The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Tetchytyke]

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

That’s rather my point. Neither of them are taken seriously, they’re an irrelevance. So acting like the big man by throwing them out of Labour doesn’t make Starmer look strong. Reacting like that to them just makes him look weak and thin-skinned.

How many times did Corbyn vote against Blair? Blair just ignored him.

 

[Sorcerer]

That’s rather my point. Neither of them are taken seriously, they’re an irrelevance. So acting like the big man by throwing them out of Labour doesn’t make Starmer look strong. Reacting like that to them just makes him look weak and thin-skinned.

How many times did Corbyn vote against Blair? Blair just ignored him.

I think a major difference is that Tony Blair was pretty popular and was culturally aligned with the "Cool Britannia" phase that symbolised hope and modernisation. He could afford to ignore people like Corbyn because the Tories were still somewhat fractured and crackpot lefties weren't as influential culturally. Tony Blair was in a position of strength until he got a little to cozy with the Americans on foreign policy, and even that wasn't enough to bring him down quickly.

Keir Starmer meanwhile was unpopular from the very beginning and only won because everyone else was so abysmal during a bleak period for the country, and since stepping into Downing Street has not given anybody hope that things will be getting better. It's especially not helpful with the cultural shift towards a more insular world rather than globalism along with the rise of right-wing populism. Starmer for all intents and purposes is on borrowed time.

 

[greatkingrat]

That’s rather my point. Neither of them are taken seriously, they’re an irrelevance. So acting like the big man by throwing them out of Labour doesn’t make Starmer look strong. Reacting like that to them just makes him look weak and thin-skinned.

How many times did Corbyn vote against Blair? Blair just ignored him.

Corbyn wasn't kicked out for his voting record though. It was for his comments on anti-Semitism that he refused to withdraw.

 

[Yew]

I feel as well that there is some nuance in how positive news is reported. It feels like bad things are more often linked to Starmer personally, whereas positive things are often attributed to more anonymous sources.

 

[DarloRich]

That’s rather my point. Neither of them are taken seriously, they’re an irrelevance. So acting like the big man by throwing them out of Labour doesn’t make Starmer look strong. Reacting like that to them just makes him look weak and thin-skinned.

How many times did Corbyn vote against Blair? Blair just ignored him.

Are you comparing like with like? Blair didn't have an entriest, toxic, crankist and frankly anti semetic faction who had only recently been ousted for control and leadership of the party. Starmer needed to clean the stable to make the party electable after the chaos of Clownbyn. Under Blair, Corbyn and his gang were nobodies not worth bothering with.

Is the better comparison not with Kinnock who had to flush out the Militant tendency?

 

[The Ham]

I feel as well that there is some nuance in how positive news is reported. It feels like bad things are more often linked to Starmer personally, whereas positive things are often attributed to more anonymous sources.

Indeed, and other bad press which are just outright misleading, for example in relation to the news of the measures to try and switch older renewables to fixed price contracts the Tories said:

Electricity bills targeted in planned shakeup to energy pricing

The war in the Middle East has brought renewed attention to Britain's vulnerability to energy price shocks.

www.bbc.co.uk

In response, shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho accused Miliband of "piling on cost after cost onto people's electricity bills", pointing to taxes and levies on bills on top of wholesale prices.

"If we want people to use electricity, then we need to make it cheap," she said.

The reality is that since the general election two prices have changed:
- one levy (commercial tariffs) has increased, but only in line with inflation
- residential energy prices capacity has seen some elements shifted to general taxation

Neither is hardly piling cost after cost onto people's bills, units there's been other changes I'm not aware of, then I'm happy to be corrected.

Likewise Reform said:

Reform UK energy spokesperson Richard Tice argued subsidies for some clean energy projects were adding to bills.

"This is a cynical move by Miliband to lock future governments into wasteful, expensive energy contracts," he said.

Firstly, there's nothing requiring the current government to pay whatever is asked of them for the voluntary shift to CfD's (i.e. they get an agreed price rather than the final unit price regardless of what they bid).

Also, CfD's have a time limit of 15 (in some cases 20 years), so if in the future their prices are too high compared to what else is being generated when they volunteer to move to a new CfD agreement the government doesn't have to agree to the new prices.

As such the risk of them becoming significantly more expensive than the general supply price is probably quite low.

