Makerfield By - Election. Burnham v Reform

domalino said:
Nothing he’s done or said so far has convinced me he’s going to be able to mobilise the left wing of the party in the way Corbyn did to outmuscle the centre and centre right that are broadly happy to stick with Starmer, which is why he’s been able to weather the various storms this calendar year.

He’s not a bad candidate, he’s just not left enough to reinvigorate that side of the party. IMO they need to feel like a candidate is going to reinvent the party and bring back the Labour left heyday of the 70s, not be mildly closer to them than the incumbent.
Click to expand...
Think Starmer’s wider unpopularity will significantly weigh into the equation though. Burnham has a much better chance of winning a GE imo.
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
Starmer has a super majority and had the gift of transformational change because of it. Burnham will inherit it.
Click to expand...

It's interesting. Not long after Labour came to power there was some polling that suggested something like 75+ % of the population favoured some form of wealth taxes. I don't know how many things you could get three quarters of the UK population to agree on these days but I can't imagine it's too many. So arguably irrespective of the fact his majority is a function of the FPTP system he would probably have had some moral authority to do something in this area but he won't touch it with a bargepole.

I suspect if you sat down with Starmer and accused him of being much too timid he would shoot back that it wasn't in the manifesto and you can't just do things you haven't campaigned on. When you asked him why he didn't campaign on it rather than saying whether he believed in the idea or not, I think he'd argue that if that had been in the manifesto that would have been seized on by the press and they'd have been unelectable. Who knows whether that would have been true or not but one of the few things Tony Blair got right in his recent missive was that Labour got elected for simply not being the Conservatives and that was a deliberate campaign approach. That was enough to get him elected but not a basis for governing meaningfully in the times we are faced with.

So whether Starmer is simply a well meaning technocrat at a point in history when we don't need a technocrat, or a more knowing stooge, is all now academic. He wasn't the right man to grasp the nettle, and it is a nettle.

If Burnham wins the by-election and then succeeds in unseating him he potentially does have a chance to change the narrative and do something more radical. However at the point he tries that the press, reform and the conservatives as a minimum would be up in arms and demand an election on the basis he has no mandate. That's not his only problem, he needs to avoid spooking the markets whilst at the same time explaining to a frustrated, cynical and understandably impatient electorate that the changes required are going to take time to design and implement effectively. All the time against a backdrop of relentless attacks from the press that will make the treatment Starmer's had look quite tame.

In order to bat all that away imo he needs friends beyond even his supermajority in the house. Partly I think because the right of the party wont necessarily get behind him and partly for the moral authority it will confer. He's not going to have time before the next election to do a lot of structural stuff but I think as a minimum he needs to find an initiative or two that shows people he's actually serious. Imo he needs to reach out to the Greens and the Lib Dems and include them in the conversation and probably others too sooner rather than later. The next election could well be the battle for Britain's soul. I doubt even with a reset Labour can win that on its own. Whether Burnham is the person to unite enough allies to win the day overall we'll have to see.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I think Tice has much greater tactical acumen and has a far superior intellect to Farage. Farage is reckless, although as we saw with Brexit, a recklessness that can sometimes bear fruit. I think he’s now getting found out. This £5m is absolutely fucking outrageous.

I suspect their relationships with Trump will come back to haunt both of them.
Click to expand...
Do you think zua yusuf is the brains behind reform?
 
threespires said:
It's interesting. Not long after Labour came to power there was some polling that suggested something like 75+ % of the population favoured some form of wealth taxes. I don't know how many things you could get three quarters of the UK population to agree on these days but I can't imagine it's too many. So arguably irrespective of the fact his majority is a function of the FPTP system he would probably have had some moral authority to do something in this area but he won't touch it with a bargepole.

I suspect if you sat down with Starmer and accused him of being much too timid he would shoot back that it wasn't in the manifesto and you can't just do things you haven't campaigned on. When you asked him why he didn't campaign on it rather than saying whether he believed in the idea or not, I think he'd argue that if that had been in the manifesto that would have been seized on by the press and they'd have been unelectable. Who knows whether that would have been true or not but one of the few things Tony Blair got right in his recent missive was that Labour got elected for simply not being the Conservatives and that was a deliberate campaign approach. That was enough to get him elected but not a basis for governing meaningfully in the times we are faced with.

So whether Starmer is simply a well meaning technocrat at a point in history when we don't need a technocrat, or a more knowing stooge, is all now academic. He wasn't the right man to grasp the nettle, and it is a nettle.

If Burnham wins the by-election and then succeeds in unseating him he potentially does have a chance to change the narrative and do something more radical. However at the point he tries that the press, reform and the conservatives as a minimum would be up in arms and demand an election on the basis he has no mandate. That's not his only problem, he needs to avoid spooking the markets whilst at the same time explaining to a frustrated, cynical and understandably impatient electorate that the changes required are going to take time to design and implement effectively. All the time against a backdrop of relentless attacks from the press that will make the treatment Starmer's had look quite tame.

In order to bat all that away imo he needs friends beyond even his supermajority in the house. Partly I think because the right of the party wont necessarily get behind him and partly for the moral authority it will confer. He's not going to have time before the next election to do a lot of structural stuff but I think as a minimum he needs to find an initiative or two that shows people he's actually serious. Imo he needs to reach out to the Greens and the Lib Dems and include them in the conversation and probably others too sooner rather than later. The next election could well be the battle for Britain's soul. I doubt even with a reset Labour can win that on its own. Whether Burnham is the person to unite enough allies to win the day overall we'll have to see.
Click to expand...
Sounds counterintuitive but having a narrow / small majority can actually lead to more productive/ less “frightened” policy making. No **** demurs from party line, tight team mentality.

