• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

LutonSpurs said:
If Green didn't field a candidate they would be doing the right thing for the country if you really want to stop the Reform surge. And it's is a real surge now. Tangible.
Click to expand...

The right thing is to give people a choice of views and let the best person win. If he's as good as people think then he should be able to beat all parties.
 
Baleforce said:
Burnham is playing a dangerous game.
Click to expand...

P.D. said:
Would be hilarious if he didn't win.

What's his plan anyway, get elected and bide his time for a few months then launch a leadership bid - he can't radically change much if it wasn't in the manifesto and the calls for a general election would be huge. I mean he wasn't even an MP at the election so can't really just come in with a radically different vision that has no mandate.
Click to expand...

LutonSpurs said:
You would bet on reform pulling an upset. And then the clamour for an immediate GE will be loud. Interesting times ahead
Click to expand...

I get the feeling Streetings move yesterday tactfully got the ball moving.

I think he knew any sniff of an impending leadership contest would peak Burnhams interest.

After the refusal to let Burnham stand at the by-election in Feb, Streeting knew the goalposts had moved....
Because For Starmer the walls are closing in...so he needs to allow an dissenter an open pathway to challenge him, if he believes he wants to shake them off and put them in their place (even if that outcome appears unlikely to most of us).

Streeting then knows that the by-election is anything but a shoe-in for Burnham (snidely cheerleading him for it today)...Burnham loses that he's dead politically.

Burnham would have been better keeping his powder dry...a better opportunity would arrive. There is time.

For the fight they are in, Streeting is too far to the right for labour. But he will get a lot of support OUTSIDE of the party because of this.

It'll be a box office by-election. The turnout was just 32% last week, so many sat at home...really hard to judge in this climate who those extra votes side with.
 
P.D. said:
The right thing is to give people a choice of views and let the best person win. If he's as good as people think then he should be able to beat all parties.
Click to expand...

That is the right thing to do. How ever in this instance, if the Greens see a consensus amongst their membership and leadership, then the decision not to stand a candidate is entirely democratic in my view.
 
As much as a like Burnham I do think his brand is a lot better than he actually might be. It's hard to tell. But is he more likely to steady the nerves than Kier? Yes.
 
LutonSpurs said:
As much as a like Burnham I do think his brand is a lot better than he actually might be. It's hard to tell. But is he more likely to steady the nerves than Kier? Yes.
Click to expand...

I think he is a steady pair of hands who is also a very able PR man, he is a doer of things too, see's through projects. Will the transition form mayor to PM be too much, I mean we will find out, but he has served in government before and to a fairly high level, so he isn't going in blind.

Time will tell but I am fairly confident in his abilities above the cluster thats come before with Labour and the Tories and the alternatives with Farage and Zack
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
I think he is a steady pair of hands who is also a very able PR man, he is a doer of things too, see's through projects. Will the transition form mayor to PM be too much, I mean we will find out, but he has served in government before and to a fairly high level, so he isn't going in blind.

Time will tell but I am fairly confident in his abilities above the cluster thats come before with Labour and the Tories and the alternatives with Farage and Zack
Click to expand...
His one black mark was the political miscalculation that let Corbyn on the ballot when he would have been under the threshold if Burnham hadn't meddled
 
LutonSpurs said:
As much as a like Burnham I do think his brand is a lot better than he actually might be. It's hard to tell. But is he more likely to steady the nerves than Kier? Yes.
Click to expand...

I’m sure this is the case.

I think Starmer is the most irrationally hated politician in history. The fact that he polls more unfavourably than Liz Truss is just ridiculous, completely preposterous. But clearly the public didn’t like the removal of the WFA, and his ratings plummeted. They’ve also blamed him for not solving every massive problem in less than 2 years, which is ridiculous. Starmer’s challenge though is that he has tried to be a Prime Minister that isn’t a politician. He doesn’t do media gimmicks. He doesn’t do factionalism. He doesn’t really have arguments. And the result of that is people think he is just rudderless and without a vision. And he hasn’t effectively told the story of what Labour is doing. If they couldn’t be radical and make massive changes quickly, explain why. Don’t just blame the Tories because they blamed Labour in 2010. Make a better argument.

