The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[brad465]

When he was given the job. I thought, what experience has he got. It was a repeat of James Callaghan, giving the job to his son-in-law, Peter Jay.

As @Cdd89 alluded to upthread, it was probably that Mandelson was the sort of person who could curry favour with Trump and get favourable UK dealings. Under any other President he would have been completely worthless. But of course, as Starmer is finding out the hard way, the sort of person who can be smarmy with relative success tends to have, to put it mildly, an awful lot of baggage.

This baggage was bad enough going into 2024, but the release of Epstein files revealing Mandelson not only associated with Epstein, but is a traitor to the UK, meant the timing of hiring him as ambassador could not have been worse. Starmer might have got away with it if all the file business took place a few years later than it actually did, or a few years earlier, to the point that Mandelson would probably be in the dock as we speak and thus nowhere near consideration for any government role.

 

[Uncle Buck]

As @Cdd89 alluded to upthread, it was probably that Mandelson was the sort of person who could curry favour with Trump and get favourable UK dealings. Under any other President he would have been completely worthless. But of course, as Starmer is finding out the hard way, the sort of person who can be smarmy with relative success tends to have, to put it mildly, an awful lot of baggage.

This baggage was bad enough going into 2024, but the release of Epstein files revealing Mandelson not only associated with Epstein, but is a traitor to the UK, meant the timing of hiring him as ambassador could not have been worse. Starmer might have got away with it if all the file business took place a few years later than it actually did, or a few years earlier, to the point that Mandelson would probably be in the dock as we speak and thus nowhere near consideration for any government role.

But was it not established that the incumbent ambassador, Karen Pierce, was liked and highly rated by Trump and his associates? So even this does not wash.

 

[edwin_m]

But was it not established that the incumbent ambassador, Karen Pierce, was liked and highly rated by Trump and his associates? So even this does not wash.

Just to be liked and highly rated may not mean (I don't know one way or the other) that she was effective in advancing the UK's interests.

 

[The Ham]

I would also add that there is something rather poetic in the similarities of the two men’s predicaments as while the Tories were in power, Starmer was acting like the church elder, demanding resignations for every minor mishap, yet when he is caught doing something not dissimilar, he throws people under the bus. I think the sanctimony and hypocrisy explain why he seems to be uniquely unpopular.

On that basis we can look forwards to a Lib Dem government next...

On a more serious point there does appear to have been quite a bit of negativity around Starmer, not necessarily all deserved based on what had happened (not just recently, but for some time).

Part of this was going to happen whoever is the Labour leader when there's primary a right leaning pressure or at least a press reporting a lot of right wing taking points.

That's not to defend the current situation, however it's going to make it harder when things like this happen.

 

[Brightonboy]

A good appointment for an ambassador role needs experience in dealing with all sorts of national administrations and the broader host government institutions and should do so in a way that is coherent with HMG's domestic policies and consistent with HMG's dealings with other nations. An ambassador should not be selected for their ability to stroke the ego of just one key player in the government, especially when that key player has a 'suspect' reputation and so does the putative ambassador.

 

[Yew]

A good appointment for an ambassador role needs experience in dealing with all sorts of national administrations and the broader host government institutions and should do so in a way that is coherent with HMG's domestic policies and consistent with HMG's dealings with other nations. An ambassador should not be selected for their ability to stroke the ego of just one key player in the government, especially when that key player has a 'suspect' reputation and so does the putative ambassador.

Normally, I'd completely agree. Though given the unpredictability and concentration of executive power that Trump has, I can understand (but maybe not agree with) the logic of sending someone that knows which cupboards have skeletons in them.

 

[Falcon1200]

We will see what the PM has to say this afternoon, but there is really only one question I would like asked of him;

'If this was reversed, ie a Tory PM in the same situation as you are now Sir Keir, would you be demanding their immediate resignation or would you agree that it was a simple mistake and let's move on'. If, as there is surely no doubt whatsoever that it would be the former, he has to go.

 

[Kite159]

We will see what the PM has to say this afternoon, but there is really only one question I would like asked of him;

'If this was reversed, ie a Tory PM in the same situation as you are now Sir Keir, would you be demanding their immediate resignation or would you agree that it was a simple mistake and let's move on'. If, as there is surely no doubt whatsoever that it would be the former, he has to go.

And you expect him to tell the truth in response to that sort of question?