I agree with what you say about Blair. I also agreed with what Blair said about Labour’s vision - there isn’t one. Or, if there is, it’s not being heard.

I hope Burnham wins Makerfield, goes on to be a PM who offers a clear vision, allied to the right policies. And that he eviscerates Farage with full on attack; something Starmer seems incapable or unwilling to do.
 
johnnytapia said:
Sounds counterintuitive but having a narrow / small majority can actually lead to more productive/ less “frightened” policy making. No **** demurs from party line, tight team mentality.

I agree with what you say about Blair. I also agreed with what Blair said about Labour’s vision - there isn’t one. Or, if there is, it’s not being heard.

I hope Burnham wins Makerfield, goes on to be a PM who offers a clear vision, allied to the right policies. And that he eviscerates Farage with full on attack; something Starmer seems incapable or unwilling to do.
Click to expand...
Better no vision than Blair's latest confused fantasy of what he and his funders would like.
 
threespires said:
It's interesting. Not long after Labour came to power there was some polling that suggested something like 75+ % of the population favoured some form of wealth taxes. I don't know how many things you could get three quarters of the UK population to agree on these days but I can't imagine it's too many. So arguably irrespective of the fact his majority is a function of the FPTP system he would probably have had some moral authority to do something in this area but he won't touch it with a bargepole.

I suspect if you sat down with Starmer and accused him of being much too timid he would shoot back that it wasn't in the manifesto and you can't just do things you haven't campaigned on. When you asked him why he didn't campaign on it rather than saying whether he believed in the idea or not, I think he'd argue that if that had been in the manifesto that would have been seized on by the press and they'd have been unelectable. Who knows whether that would have been true or not but one of the few things Tony Blair got right in his recent missive was that Labour got elected for simply not being the Conservatives and that was a deliberate campaign approach. That was enough to get him elected but not a basis for governing meaningfully in the times we are faced with.

So whether Starmer is simply a well meaning technocrat at a point in history when we don't need a technocrat, or a more knowing stooge, is all now academic. He wasn't the right man to grasp the nettle, and it is a nettle.

If Burnham wins the by-election and then succeeds in unseating him he potentially does have a chance to change the narrative and do something more radical. However at the point he tries that the press, reform and the conservatives as a minimum would be up in arms and demand an election on the basis he has no mandate. That's not his only problem, he needs to avoid spooking the markets whilst at the same time explaining to a frustrated, cynical and understandably impatient electorate that the changes required are going to take time to design and implement effectively. All the time against a backdrop of relentless attacks from the press that will make the treatment Starmer's had look quite tame.

In order to bat all that away imo he needs friends beyond even his supermajority in the house. Partly I think because the right of the party wont necessarily get behind him and partly for the moral authority it will confer. He's not going to have time before the next election to do a lot of structural stuff but I think as a minimum he needs to find an initiative or two that shows people he's actually serious. Imo he needs to reach out to the Greens and the Lib Dems and include them in the conversation and probably others too sooner rather than later. The next election could well be the battle for Britain's soul. I doubt even with a reset Labour can win that on its own. Whether Burnham is the person to unite enough allies to win the day overall we'll have to see.
Click to expand...
If the criticism of Starmer is to be believed he just didn’t have any ideas for actual change.
Vic said:
Better no vision than Blair's latest confused fantasy of what he and his funders would like.
Click to expand...
Blair’s criticism of lack of vision was disingenuous. If you read the autobiographies of him, brown and Mandleson you will see that they all conceded they had no idea whatsoever as to what they would do when they arrived in office.

Starmer is likely toast at this point so little point raking over him. All eyes on Burnham now as he would easily beat both Starmer and Streeting in any leadership contest.

He should call a GE if elected though if he intends to radically shift labour’s policy direction from what they won a landslide on. It would be a massive risk but the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Palerider said:
But as Trump and Thatcher have proven in living memory, transformational change tends to be very, very divisive. i.e. Is a left wing Trump a good thing?
Click to expand...
More of the same isn’t neutral, and I think you could be transformational without being on the extremes.

To be honest though, I think the current system makes politics very difficult. Proportional representation and shared government (as opposed to FPTP) draws political parties into working together. They can’t grandstand in those circumstances, decisions are collective
 
domalino said:
I don’t think Burnham will win, but we know from polling that Labour are losing 4x as many voters to the greens than anywhere else, so if a new Labour leader did pull them to the left and brought those voters back, we’d probably go back to the sort of polling we had around the general election. Which would be disastrous for Badenoch.
Click to expand...
Currently a 22% chance ( odds wise ) Starmer will still be PM first day of next year. This By - Election is already done for me and its just the size of the Labour victory i guess. When thats rubber stamped the buzz and feel good factor with Burnham back in the fold will lift the labour party out of the doldrums. Fresh start etc etc. There's not a fuckin chance they hold on to Starmer, he's absolute toast and will be gone by September. I'm not keen on any of them ( just a financial interest, betting wise ) but thats just how I see it playing out.
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
More of the same isn’t neutral, and I think you could be transformational without being on the extremes.

To be honest though, I think the current system makes politics very difficult. Proportional representation and shared government (as opposed to FPTP) draws political parties into working together. They can’t grandstand in those circumstances, decisions are collective
Click to expand...

I think electoral reform is definitely a start to getting us back on track, that and recreating a functional media would be some foundations we could work from. the latter probably a lot harder tbf.
 
threespires said:
I think electoral reform is definitely a start to getting us back on track, that and recreating a functional media would be some foundations we could work from. the latter probably a lot harder tbf.
Click to expand...
The media just feeds off the Westminster bubble and vice versa sadly. Cycle needs to be broken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top