The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Magrar]

The line is drawn by virtue of Reform being a legitimate political party, not a banned hate group.

You may not like it, but if you can't get the votes to ban it, you're by definition, barking up the wrong tree entirely in this democracy.

Especially since your effort benefits from the UK being a full signatory to all the necessary human rights laws designed specifically to protect minorities from majorities.

It's always been a flaw of democracy that a legal party can campaign to dismantle legal protections, and will win if the majority wishes it. But what can you do. It is what it is.

A good start would be to always bear in mind that a member of a minority is no more important in a democracy than a member of a majority. Otherwise we'd have a different form of government.

The King is a theoretical backstop, but since he's now reduced to declaring his taxes like any old chump subservient to the will of Parliament and thus the people, it's hard to see that being tolerated in this nightmare scenario.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You cannot just sit there and in good conscience let kid's brains literally be rewired. You see them walking to school today, barely 10, and yet already a walking zombie, their eyeballs commodified by Zuckerberg.

You seem to be falling into the trap of ‘we must do something, this is something, we must do this’.

Social media just holds up a mirror to society. People lie, people cheat, people are racist, people perv over schoolgirls (or schoolboys) walking to school, people get irate over the most stupid stuff. Banning children from social media doesn’t change any of that.

The real issues with the social media companies are to do with the way they make the product so addictive, and that equally applies to adults. That and the way social media companies will promote frauds and scams without a care in the world, it’s all profit to them; that actually applies more to older adults as they're more likely to have more money to steal.

But instead of doing anything about that, instead of making social media companies legally liable for the stuff their users post and financially liable for the scams they host, the government has chosen a soundbite.

And not only that, they’ve chosen a soundbite that won’t work. It doesn't work in Australia, well over 60% of children there still have a social media account which they use regularly. It's almost as though the child will just create an account with a new location and use a VPN to access it.

I also think there has to be some level of personal accountability here. I have two girls and understand the pressures they face. My youngest has a tablet but, as she's only 8, I have locked it down so that she can only watch things that I let her watch and can only play games that I let her play. I set screentime limits and I can remotely monitor and even lock the tablet from my phone. It took an hour to set it all up. Parents ought to take more interest in what their kids are up to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2026 ==

If that's what the electorate choose, why shouldn't they get it?

How do we define "what the electorate choose", though?

Starmer's Labour Party won a huge majority on 34% of the vote. He won a huge majority so is that what the electorate chose? But two-thirds of people who voted actually voted for someone else, so is that instead what the electorate chose? Turnout was 60%; barely 20% of eligible voters actually went out and actively chose Keir Starmer's Labour to be their government.

Is that the electorate's choice? Or is that a consequence of an antiquated voting system that is simply not fit for purpose?

 

[BAFRA77]

I can't remember any other government in recent times appointing someone that is closely associated with a foreign dictator to be a minister..... or indeed to appoint someone with a history of sleaze as an Ambassador for that matter.
If the people on the street know anything about politics they know that Mandelson is dodgy.

*Baron Evgeny Lebedev, of Hampton in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and of Siberia in the Russian Federation enters the chat...*

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's always been a flaw of democracy that a legal party can campaign to dismantle legal protections, and will win if the majority wishes it. But what can you do. It is what it is.

We've not had a (non-coalition) government in the UK with a vote share of over 50% since 1900.

So whatever we've had since, not one of those leaders can legitimately claim the majority of people supported them.

 

[jon0844]

Even with Restore being further right, Reform is still getting a huge number of posts and comments on social media by bots and content farms- all fake but amplifying reforms profile.
One would think farage's connection to Russa might have something to do with that. They are out in thousands. All with posts saying pretty much the same thing with slight variations.

I wouldn't trust Restore one bit, in that come a general election and the high chance they'd struggle to find enough candidates - they might step back and let Reform win, or indeed just go back to Reform. It may even be a clever game to try and make it look like the votes will be split, and then they won't.

I am not sure either how much money is behind Restore, as there seem to be a lot fewer bots posting about Restore. Clearly there are still some, and there's still some AI generated crap too, but anyone that thinks Restore will stop Reform winning is perhaps naive.