Again, household bills have recently reduced due to making changes so Labour haven't added anything new.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Of course, the usual comments about Corbyn and antisemitism need to be taken with a pinch of salt given the same mob who were shouting about that are now trying to say the Jewish leader of another political party is also antisemitic, and have gone as far as making actual real antisemitic comments and cartoons (I saw one cartoon of Zack Polanski where he was made to look like a version of Hitler leading a "green" version of the Nazi's - if that isn't actually antisemitic then I don't know what is).

That isn't to say there aren't problematic parts of the left leaning support or problematic comments having been made, but the whole thing then with Corbyn and now with Polanski absolutely has been jumped upon by a group of people who actually couldn't give two damns about Jewish people otherwise - and those people are making it clear with their own antisemtic comments and cartoons etc. We need to make sure we don't just listen to the narrative peddled by those with an ulterior motive.

 

[DarloRich]

We need to make sure we don't just listen to the narrative peddled by those with an ulterior motive.

I don't have an ulterior motive and my views aren't driven by the media. Corbyn was and remains a whopper. I suspect Polanski will be as well.

I have my own eyes, have been a labour member for a LONG time now (30 years maybe) and know what Corbyn is like. His views are utter crank. That's why I didn't vote for him.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don't have an ulterior motive and my views aren't driven by the media. Corbyn was and remains a whopper. I suspect Polanski will be as well.

I have my own eyes, have been a labour member for a LONG time now (30 years maybe) and know what Corbyn is like. His views are utter crank. That's why I didn't vote for him.

I am talking about those who bombarded the media with headlines about this whilst ignoring other bigotry, or those who complain about the Greens being antisemtic whilst themselves making and sharing antisemitic cartoons of a Jewish man. Those people absolutely do have ulterior motives.

 

[DarloRich]

I am talking about those who bombarded the media with headlines about this whilst ignoring other bigotry, or those who complain about the Greens being antisemtic whilst themselves making and sharing antisemitic cartoons of a Jewish man. Those people absolutely do have ulterior motives.

agreed.

 

[Altnashin]

According to some YouTube thumbnails, Starmer and Rayner were supposed to have been arrested by now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Apr 2026 ==

I am talking about those who bombarded the media with headlines about this whilst ignoring other bigotry, or those who complain about the Greens being antisemtic whilst themselves making and sharing antisemitic cartoons of a Jewish man. Those people absolutely do have ulterior motives.

Have you read The Forde Report?

 

[317 forever]

I think a major difference is that Tony Blair was pretty popular and was culturally aligned with the "Cool Britannia" phase that symbolised hope and modernisation. He could afford to ignore people like Corbyn because the Tories were still somewhat fractured and crackpot lefties weren't as influential culturally. Tony Blair was in a position of strength until he got a little to cozy with the Americans on foreign policy, and even that wasn't enough to bring him down quickly.

Keir Starmer meanwhile was unpopular from the very beginning and only won because everyone else was so abysmal during a bleak period for the country, and since stepping into Downing Street has not given anybody hope that things will be getting better. It's especially not helpful with the cultural shift towards a more insular world rather than globalism along with the rise of right-wing populism. Starmer for all intents and purposes is on borrowed time.

His win was because he was harmless, and there was a mass abstention and highly split opposition.

There has been little about him to come across as inspirational or uplifting.

 

[gabrielhj07]

So today Kier ‘end the sleaze’ Starmer used the whips to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, and to force his MPs to participate in a cover-up around his lies to parliament?

Truly a new low for quite some time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze25j9p1k7o

No 10 expended considerable political capital in keeping its troops onside.

There was a ring-round by cabinet ministers, interventions from Labour big beasts including the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and Scottish MPs were called back from the campaign trail to bolster the ranks – all signs that Downing Street doesn't feel it can automatically count on the loyalty of its own MPs.

There was particular anger at the fact Downing Street had whipped its MPs in an attempt to guarantee their backing – with one claiming Labour backbenchers could be accused in being complicit of a "cover-up".

Ultimately Downing Street chose not to take a risk and deployed the full weight of the Number 10 operation to rally MPs.

 

[Gloster]

So today Kier ‘end the sleaze’ Starmer used the whips to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, and to force his MPs to participate in a cover-up around his lies to parliament?

Truly a new low for quite some time.

I do not think that Starmer has lied to Parliament, whatever Badenoch and others appear to be saying; others may have proof otherwise. What is at question is his judgement, diligence and attention to matters, which is just as important in a slightly different way.