 

[CharlieSpotted]

On a more serious point there does appear to have been quite a bit of negativity around Starmer, not necessarily all deserved based on what had happened (not just recently, but for some time).

Anyone who watches the darts will be painfully aware of the chant that goes up constantly at every UK venue making it plain what the audience thinks of Kier Starmer... I don't know if it happens at other sports too, I expect maybe it does, but it is painful to hear over and over at almost every event.

 

[simonw]

We will see what the PM has to say this afternoon, but there is really only one question I would like asked of him;

'If this was reversed, ie a Tory PM in the same situation as you are now Sir Keir, would you be demanding their immediate resignation or would you agree that it was a simple mistake and let's move on'. If, as there is surely no doubt whatsoever that it would be the former, he has to go.

Politicians frequently call for others to go. It doesn't mean either they would go in similar circumstances or that deep down the believe the person they are calling to go will or should go.

 

[Cdd89]

Politicians frequently call for others to go. It doesn't mean either they would go in similar circumstances or that deep down the believe the person they are calling to go will or should go.

I think it's good for democracy that politicians who demand resignations have the same standards applied back to them. The issue isn't really about Johnson or Starmer or Badenoch, as they are just perpetuating the cycle; it's more about making future politicians more circumspect about calling for the "nuclear option", prioritising long term interests over short term victories.

This arguably ties into electoral reform since a coalition of parties share the responsibility, making it harder to pin scandal on one individual unless something truly egregious occurred. I think this is preferable.

 

[Falcon1200]

And you expect him to tell the truth in response to that sort of question?

No. But, to be fair, that applies to all politicians.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Starmers comeback from yesterday has been neutralized at best today by Olly Robbins appearance at Foreign Affairs select committee. To be fair to Robins he didn't seek to directly twist the knife but it doesn't help Starmer. The reality is McSweeneys paws are all over this and whilst people can be critical of Starmer leaving too much to him he should have used yesterday to pin it all in him. Instead he's doubling down on Robbins so if the election results are poor in a couple of weeks a move may come although I'm not convinced Labour have a single candidate they can all get behind so he will solder on.

 

[Harpo]

I'm not convinced Labour have a single candidate they can all get behind so he will solder on.

Because they wouldn’t let that single unifying candidate stand for parliament.

 

[MP33]

The head of the Trade Union for senior civil servants, was right about the sacking being a dangerous step. The rest of the Civil Service, should start to get worried. As, any changes that are planned to pay and conditions. Always, start with the most senior positions as a test bed, before being extended to everyone else.

The days of The Men From the Ministry, stating that they could not be fired, have gone. The worst that would happen, is being sent to Archives at Invermucky, in the Scottish Highlands. In Yes Minister, there was the running joke that anyone not performing on the fast stream. Would have their next post at the DVLA in Swansea.

 

[Bantamzen]

The head of the Trade Union for senior civil servants, was right about the sacking being a dangerous step. The rest of the Civil Service, should start to get worried. As, any changes that are planned to pay and conditions. Always, start with the most senior positions as a test bed, before being extended to everyone else.

The days of The Men From the Ministry, stating that they could not be fired, have gone. The worst that would happen, is being sent to Archives at Invermucky, in the Scottish Highlands. In Yes Minister, there was the running joke that anyone not performing on the fast stream. Would have their next post at the DVLA in Swansea.

Sorry, but it should be the Prime Minister that should be worried. The longer this mess runs and he pretends he knew nothing, the more Labour gets damaged. But the PM seems completely tone deaf to growing public malcontent, as well as members of his own party. Outside of his inner circle few really believe him, and even they probably quietly don't. Starmer needs to do right thing and step down, even before they take the predicted kicking in the upcoming local elections.

If not I'm sorry to say but the chances of a Reform government, or at least a hung Parliament with Reform as part of a coalition increase steadily.

 

[DarloRich]

The days of The Men From the Ministry, stating that they could not be fired, have gone.

Is that true though? Are reams of civil servants being sacked or a couple of people at the top taking a fall?

Sorry, but it should be the Prime Minister that should be worried. The longer this mess runs and he pretends he knew nothing, the more Labour gets damaged. But the PM seems completely tone deaf to growing public malcontent, as well as members of his own party. Outside of his inner circle few really believe him, and even they probably quietly don't. Starmer needs to do right thing and step down, even before they take the predicted kicking in the upcoming local elections.