Elon Musk has possibly mentioned Restore in recent times, and perhaps his dad and Tommy ten names is involved in some bigger plan, but even Elon will know that the risk of split votes doesn't help the right. Only if they can destroy Reform entirely could Restore be considered worthwhile to push. Restore also needs votes from more than racist knuckle draggers.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It may even be a clever game to try and make it look like the votes will be split, and then they won't.

Restore are the useful idiots to try and make Reform look like they're moderate.

Restore will be nowhere to be seen when 2029 rolls around.

 

[jon0844]

I don't think the general public would even support a snap election. I think most of us, even those engaged with politics, are bored of voting at the moment. Starmer won basically on a ticket of bringing some sort of stability; I don't think the desire for that has yet waned.

I think a lot of people are pushing for elections but then seem to forget to actually vote in them.. and then if the result doesn't go their way, they can just say it was a rigged election. We can thank Trump for now allowing any loser to claim fraud.

Obviously the right want a GE because there's a chance to get Labour out of power, and they all know how it works and that you don't vote for a PM - but they know a lot of people don't know this as you can see on any Facebook pages this week.

 

[TravelDream]

We've not had a (non-coalition) government in the UK with a vote share of over 50% since 1900.

It's one of the quirks of first past the post. Some would call it a huge strength and others a massive flaw. Depends which side you're on I guess.

It's one of the big issues with 2029 and projecting seat share. Reform could win relatively few seats on 20% or a big majority of 29%. It really depends on how the other parties vote share breaks and how even Reform's vote is. As I said, it's one of the quirks of the electoral system.
Corbyn, of course, got far more votes than Starmer in 2017 and 2019. His share of the vote in 2017 was significantly higher than Labour's 2024 share.
Blair's 2005 landslide had him less than 3 points ahead of the Tories.
And the 'poor' Lib Dems were previously really hurt by the system. They has 120,000 votes per MP in 2010 vs. 49.000 per MP in 2024. Their vote now is much more concentrated which is advantageous under FPTP vs. being evenly spread which is disadvantageous.

It's one of the reasons Burnham won't get rid of it. Yes, Labour might lose in 2029, but they know they will only get a majority government under such a system.

But we're not the only country to fall victim to a system.
Who won the 2016 US Presidential election.
Well... Hilary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump. Yet, under their system, Trump won.

One thing I would say in its favour. British people do like having a local representative and it's relatively easy to understand.

 

[jon0844]

And not only that, they’ve chosen a soundbite that won’t work. It doesn't work in Australia, well over 60% of children there still have a social media account which they use regularly. It's almost as though the child will just create an account with a new location and use a VPN to access it.

It was found that in Australia a lot of parents set up accounts for their children because them doom scrolling on a phone was a good way to keep them occupied and quiet. My son has a phone that is protected such that he can not install apps without my permission, so he cannot download and run a VPN in the first place. I'm also tech savvy enough to be able to see what he's doing on the device, or indeed what sites he may attempt to visit using family protection settings on the router (with similar limits on the mobile SIM).

It will be harder for kids around 13/14 today who will lose access to something they've perhaps become used to, rather than the kids who won't have access in the first place. It's a lot easier to not miss something you never had. So, there will be some 'issues' for a while after the ban, and then it should hopefully be no different to bans on other things for children.

Let's be honest though; the ban is stopping young people from accessing dangerous and harmful content, and potentially inappropriate content and/or messages. It isn't actually dealing with the problem of these platforms having dangerous and harmful content, and potentially inappropriate content and/or messages. So those who can get around the ban, plus all the adults who are not subject to the ban, are still at risk because regulators haven't got the backbone to intervene and sort these companies out.

As someone said above, if regulators acted, the companies would make sure to comply rather than exit the market. There's too much money at stake.

 

[Harpo]

Obviously the right want a GE because there's a chance to get Labour out of power, and they all know how it works and that you don't vote for a PM - but they know a lot of people don't know this as you can see on any Facebook pages this week.

Both Johnson and Starmer played the ‘…I have been given a personal mandate’ line of presidential dillusion. No surprise then that opponents call for a GE in the aftermath.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's one of the reasons Burnham won't get rid of it. Yes, Labour might lose in 2029, but they know they will only get a majority government under such a system.