 

[jfollows]

The question is whether he should have referred himself to the Priviliges Committee rather than forcing the Labour Party to vote not to require him to. If he has nothing to hide, why wouldn’t he? But Boris Johnson was compelled to go before the same committee.
I also don’t think he lied to Parliament, but it’s not a good look to use the whip as he did.

 

[gabrielhj07]

But Boris Johnson was compelled to go before the same committee.

For all his many flaws, it was at least a free vote

 

[jfollows]

For all his many flaws, it was at least a free vote

Good point!
14 Labour MPs vited against the whip:

• Rebecca Long-Bailey
• John McDonnell

Apsana Begum

• Mary Kelly Foy
• Emma Lewell
• Kate Osborne
• Richard Burgon
• Imran Hussain
• Grahame Morris
• Ian Byrne
• Brian Leishman
• Andy McDonald
• Luke Myer
• Nadia Whittome

I watched most of the debate and felt that Roger Gale and Imram Hussain both made strong contributions.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Blair didn't have an entriest, toxic, crankist and frankly anti semetic faction

It’s interesting how this idea that Corbyn is anti-Semitic has stuck largely because of the efforts of the Jewish Chronicle.

The Jewish Chronicle is, of course, owned on behalf of unknown investors by the hard-right Robbie Gibb, and was until recently edited by the equally hard-right Stephen Pollard.

Whatever you think of her, it’s weird how the likes of Diane Abbott (a black woman) have been ostracised for being “anti-Semitic” whilst the likes of Luke Akehurst (a white man) can be as anti-Semitic as they like without sanction.

So today Kier ‘end the sleaze’ Starmer used the whips to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, and to force his MPs to participate in a cover-up around his lies to parliament?

The logic behind appointing Mandelson as ambassador made sense- it takes a sleazeball to manage a sleazeball. I didn’t disagree with the decision to appoint him to that role.

But Starmer needs to own that decision, instead of trying to chuck anyone and everyone under the bus instead. That’s really what the issue is: the failure to own a decision.

FWIW I strongly suspect Mandelson wasn’t denied clearance because of his links to Epstein. I strongly suspect it will have been because of his links to various Russian oligarchs. Which isn’t something that either Farage or Badenoch can criticise him for, given their up to their armpits in roubles.

 

[gabrielhj07]

All good stuff Tetchytyke, but as you say his failures are more than just appointing PM. Loosely speaking they are:
- Ramming his decision down the FO’s throat,
- Lying about that in parliament when asked (no pressure from me etc etc),
- Throwing McSweeny under the bus for following his bosses orders,
- Hiding behind ‘process’ as an excuse for lack of intelligence,
- Sacking the FO’s Permenant Secretary for following that exact same process, and now,
- Using the whips to hide himself from parliamentary scrutiny.

It’s always the cover up/denial that gets them (see also Boris Johnson’s cake event), but at least his cake never brought national security into question.

 

[Harpo]

Job done. Starmer can now ‘fall’ over the local election results instead of getting the push over Mandelson.

 

[martin butler]

A lot of the pressure on Starmer, I think is from the right taking advantage of his mistakes, and his unexplainable need to pander to people who are never going to vote Labour in a month of Sundays.

I think he's been a very weak leader, and PM, and should go, Labour has a large majority, it does not need to pander to anyone, it just has to enact policies that will make peoples life's better, and fairer, and to deal with inequality,

Thet can start with enacting press and media reform, expose who is behind much of our media, and the agents of chaos, that seek to turn everyone against each other, expose the links between Bannon Farage, the AFG and European far right groups,

They can restrict the ability of people to avoid tax, by strengthening laws, by closing loopholes, that enable tycoons to pay less tax than their cleaners, they can bring in laws that an MP has to reside in this country, preferably in the constituency they represent, not in Dubai, That they have to resign their seat, if they do not reside in the UK ,and a by -election is called.

 

[weeklycommuter]

A lot of the pressure on Starmer, I think is from the right taking advantage of his mistakes, and his unexplainable need to pander to people who are never going to vote Labour in a month of Sundays.