I think Starmer is actually broadly where the public is on policy. The public though just has absolutely no idea that this is the case. And I think he’s completely misunderstood by the public and his own party. The left will call him an evil right wing bastard. The right will accuse him of being a lily livered lawyer. I feel like I can see what he’s tried to do - to not really care about factionalism, to not make short term promises that can never be fulfilled like Boris Johnson. And you’d think the public would appreciate it. But they just haven’t. He’s quite right wing on immigration, he’s a bit left on energy, on child poverty, he’s been super pragmatic on foreign policy and simultaneously been close and apart from Trump depending on how he judges the situation. Essentially very hard to place. And if things were going well, everyone would project their positive vibes on to him. Because it’s hard in the country, everyone projects their negative views. He absorbs everyone’s misery.

And this brings me to Burnham. I think it’s kind of ridiculous that because he’s popular as the mayor of Manchester, this equates to being able to run the country, and this suggests he will be just as popular if he has Starmer’s role. I think there’s an anti incumbent feeling, and there’s also the fact that in a fragmented system with 5-7 parties now that any PM is going to poll unfavourably. Right now Starmer gets all the scrutiny, and him receiving a gift of glasses is treated as more of a scandal than Farage taking a £5m donation. But also no credit or attention on the policies they’ve gotten through and plan to.

Burnham, if he can win the by election, will become PM. And I bet his approval ratings plummet in weeks. Once people realise that he too cannot solve everything with a click of the finger. That there aren’t single policies that solve everything for everyone with no trade offs. And I feel like he’s also just a bit of a lame relic of the New Labour era. He’s running, so of course the next day he GOES FOR A RUN in ridiculous shorts and is just not subtle at all. I think this passes for cut through in 2005. I’m not sure it equips him for being better that Starmer in tackling the challenges the UK faces in 2026x

Starmer’s probably done, although I’d rather us not change PMs less than every 2 years. Especially because I don’t think Starmer has done anything to justify being hated to the level that he is. But if he’s genuinely such a drag, I can see why it’s happening, I’m just not convinced Burnham has any genuine answers. He may be a better communicator. I would have thought that the country would have been interested in someone that didn’t do factions or political wings and didn’t try to blind people with vision statements. Just getting on with the job and doing the right thing for where the public is on a particular issue. But I guess not!

Very intrigued to see if Burnham will actually win the by election, or will Reform cause an upset. And then what happens??
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
I think he is a steady pair of hands who is also a very able PR man, he is a doer of things too, see's through projects. Will the transition form mayor to PM be too much, I mean we will find out, but he has served in government before and to a fairly high level, so he isn't going in blind.

Time will tell but I am fairly confident in his abilities above the cluster thats come before with Labour and the Tories and the alternatives with Farage and Zack
Click to expand...

Genuine question but do you think he’s a doer of things because he’s done things in Manchester? Built things, from a lower base in an area primed for regeneration?

I’m genuinely curious as to what Burnham is going to do that Starmer couldn’t do, that also isn’t going to have any trade offs? Essentially I think Starmer has had a crazy amount of scrutiny on everything in the last couple of years, and other politicians have had none. It’s assumed that Starmer just isn’t doing some obvious thing that’s going to make everything better for everyone, rather than dealing with a really bricky situation and trying to do things that will pay off longer term.

Agreed that he’s been in Cabinet before and should know the game. I think he’ll tell the story of the government a bit better. I’m just not sure that on policy terms he’s going to make much of a difference. He can do some different things, but they aren’t going to be blanket wins, they will have trade offs. And then it just comes down to is hearing a better story on what the government is doing enough for the public?
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Genuine question but do you think he’s a doer of things because he’s done things in Manchester? Built things, from a lower base in an area primed for regeneration?

I’m genuinely curious as to what Burnham is going to do that Starmer couldn’t do, that also isn’t going to have any trade offs? Essentially I think Starmer has had a crazy amount of scrutiny on everything in the last couple of years, and other politicians have had none. It’s assumed that Starmer just isn’t doing some obvious thing that’s going to make everything better for everyone, rather than dealing with a really bricky situation and trying to do things that will pay off longer term.