This is what makes me despair of the Labour Party. They won't push for proper reform because they think that, once in a while, the numbers will add up and they'll get a chance to be boss on their own for a time. Even though, with a fairer voting system, Labour would likely have been the majority partner in coalition government for many more years; even at the height of Thatcher, left and centre-left parties collectively got more of the popular vote.

But Thatcher, more than anyone, understood the game perfectly: make sure your supporters love you and vote for you and bugger everyone else. Mining towns were never going to vote Thatcher so why try and placate them? I don't hate the player, I hate the game. She understood it perfectly and played it perfectly.

Starmer never grasped this, possibly because he (and his party) have refused to accept the changing political landscape: those mining towns which were never going to vote Thatcher are now never going to vote Labour.

 

[Horizon22]

Reform arent that prepared for GE their Makerfield candidate exemplifies that but give them a few more years and they could have changed that. The much bigger risk for Burnham is it would end up in coalition probably with Liberals and Greens but equally it could be Tories & Reform. Thus Burnham wont and have to rely upon his changed strategy delivering them back in 2029.

One issue for a General Election is it becomes much more about the national profile and the party as a whole, whereas at by-elections there is much more opportunity to make it about the candidate and locally focused without the national impact.

This is why Reform aren’t doing as well - but still getting large vote shares from 2024 - and also not holding onto all their seats in local by-elections (normally after the candidate has been racist / sexist / homophobic etc.) because the quality of their candidates generally has been poor and where they are against an organised opposition it doesn’t work.

I find it unlikely Labour would ever go into a coalition with reform. It’s highly possible we’ll end up with a minority government unable to form a coalition. Which is wild for a FPTP electoral system.

 

[jon0844]

This is what makes me despair of the Labour Party. They won't push for proper reform because they think that, once in a while, the numbers will add up and they'll get a chance to be boss on their own for a time. Even though, with a fairer voting system, Labour would likely have been the majority partner in coalition government for many more years; even at the height of Thatcher, left and centre-left parties collectively got more of the popular vote.

But Thatcher, more than anyone, understood the game perfectly: make sure your supporters love you and vote for you and bugger everyone else. Mining towns were never going to vote Thatcher so why try and placate them? I don't hate the player, I hate the game. She understood it perfectly and played it perfectly.

Starmer never grasped this, possibly because he (and his party) have refused to accept the changing political landscape: those mining towns which were never going to vote Thatcher are now never going to vote Labour.

Politicians need to move with the times. Blair came in as the internet was becoming mainstream (moving beyond computer nerds and students) and took advantage, and politicians since have had to cope with social media and even having their own accounts to appeal to voters via TikTok and other platforms.

Keir Starmer seemed unable or unwilling to partake, much like Jeremy Corbyn wasn't great with the media (preferring the likes of Momentum to do so, which led to the ridiculous situation where he claimed to have to sit on a train with no seats that actually resulted in the train company posting CCTV to show there were lots of seats). If you're going to play the game, you need to know the rules!!

Andy Burnham certainly seems more media savvy. In fact, I think he's likely to want to appear on TV and other platforms wherever possible, which means some of the media might warm to him because they need content. Indeed, Andy can effectively control the narrative to a degree because he knows the media want to stay close to him. That's what Farage has done for years, getting an incredibly disproportionate amount of media time because his MO is to talk more than actually doing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I find it unlikely Labour would ever go into a coalition with reform. It’s highly possible we’ll end up with a minority government unable to form a coalition. Which is wild for a FPTP electoral system.

The Conservatives are going to be in an interesting position unless their polling improves rapidly. I don't think their egos could take it if they had to be a minority partner in a Reform-led coalition.

 

[jon0844]

The Conservatives are going to be in an interesting position unless their polling improves rapidly. I don't think their egos could take it if they had to be a minority partner in a Reform-led coalition.

As someone who used to vote Conservative, the party HAS to move back towards the middle ground. Attempting to lurch to the right has destroyed the party.

We can and do criticise Keir Starmer for trying to appeal to the right, who wouldn't vote for him in a million years, but the Conservatives are now pretty much dead and irrelevant... such that Reform have people (who aren't even MPs) claiming the shadow roles because I don't think anyone even knows the Tories are the official opposition.