I get you want him out. I know he isn't left enough for many but much of the "malcontent" is nonsense. It is driven by vested interests who are very keen to hold labour to a higher standard than they ever held Johnson or his gang to or will ever hold Farage to.

I think, sadly, Starmer will be gone after the locals. Personally I wouldn't move before then. Why carry the can for the poor results when you can blame someone else?

BTW - who else is going to be better?

 

[Bantamzen]

I get you want him out. I know he isn't left enough for many but much of the "malcontent" is nonsense. It is driven by vested interests who are very keen to hold labour to a higher standard than they ever held Johnson or his gang to or will ever hold Farage to.

It's nothing to do with his alignment in the party. It's to do with the fact that he is plain useless, completely uninspiring and has become such an easy target for the opposition, especially Farage's barmy army.

I think, sadly, Starmer will be gone after the locals. Personally I wouldn't move before then. Why carry the can for the poor results when you can blame someone else?

BTW - who else is going to be better?

You may be right about waiting until after the locals, but at least even just initiating the change process prior might at least limit the damage. Because a lot of local councils are going to end up with half baked nutters running the show, because for a lot of people next month is nothing more than giving it to Starmer. And that is not good for anyone just because his ego won't let him admit he is the big issue for Labour.

As for his replacement, a bag of dead badgers could do better..... But being serious, I'm not really sure. I know, I know, I'm wanting a change but not coming up with suggestions, but this really is an issue for the Labour party to sort out. The temptation would be to promote a senior cabinet member, but this might not solve Labours horrific PR issue. It's actually a shame Starmer blocked Andy Burnham's move to become a candidate for a local MP. I'm far from his biggest fan, but he does at least to seem to get things done, and doesn't perform so many U-turns that he needs hazard lights and an audible warning fitting. But I do think Labour need a fresh new face, someone not entirely tarred by the front bench, and preferably someone who doesn't have a have a heap of skeletons ready to fall out of the cupboard.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I wonder how interested most voters are about this Mandelson affair and about how it was handled by the Prime Minister. The big issue for most voters at present is the cost of living crisis and they will likely judge the Government at the next general election on the extent to which this has been dealt with to improve their lives. I think there is a risk that politicians who talk endlessly about the Prime Minister's handling of the Mandelson affair will give the impression to most voters that these politicians are living in a Westminster bubble and are out of touch will the voting public.

 

[Yew]

I wonder how interested most voters are about this Mandelson affair and about how it was handled by the Prime Minister. The big issue for most voters at present is the cost of living crisis and they will likely judge the Government at the next general election on the extent to which this has been dealt with to improve their lives. I think there is a risk that politicians who talk endlessly about the Prime Minister's handling of the Mandelson affair will give the impression to most voters that these politicians are living in a Westminster bubble and are out of touch will the voting public.

I'll admit that my reaction is very much being sick of this rumbling on, and eating up the oxygen in the room. I want to see real action to sort out fuel prices, how it seems that venture capital owns everything and is making it worse, and that the speculation in financial sector is vastly bigger than manufacturing in this country. Instead, we have a Westminster obsessed with something that is relatively unimportant to the day-to-day lives of the people they are supposed to represent.

 

[DarloRich]

It's to do with the fact that he is plain useless, completely uninspiring

Starmer is a dull lawyer. He has been since day 1. Frankly I am happy with dull after the pantomime we have had since the brexit referendum. I am not sure about useless. I know the press want you to think he is useless and looking at this thread it works.

We have seen people here claim, in honesty, that Starmer is the worst PM ever, that he is a marxist, that he is an authoritarian etc etc and those statements are simply untrue. Starmer isn't even the worst PM this decade!

PS the problem we have is that the pantomime is driven by a media class obsessed with chaos, personality and entertainment rather than news and current affairs.

You may be right about waiting until after the locals, but at least even just initiating the change process prior might at least limit the damage.

that will just look like chaos to the average man in the street - that will "cut through" much more than this stuff.

Because a lot of local councils are going to end up with half baked nutters running the show, because for a lot of people next month is nothing more than giving it to Starmer. And that is not good for anyone just because his ego won't let him admit he is the big issue for Labour.

is that really true? I don't sense a person with a massive ego in Starmer. Regardless we are going to end up with the lunatics running the asylum because a lot of people are condition by the media /alt media/social media into believing that a) Starmer is the worst PM EVER and b) they can vote him out in May.