I think he's been a very weak leader, and PM, and should go, Labour has a large majority, it does not need to pander to anyone, it just has to enact policies that will make peoples life's better, and fairer, and to deal with inequality,

The question for every Labour MP who wants to remove Sir Keir Starmer is who should be Prime Minister instead? Unless they can all answer that and agree on one specific replacement I expect Sir Keir Starmer to stay as Prime Minister. Some apparently want Andy Burnham to be PM but Andy Burnham is not currently an MP so they want to wait until Andy Burnham is an MP. There are other prospects but all have Labour MPs who do not want them as well as some Labour MPs who support them.

As the following extracts from Chapter 4 of the Labour Party Rulebook make clear, removing a Labour Prime Minister who does not want to stand down is complicated with no guarantee of success. 20 percent of Labour MPs and either 5 percent of Constituency Labour Parties or at least three affiliated organisations including at least two of the eleven affiliated trade unions with a total of 5 per cent of affiliated membership must nominate each challenger for the post of Labour Party leader but the Prime Minister can stand in the contest regardless.

If the Prime Minister resigns, the Cabinet chooses one of their number to be the replacement Labour Party leader and Prime Minister. This has to be followed by a Labour Party leadership election and the replacement Prime Minister must seek nomination like anyone else but they would clearly be in a strong position to end up continuing as Prime Minister.

Technically a Labour Party leadership election elects the leader of the Labour Party but they would become Prime Minister when the Labour Party has a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Rule-Book-2026.pdf

2. Election of leader and deputy leader
A. The leader and deputy leader shall be elected separately in accordance with rule C below, unless rule E below applies.
B. Nomination
i. In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy leader, each nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP and either:
a. 5 per cent of CLPs; or
b. At least three affiliates (at least two of which shall be trade union affiliates) compromising 5 per cent of affiliated membership.
Nominations not attaining the thresholds under either a. or b. above shall be null and void.
ii. Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule.

E. Procedure in a vacancy
When the Party is in government and the Party leader is prime minister and the Party leader, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable, the Cabinet shall, in consultation with the NEC, appoint one of its members to serve as Party leader until a ballot under these rules can be carried out.

 

[Cdd89]

I think he's been a very weak leader, and PM, and should go, Labour has a large majority, it does not need to pander to anyone, it just has to enact policies that will make peoples life's better, and fairer, and to deal with inequality,

Counterpoint: noticing that the party has a huge majority and can do a laundry list of policies popular with its members, if only the current bumbling leader were replaced with someone bold, is how we ended up with Liz Truss, which sealed the fate of the Conservative party.

I expect the same thing would happen as soon as there were some negative ramifications from such policies, some of which would attract extreme media criticism and/or inevitably frighten one or more of the bond market / housing or rental market / fx market. That's not to say I disagree with all of your suggestions, but change has to be implemented gradually and carefully; wasting two years and then making up for lost time is not a good place from which to implement wide scale policy reform.

 

[DarloRich]

It’s interesting how this idea that Corbyn is anti-Semitic has stuck largely because of the efforts of the Jewish Chronicle.

come on - lets try something more than whataboutery.

Corbyn has the same problem many on the left/farther left ( of whatever colour) have of not being able to see Jews as victims mainly because the are all, apparently, rich & powerful people - it has been like that as long as I have been around labour. ( a prime example: that mural )

I don't think Corbyn wants all jews to die or anything of the sort. I absolutely know he doesn't think that he is anti semitic. I DO think he has a blind spot that stops him seeing Jews as victims and/or that they are less victims than other minority groups.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't think Corbyn wants all jews to die or anything of the sort. I absolutely know he doesn't think that he is anti semitic. I DO think he has a blind spot that stops him seeing Jews as victims and/or that they are less victims than other minority groups

It’s a lot more simple than that. Corbyn, and others on the left, are critical of Israel. That means, obviously, that they hate all Jews. We’ve seen how people on the Labour Right (e.g. Luke Akehurst) have been so content to slip into the Good Jew/Bad Jew trope, including against people such as the Jewish children’s author Michael Rosen.

Weird how only some anti-Semitic tropes are unacceptable to Labour’s current leadership, isn’t it.

I also suppose it depends what we mean by “victim”, and in what context. I don’t think anyone can, with a straight face, describe modern Israelis as victims of anything. The people they’re genociding, on the other hand…

 

[DarloRich]

I also suppose it depends what we mean by “victim”, and in what context. I don’t think anyone can, with a straight face, describe modern Israelis as victims of anything. The people they’re genociding, on the other hand…

That kind of proves the point!