 

[Thirteen]

I think the social media ban for Under 16S is a good start but I think we need to do more for those over 16s as well. There are plenty of adults who are addicted to watching hours of watching of news and social media which is very unhealthy and also those who just get fixated on certain topics.

As someone who used to vote Conservative, the party HAS to move back towards the middle ground. Attempting to lurch to the right has destroyed the party.

We can and do criticise Keir Starmer for trying to appeal to the right, who wouldn't vote for him in a million years, but the Conservatives are now pretty much dead and irrelevant... such that Reform have people (who aren't even MPs) claiming the shadow roles because I don't think anyone even knows the Tories are the official opposition.

If the Conservatives want to regain power, they need to be more centrist and appealing to the middle class voters who have abandoned them for the Lib Dems. London is a great example of this, they could win the Mayoral Election if they had a more moderate and appealing candidate, not Boris 2.0 but someone who actually loves and cares about London and want to make it better.

 

[jon0844]

I think the social media ban for Under 16S is a good start but I think we need to do more for those over 16s as well. There are plenty of adults who are addicted to watching hours of watching of news and social media which is very unhealthy and also those who just get fixated on certain topics.



If the Conservatives want to regain power, they need to be more centrist and appealing to the middle class voters who have abandoned them for the Lib Dems. London is a great example of this, they could win the Mayoral Election if they had a more moderate and appealing candidate, not Boris 2.0 but someone who actually loves and cares about London and want to make it better.

I don't hold out much hope of the Tories doing anything for some time. I moved towards Lib Dems some time ago (actually being one of the few that quite liked the coalition Government where the Lib Dems reigned the Tories in a little - although everyone will forever only remember the capitulation on student fees/loans). I voted Labour for the first time to get the Tories out in the last election, but feel that Labour hasn't really done a bad job given the circumstances of so many years of austerity, Covid and other events that have pushed up energy prices (which play a large role in inflation and interest rates).

Still, Sir Keir was not the right face of the party because of all the points raised above. It's not that I think he's some corrupt individual who should have been kicked out, unlike so many others in politics over the years.

 

[Stathern Jc]

Restore are the useful idiots to try and make Reform look like they're moderate.
Restore will be nowhere to be seen when 2029 rolls around.

This made me wonder what happened to Corbyn's crowd on the other end of the spectrum.
Not that I'm interested.

 

[Thirteen]

With the London Mayoral Election, I firmly believe Sadiq Khan shouldn't stand again even though it's likely he'd win simply because once you get to fourth term territory, you're facing voter fatigue of the same person in charge and I think a new Mayor could be beneficial.

 

[brad465]

With the London Mayoral Election, I firmly believe Sadiq Khan shouldn't stand again even though it's likely he'd win simply because once you get to fourth term territory, you're facing voter fatigue of the same person in charge and I think a new Mayor could be beneficial.

Has he confirmed his intentions yet? I do agree though that three terms is enough and he shouldn't run again.

 

[jfollows]

I think that Yvette Cooper will stay as Foreign Secretary, and Streeting/Milliband will be Chancellor/Home Secretary, I’m not sure who will get which.
The only challenge to Burnham will be from people who are going to lose their jobs - Rachel Reeves, for example - who can get enough support from the party - she won’t. Nor will Shabana Mahmood - she’s too right-wing for too many of the party. Cooper won’t want to be PM anyway, so she’ll just go with the flow.

I don’t like Mahmood, but that’s probably because she, like most Home Secretaries, become converted by the spies and secret people into being too hard-line.

 

[ainsworth74]

This made me wonder what happened to Corbyn's crowd on the other end of the spectrum.
Not that I'm interested.

They were extracted from the Party by Starmer as part of his de-toxifying efforts in 2020/21 and then set up their own party "Your Party" which promptly disintegrated into internecine warfare much to everyone's amusement. A chunk of the more sensible ones are now in the Greens.

 

[Richard Scott]

I don't hold out much hope of the Tories doing anything for some time. I moved towards Lib Dems some time ago (actually being one of the few that quite liked the coalition Government where the Lib Dems reigned the Tories in a little - although everyone will forever only remember the capitulation on student fees/loans). I voted Labour for the first time to get the Tories out in the last election, but feel that Labour hasn't really done a bad job given the circumstances of so many years of austerity, Covid and other events that have pushed up energy prices (which play a large role in inflation and interest rates).