Agreed that he’s been in Cabinet before and should know the game. I think he’ll tell the story of the government a bit better. I’m just not sure that on policy terms he’s going to make much of a difference. He can do some different things, but they aren’t going to be blanket wins, they will have trade offs. And then it just comes down to is hearing a better story on what the government is doing enough for the public?
Click to expand...

Well I think you can only take people on what they have done, so in part yes but also by default, Labour are getting behind him which bodes well for them following him.

I think he has more about him being a PM on what he has achieved in Manchester than what Farage has achieved in Clacton.

Ultimately he will be a better "leader" and people will buy into what he is saying more than Starmer, I feel sorry for Starmer but he is falling on a modern sword in that he can never divert of script and his PR is dreadful, it shouldn't matter but it does.
 
Last edited:
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
I’m sure this is the case.

I think Starmer is the most irrationally hated politician in history. The fact that he polls more unfavourably than Liz Truss is just ridiculous, completely preposterous. But clearly the public didn’t like the removal of the WFA, and his ratings plummeted. They’ve also blamed him for not solving every massive problem in less than 2 years, which is ridiculous. Starmer’s challenge though is that he has tried to be a Prime Minister that isn’t a politician. He doesn’t do media gimmicks. He doesn’t do factionalism. He doesn’t really have arguments. And the result of that is people think he is just rudderless and without a vision. And he hasn’t effectively told the story of what Labour is doing. If they couldn’t be radical and make massive changes quickly, explain why. Don’t just blame the Tories because they blamed Labour in 2010. Make a better argument.

I think Starmer is actually broadly where the public is on policy. The public though just has absolutely no idea that this is the case. And I think he’s completely misunderstood by the public and his own party. The left will call him an evil right wing bastard. The right will accuse him of being a lily livered lawyer. I feel like I can see what he’s tried to do - to not really care about factionalism, to not make short term promises that can never be fulfilled like Boris Johnson. And you’d think the public would appreciate it. But they just haven’t. He’s quite right wing on immigration, he’s a bit left on energy, on child poverty, he’s been super pragmatic on foreign policy and simultaneously been close and apart from Trump depending on how he judges the situation. Essentially very hard to place. And if things were going well, everyone would project their positive vibes on to him. Because it’s hard in the country, everyone projects their negative views. He absorbs everyone’s misery.

And this brings me to Burnham. I think it’s kind of ridiculous that because he’s popular as the mayor of Manchester, this equates to being able to run the country, and this suggests he will be just as popular if he has Starmer’s role. I think there’s an anti incumbent feeling, and there’s also the fact that in a fragmented system with 5-7 parties now that any PM is going to poll unfavourably. Right now Starmer gets all the scrutiny, and him receiving a gift of glasses is treated as more of a scandal than Farage taking a £5m donation. But also no credit or attention on the policies they’ve gotten through and plan to.

Burnham, if he can win the by election, will become PM. And I bet his approval ratings plummet in weeks. Once people realise that he too cannot solve everything with a click of the finger. That there aren’t single policies that solve everything for everyone with no trade offs. And I feel like he’s also just a bit of a lame relic of the New Labour era. He’s running, so of course the next day he GOES FOR A RUN in ridiculous shorts and is just not subtle at all. I think this passes for cut through in 2005. I’m not sure it equips him for being better that Starmer in tackling the challenges the UK faces in 2026x

Starmer’s probably done, although I’d rather us not change PMs less than every 2 years. Especially because I don’t think Starmer has done anything to justify being hated to the level that he is. But if he’s genuinely such a drag, I can see why it’s happening, I’m just not convinced Burnham has any genuine answers. He may be a better communicator. I would have thought that the country would have been interested in someone that didn’t do factions or political wings and didn’t try to blind people with vision statements. Just getting on with the job and doing the right thing for where the public is on a particular issue. But I guess not!

Very intrigued to see if Burnham will actually win the by election, or will Reform cause an upset. And then what happens??
Click to expand...

Great post.

The problem isn’t Starmer, it’s the electorate, it will be no better for the next incumbent.
 
glasgowspur said:
Too many believe all the problems can fixed with no negative impact on them, that they can have everything and have lower taxes, we're a very selfish and impatient society.
Click to expand...

I agree and I am not a fan of it, but when you are cooked now you are cooked, I wish it was different but you can't get away from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back