 

[martin butler]

That kind of proves the point!

But anyone dare call out the Israeli military over their actions, and you're a Jew hating antisemite,

As regards who follows Starmer, most of those calling for his head, only want to force the government into calling a general election, they don't want a Labour government, or those pulling the strings, don't.

I'm half expecting there to be a massive push post the local elections, if Reform do well to try to force Starmer out, and for the pressure on the next PM, to go to the country, before Reform's balloon bursts, which it will, because being in local government, and having to somehow balance expectation and reality will be their undoing.

 

[DarloRich]

But anyone dare call out the Israeli military over their actions, and you're a Jew hating antisemite,

That is absolute nonsense though. That is ALWAYS the response to criticism of Corbyn and his gang. We are all free to criticise the actions of Israel or thier military. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) say that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

What COULD be antisemitic is blaming or attacking Jewish people in this country for actions of the Israeli army/government, using antisemitic tropes, double standards wrt the actions of Israel, Nazi comparisons, blood libel type stuff or saying Israel should not exist because it is Jewish. That is all pretty fruity stuff in my book!

Regardless, we ARE seeing a massive rise in anti semitic behaviour in this country. Stabbings, fire bombings, shootings (!) & an increase in abusive behaviour on the streets. That all seems ok to many on the left/farther left because Palestine! There is always a but...........

( we as a society have to sort this out. It cant go on.)

As regards who follows Starmer, most of those calling for his head, only want to force the government into calling a general election, they don't want a Labour government, or those pulling the strings, don't.

Absolutely.

I'm half expecting there to be a massive push post the local elections, if Reform do well to try to force Starmer out, and for the pressure on the next PM, to go to the country, before Reform's balloon bursts, which it will, because being in local government, and having to somehow balance expectation and reality will be their undoing.

Starmer is gone after the locals. Labour will take a shoeing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

We are all free to criticise the actions of Israel or thier military. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) say that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Hmm, they also go on to say that criticisms of contemporary Israel which compare it to Nazi Germany is anti-Semitic. Israel isn’t the only government compared to fascist governments of the past.

However, where they get more problematic is that apparently stating the Israel are completing a genocide is comparing them to Nazi Germany. Which is nonsense.

That kind of proves the point!

What point is that?

Modern Israel is not a victim of anything. Modern Israel is, however, making victims of lots of innocent people.

Regardless, we ARE seeing a massive rise in anti semitic behaviour in this country. Stabbings, fire bombings, shootings (!) & an increase in abusive behaviour on the streets. That all seems ok to many on the left/farther left because Palestine

I don’t think anyone thinks it’s ok? Firebombing a synagogue in the UK because Israel are doing a genocide is not ok.

That said, I’m not sure there actually is an underlying increase in anti-Semitism. It seems to be widely acknowledged that the high profile firebombings in London have been carried out by or on behalf of the Iranian secret service.

saying Israel should not exist because it is Jewish. That is all pretty fruity stuff in my book!

Israel should not exist as a Jewish ethno-state. It should not hand out citizenship to anyone in the world who is Jewish- especially all those Russian oligarchs who discovered a long-lost Jewish ancestry the second the war in Ukraine started and sanctions started to bite- whilst denying basic rights to the Arab people living there. It should give rights to the Arab people who live there too.

Which bit of this is “fruity”? Or, to be more precise, which bit of the above do you disagree with?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2026 ==

As regards who follows Starmer, most of those calling for his head, only want to force the government into calling a general election, they don't want a Labour government, or those pulling the strings, don't.

Starmer’s problem is that he’s alienated his voter base in order to chase the votes of people who will never vote for him. It’s just plain dumb politics.

The right can’t stand anyone Labour and the left can’t stand Starmer either. The consequences of alienating your voter base is that nobody will defend you when the going gets tough.

 

[SargeNpton]

come on - lets try something more than whataboutery.

Corbyn has the same problem many on the left/farther left ( of whatever colour) have of not being able to see Jews as victims mainly because the are all, apparently, rich & powerful people - it has been like that as long as I have been around labour. ( a prime example: that mural )

I don't think Corbyn wants all jews to die or anything of the sort. I absolutely know he doesn't think that he is anti semitic. I DO think he has a blind spot that stops him seeing Jews as victims and/or that they are less victims than other minority groups.

This would be the same Corbyn seen on stage with a militant islamic group, calling them "my friends" or something like that.