It's actually a shame Starmer blocked Andy Burnham's move to become a candidate for a local MP. I'm far from his biggest fan, but he does at least to seem to get things done, and doesn't perform so many U-turns

I like Burnham but he isn't an MP. He has lost the leadership election twice ( I voted for him, twice), he might have had his (westminster) time plus I think he likes being on the outside peeing in/being the big fish in a small pool. Easier than making the hard calls.............

( also would I give up the mayoralty for a chance at the top job after having to fight for a seat. Neither are a given)

I know, I know, I'm wanting a change but not coming up with suggestions, but this really is an issue for the Labour party to sort out.

Ok, so you want change, don't know who it should be and want someone else to decide! My view, as a labour memeber who voted for Starmer, is give me a credible alterntive and I will have a think about it.

Instead, we have a Westminster obsessed with something that is relatively unimportant to the day-to-day lives of the people they are supposed to represent.

agreed.

 

[Harpo]

I'll admit that my reaction is very much being sick of this rumbling on, and eating up the oxygen in the room.

Fuelled by the press agenda.

 

[Broucek]

... Because a lot of local councils are going to end up with half baked nutters running the show, because for a lot of people next month is nothing more than giving it to Starmer. And that is not good for anyone just because his ego won't let him admit he is the big issue for Labour.

Whilst I wouldn't wish a dysfunctional council on anyone, it wouldn't be the worst thing for Reform (or the Greens) to show whether they are capable of doing some grown-up governing before a General Election.

 

[The Ham]

Whilst I wouldn't wish a dysfunctional council on anyone, it wouldn't be the worst thing for Reform (or the Greens) to show whether they are capable of doing some grown-up governing before a General Election.

Indeed, however there's always the possibility that one or other of those parties might have some competent people and they could run a council well.

For at least one of those, the evidence to date isn't encouraging for such an outcome.

 

[JamieL]

Whilst I wouldn't wish a dysfunctional council on anyone, it wouldn't be the worst thing for Reform (or the Greens) to show whether they are capable of doing some grown-up governing before a General Election.

There is already an example of a dysfunctional Reform Council. See Kent:

Factionalism, farce and chaos dog Reform UK in the garden of England

But all is not well in Kent, and what was hailed as a “shop window” for the insurgent party to prove its governing prowess, is descending into factionalism, farce and chaos in the Reform-run garden of England.

Factionalism, farce and chaos dog Reform UK in the garden of England

All is not well in Kent for Nigel Farage’s party as the recent video of an incendiary meeting suggests

www.theguardian.com

 

[Falcon1200]

It is driven by vested interests who are very keen to hold labour to a higher standard than they ever held Johnson or his gang to or will ever hold Farage to.

Starmer himself demanded other politicians resign when he was in opposition yet the same standard does not apply to him? In the interests of fairness such utter hypocrisy is not limited to him or his party.

 

[Bantamzen]

Starmer is a dull lawyer. He has been since day 1. Frankly I am happy with dull after the pantomime we have had since the brexit referendum. I am not sure about useless. I know the press want you to think he is useless and looking at this thread it works.

We have seen people here claim, in honesty, that Starmer is the worst PM ever, that he is a marxist, that he is an authoritarian etc etc and those statements are simply untrue. Starmer isn't even the worst PM this decade!

PS the problem we have is that the pantomime is driven by a media class obsessed with chaos, personality and entertainment rather than news and current affairs.

I don't disagree that the media, and even more so social media turns politics into a cult of personality. And I don't disagree he isn't the worst PM this decade, but I do think he is just too weak. Even when he gets things right, like his stance on getting involved in the Middle East, I worry that it won't take too much leaning on by the orange one across the pond to have him engaging those reversing lights and warnings. He'd make a far better Senior Civil Servant than PM, and he could just be shifted sideways whenever he came up short. I just don't trust his ability to stand by his convictions for long.

that will just look like chaos to the average man in the street - that will "cut through" much more than this stuff.


is that really true? I don't sense a person with a massive ego in Starmer. Regardless we are going to end up with the lunatics running the asylum because a lot of people are condition by the media /alt media/social media into believing that a) Starmer is the worst PM EVER and b) they can vote him out in May.