Still, Sir Keir was not the right face of the party because of all the points raised above. It's not that I think he's some corrupt individual who should have been kicked out, unlike so many others in politics over the years.

I maintain biggest problem is none of the major parties have a vision. We don't really know what they're proposing to do. Get some wishy-washy manifesto, which we know may well not be fulfilled in any way, shape or form.
About time party leaders stood up, told us exactly what they proposed and not be afraid to do it. Trying to be all things to all people is not the way forward.

 

[125Spotter]

With all the talk of tactical voting, and potentially wild tactical votes (e.g. Labour supporters voting Tory), how do we even identify with any reliability what the “correct” tactical vote would be at the next GE?

At the last election, my local constituency became a Tory/Labour marginal for the first time since it was established. While I’m not averse to voting tactically, it’s mighty hard to know how others will vote tactically when a GE rolls around so as to make a voting choice that’s the most “useful”.

(I’m assuming a hypothetical next election is still fought under FPTP, of course.)

 

[Stathern Jc]

They were extracted from the Party by Starmer as part of his de-toxifying efforts in 2020/21 and then set up their own party "Your Party" which promptly disintegrated into internecine warfare much to everyone's amusement. A chunk of the more sensible ones are now in the Greens.

Thanks.
I hadn't realised that "Your Party" was now officially "Nobodys' Party"

It does seem that the Green / Your Party relationship did have similarities with the Reform / Restore relationship quoted above.
But none on either side are likely to welcome such a comparison.

 

[HSTEd]

It's one of the reasons Burnham won't get rid of it. Yes, Labour might lose in 2029, but they know they will only get a majority government under such a system.

FPTP is likely to destroy labour entirely in 2029.

The polling error bars go way south of 100 seats.
Their only chance to maintain any electoral significant is proportional representation.

They are likely broken as an FPTP majority party, just as the Tories are.

 

[Thirteen]

Has he confirmed his intentions yet? I do agree though that three terms is enough and he shouldn't run again.

Apparently he will announce whether he stands or not by next May.

 

[edwin_m]

With all the talk of tactical voting, and potentially wild tactical votes (e.g. Labour supporters voting Tory), how do we even identify with any reliability what the “correct” tactical vote would be at the next GE?

At the last election, my local constituency became a Tory/Labour marginal for the first time since it was established. While I’m not averse to voting tactically, it’s mighty hard to know how others will vote tactically when a GE rolls around so as to make a voting choice that’s the most “useful”.

(I’m assuming a hypothetical next election is still fought under FPTP, of course.)

There was a website stopthetories.vote that recommended in 2024 who to vote for in each constituency to do that. It has now transposed itself into stopreformuk.vote.

 

[Tezza1978]

FPTP is likely to destroy labour entirely in 2029.

The polling error bars go way south of 100 seats.
Their only chance to maintain any electoral significant is proportional representation.

They are likely broken as an FPTP majority party, just as the Tories are.

Nope - because Burnham has already said he wants to introduce PR as a manifesto commitment at the next election.

This will encourage a lot of Greens and Lib Dems to tactically vote Labour. its the reasons why both parties only ran a token campaign in Makerfield, because they have some respect for Burnham and agree with a chunk of his policies.

 

[Sorcerer]

Nope - because Burnham has already said he wants to introduce PR as a manifesto commitment at the next election.

This will encourage a lot of Greens and Lib Dems to tactically vote Labour. its the reasons why both parties only ran a token campaign in Makerfield, because they have some respect for Burnham and agree with a chunk of his policies.

Then in the event he somehow wins an election he will declare that the country has bigger things to deal with than proportional representation and therefore won't be passed in that Parliament, conveniently after Labour has reaped the benefits of tactical voting that happened under a First Past the Post system.

I don't agree with Farage's call for a general election but his point about a potential Prime Minister not having even stood in the last election won't sit right with a lot of people. Meanwhile I wonder if the Tories will work to oust Badenoch and parachute Boris Johnson back into a safe seat for his own return to politics.