenting what I said, and then there's this!

My point is that Johnson and Truss both did what they said they were going to do. I don't like Johnson or Truss. I don't like what Johnson or Truss did. But both will have retained some popularity amongst their supporters for doing what they said would. Starmer's Labour party are currently unpopular because they made promises of introducing real, tangible change which they have so far failed to deliver, whilst continuing on enough of a rightwards trajectory to alienate a huge portion of their support, but maintaining enough of a leftward lean to remain hated amongst the right. It's got nothing to do with congratulating anybody for doing a terrible job, it's just recognising why Starmer seems to be even less popular than Johnson and Truss.

Following the line of argument, you could say that someone who successfully organised vandalism of a property, or a burglary, and didn't get caught should get credit for "getting it done" !

If I'd hired that person to perform said vandalism or burglary, yes.

It's more like hiring a team of tradespeople to renovate a house. They start a loft conversion that nobody asked for, then give up half way through. They leave all the cupboard doors hanging off, don't fix the leaky roof, and manage to break a few extra windows along the way. They plant some flowers in the garden, then dig them all up again. You tell them you hate the blue front door, so they replace it... with another blue door, and they go and paint your window frames blue as well.

 

[Cdd89]

I think there's more to this Chagos arrangement than meets the eye in terms of merely complying with the international legal judgment (in fact it's been stated that there is!), and I'd be interested in others' opinions on what this might be.

The factors I find notable in terms of unanswered questions are:

• This Labour government has a track record of U-turning on anything that is remotely unpopular with the electorate and/or its own party; this is unpopular with both, and yet it is spending significant political capital (that it now does not have) persisting with it - why?
• The Tories started the negotiations, and would have been even more vulnerable to unpopularity from its own party (enough to depose a leader) had it completed them; why did they touch this?
• While the publicly-stated reason is that the return-and-lease arrangement is the only way to preserve the safety of the base after the legal ruling, and further reasons have been stated such as that the International Telecommunications Union objecting, it has been suggested multiple times (twice, to my knowledge) that there are secret reasons why it's so important:
  • Once in early 2025 when Starmer told Badenoch that he knew she'd seen the secret security briefings, knew what the reason was, and should not be giving him a hard time on the topic
  • And more recently today, where Alex Davies-Jones stated that there's an important reason to do with national security, but hasn't been told what it is; reading between the lines, Davies-Jones presumably challenged the govt as to why they were pursuing this unpopular policy and got that response. Here's her full quote, as it's quite interesting:

From https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/trump-chagos-islands-deal-latest-rkpk89jtl:

Ms Davies-Jones said: “I totally understand how people will be wondering exactly the details of this. There is a lot that happens on that base that not even I know, that a lot of our Government ministers don’t know, and that is vitally important for national security as well. It protects us from terrorism, it is crucial, vital infrastructure for national security, not just here in the UK, but for our allies as well, for our Americans who use that base, and it is important.”
She added: “There’s a lot of things, as I’ve stated, that happen on that base that not even I am privy to. I am entrusted by those who are in operation of that base, our military, our national security agencies who operate that base about how crucial that infrastructure is and our partners across the world as well.”

What could that reason be? In terms of the suggested "secret reason", I do not think Starmer would be above lying about this if there is a different reason that is in his personal interests to pursue it. However I am somewhat dissuaded from this theory by the fact that, as stated above, the Tories started the process of negotiating this return.

In early 2025, I actually had a conspiracy theory (is it a conspiracy theory if it's acknowledged that there's a secret?) which is that Starmer expected Trump to block the deal, and was intending to use this as leverage to manage Trump and gain concessions from the US in return for the UK 'breaking international law'. He may have been caught off-guard by Trump 1) appearing not to even understand the deal, and 2) now changing his mind on the agreement every few weeks.

 

[Richard Scott]

Ramming Brexit through against the wishes of nearly every expert, Parliament and by the time it happened also public opinion, is not something that deserves any credit. Not least because someone in that position either knew or should have known it was going to be a disaster for the UK.

Afraid the Brexit we got is also partly Labour MPs fault. If they had supported May's proposal then sure we would have had fewer issues as she was going for a softer option?

 

[edwin_m]

Afraid the Brexit we got is also partly Labour MPs fault. If they had supported May's proposal then sure we would have had fewer issues as she was going for a softer option?

I don't want to retread the Brexit debate yet again, and exactly how we got there is not relevant here. The point is that Johnson was determined to push Brexit through when he became PM, despite polls suggesting a majority of the public opposed it in any form by then. Pushing through something that is both unpopular and bad for the country isn't the sign of a good PM - Thatcher was resolute and determined but trying to do that with the poll tax led to her downfall.

 

[Carlisle]

I don't want to retread the Brexit debate yet again, and exactly how we got there is not relevant here. The point is that Johnson was determined to push Brexit through when he became PM, despite polls suggesting a majority of the public opposed i

I didn’t support Brexit but wasn’t Boris’s 2019 victory significantly linked to his pledge to “get it done” rather than a majority being opposed to it as you suggest ?