He does in my opinion, as does the Labour leadership in general. I know this won't be a popular view here, but I feel that at the moment Labour are smug and tone deaf, a combination driven by inflated egos and the inability to listen to criticism. It's exactly this Farage takes aim at, and it's working. Away from the walled garden of the Labour Party membership there is growing malcontent with Labour amongst the base, for exactly the reasons I cite, ploughing ahead with policies without actually listening to what their core base are concerned about. Which is exactly where Reform come in to fill the gap, they can say "yeah we are listening" even though they actually don't propose anything particularly solid in way of workable policies. But they can, and do give the impression they are listening, which Labour really don't.

I like Burnham but he isn't an MP. He has lost the leadership election twice ( I voted for him, twice), he might have had his (westminster) time plus I think he likes being on the outside peeing in/being the big fish in a small pool. Easier than making the hard calls.............

( also would I give up the mayoralty for a chance at the top job after having to fight for a seat. Neither are a given)

But had he had a chance Burnham would have at least shook things up a bit, clearly he had Starmer rattled. Maybe Burnham would have given him a run for his money and made him actually show some real leadership.

Ok, so you want change, don't know who it should be and want someone else to decide! My view, as a labour memeber who voted for Starmer, is give me a credible alterntive and I will have a think about it.

Yep, I don't have someone to propose because frankly no-one really stands out. I'm sure there are people out there, but that's for Labour to sort and bring to the fore for scrutiny. If they don't and cling to Starmer, things are only going to get worse for Labour. A quick glance of some of the polls suggest they are currently polling as low as 15%-16%. That's nothing short of dreadful, and should be making it's membership sit up and start asking some tough questions.

Whilst I wouldn't wish a dysfunctional council on anyone, it wouldn't be the worst thing for Reform (or the Greens) to show whether they are capable of doing some grown-up governing before a General Election.

I agree, unless of course you live in such a council and watch helplessly as services fall apart. I lived in a city that for years that had hung councils and that was bad enough as various parties squabbled amongst themselves, whilst doing sod all. A loony party with a large majority could completely destroy local economies, such that many are.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think he likes being on the outside peeing in/being the big fish in a small pool

My opinion is that Burnham doesn’t really want to be Labour leader, he just wanted to try and flush out those who do. A stalking horse.

My view, as a labour memeber who voted for Starmer, is give me a credible alterntive and I will have a think about it.

The problem is that Starmer’s pet pitbull Morgan McSweeney has drip-fed poison out about anyone and everyone who would be a credible alternative to Starmer.

The only one left is Wes Streeting. I worked briefly with Streeting in his NUS days (and my student union professional days) and I hold nothing but contempt for him. He’s got all the bad bits of Starmer but none of the good bits.

It’s the same thing that Dominic Cummings did with the Tories. And that tactic temporarily shored up Boris Johnson but it ultimately has destroyed them. In the absence of credible alternatives, when Boris Johnson’s time was up we ended up with a succession of headbangers. Same thing’s about to happen to Labour.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Apr 2026 ==

I do think he is just too weak

Throwing anyone who disagrees with him out of the party isn’t the sign of a strong and secure man, it’s the sign of a weakling. Blair always tolerated the likes of Corbyn being noisy backbenchers because he knew that they didn’t really matter.

Starmer was no doubt advised that throwing his weight around against the likes of Sultana would show him to be tough and strong and determined. But my view is that letting himself be dragged down by noisy irrelevances like her just shows him to be a thin-skinned fool.

 

[brad465]

Starmer himself demanded other politicians resign when he was in opposition yet the same standard does not apply to him? In the interests of fairness such utter hypocrisy is not limited to him or his party.

Things are very different when the big donors who are really in charge give you brown envelopes. I always remember the late Robin Williams' quote: "Politicians should wear sponsorship jackets like Nascar drivers, then we know who owns them." If this happened a lot of them will be wearing Russian and/or Israeli flags, along with the logos of various property developers, to name a few.

 

[SargeNpton]

Throwing anyone who disagrees with him out of the party isn’t the sign of a strong and secure man, it’s the sign of a weakling. Blair always tolerated the likes of Corbyn being noisy backbenchers because he knew that they didn’t really matter.

Starmer was no doubt advised that throwing his weight around against the likes of Sultana would show him to be tough and strong and determined. But my view is that letting himself be dragged down by noisy irrelevances like her just shows him to be a thin-skinned fool.

Well, now that Corbyn and Sultana are outside the tent their hard left alternative to Labour is working really well isn't it?