 

[edwin_m]

I didn’t support Brexit but wasn’t Boris’s 2019 victory significantly linked to his pledge to “get it done” rather than a majority being opposed to it as you suggest ?

It was really down to the vagaries of the electoral system, like so many of our other problems (and something Starmer has done nothing to fix...). Public opinion turned against Brexit in autumn 2017, and in the 2019 General Election a majority voted for parties that offered a second referendum.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union? (Asked after the referendum)

www.whatukthinks.org

 

[Richard Scott]

I don't want to retread the Brexit debate yet again, and exactly how we got there is not relevant here. The point is that Johnson was determined to push Brexit through when he became PM, despite polls suggesting a majority of the public opposed it in any form by then. Pushing through something that is both unpopular and bad for the country isn't the sign of a good PM - Thatcher was resolute and determined but trying to do that with the poll tax led to her downfall.

No but my point is if Labour MPs had backed May's plan then chances are we wouldn't have had Boris and we'd all have been better off?

 

[edwin_m]

No but my point is if Labour MPs had backed May's plan then chances are we wouldn't have had Boris and we'd all have been better off?

I suspect May would have annoyed enough of her MPs to be defenestrated one way or another and we'd have got Boris anyway. We might have got a slightly less bad Brexit, but May had already committed to leaving both the Customs Union and the Single Market which are the things that have been hitting the economy since.

 

[Richard Scott]

I suspect May would have annoyed enough of her MPs to be defenestrated one way or another and we'd have got Boris anyway. We might have got a slightly less bad Brexit, but May had already committed to leaving both the Customs Union and the Single Market which are the things that have been hitting the economy since.

Maybe so but we'll never know.

 

[Falcon1200]

I don't like Johnson or Truss.

Nor do I, but I like Starmer less because I expected better of him.

 

[edwin_m]

Nor do I, but I like Starmer less because I expected better of him.

Which comes back to my point about expectations. I will agree that Starmer fell further short of expectations than his predecessors but the expectation of him was higher. That's not the same thing as Starmer objectively being worse than Johnson or Truss.

On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd put my expectations of Johnson and Truss at maybe 3 each, and my perception of their performance at 1. My expectation of Starmer was maybe a 7 and my perception a 3.

 

[Bevan Price]

I didn’t support Brexit but wasn’t Boris’s 2019 victory significantly linked to his pledge to “get it done” rather than a majority being opposed to it as you suggest ?

Boris's 2019 victory was due, at least in part, due to the unelectability of Corbyn and his policies.

 

[nw1]

Boris's 2019 victory was due, at least in part, due to the unelectability of Corbyn and his policies.

I think that's likely, though I personally would have considered Corbyn the least-worst.

You've only got to look at the number of Tory holds in socially-liberal, anti-Brexit southern seats. The result has been misrepresented as a mandate for Brexit. It was not. It just showed the electorate in general considered Boris the least-bad of the two main options.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2026 ==

Well, there's misrepresenting what I said, and then there's this!

My point is that Johnson and Truss both did what they said they were going to do. I don't like Johnson or Truss. I don't like what Johnson or Truss did. But both will have retained some popularity amongst their supporters for doing what they said would. Starmer's Labour party are currently unpopular because they made promises of introducing real, tangible change which they have so far failed to deliver, whilst continuing on enough of a rightwards trajectory to alienate a huge portion of their support, but maintaining enough of a leftward lean to remain hated amongst the right. It's got nothing to do with congratulating anybody for doing a terrible job, it's just recognising why Starmer seems to be even less popular than Johnson and Truss.

I did understand that you are not a supporter of Boris and Truss (I wasn't trying to suggest that you were), and I get what you're saying: however I think there's also a strong case for arguing that someone delivering bad but not unexpected change is worse than someone who promises something but doesn't deliver. The latter is (sadly) true of most politicians, IMX.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2026 ==

Which comes back to my point about expectations. I will agree that Starmer fell further short of expectations than his predecessors but the expectation of him was higher. That's not the same thing as Starmer objectively being worse than Johnson or Truss.

On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd put my expectations of Johnson and Truss at maybe 3 each, and my perception of their performance at 1. My expectation of Starmer was maybe a 7 and my perception a 3.

I never had really strong positive expectations of Starmer to be honest. Expected him to be better than the Tories but still somewhat uninspiring. I think I expected about a 6 and he's delivered a 5. So he's only come out a little worse than expected.

 

[Harpo]

I didn’t support Brexit but wasn’t Boris’s 2019 victory significantly linked to his pledge to “get it done”

His ‘levelling up’ pledge got him the game-changing red wall vote along with ‘40 new hospitals’. Both, of course, subsequently revealed to be classic Johnson BS.