would Burnham want to give up his Mayoral role to go anywhere near the labour leadership?
I wouldn’t if I was him. He would want Starmer to fail in the next GE first, and then potentially look for a seat.
he would be better off staying where he is.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
would Burnham want to give up his Mayoral role to go anywhere near the labour leadership?
I wouldn’t if I was him. He would want Starmer to fail in the next GE first, and then potentially look for a seat.
he would be better off staying where he is.
To answer your question, yes it does.
By professional I mean someone who is trained and experienced in a sector. Who will be forced to take a job in a completely different sector, with a massive pay cut and no prospects.
The post I replied to suggest we should essentially get the unemployed to do community service!
Minimum wage with no sick pay, no holiday pay and potentially a zero hour contract being forced upon unemployed people with no choice.
That is not a good solution.
Not to mention the fact that many sick people have been inaccurately and unfairly assessed as "fit to work". So are now classed as unemployed. They would also fall victim to this terrible idea.
Not any time soon, that's for sure.
Interestingly in his acceptance speech following his resounding Manchester Mayor victory, he didn't rule out becoming Labour leader at some point. He also (correctly) had a couple of jabs at the current 'London-centric Labour party' and distanced himself from Starmer.
He's the only viable candidate for leader right now, but depending on how bad it gets for Starmer it probably only makes sense for him to take over after the next GE, when any potential New Labour baggage he has is even more distant in people's memories and he's cemented himself further as a voice of regional politics and the swathes of voters Westminster has ignored.
Well if its a government backed scheme then they could exclude zero hour and if its government created jobs they could regulate for an employment board to set the salary for eah job to enusre its benchmarked for benefits and pay (we do this in our company each year) ... Of course as this is offset against the benefits that would be paid anyway it becomes pretty good from a treasury point of view in ters of output vs spend
And its clear there is a choice - if you dont want to take the job (afterer 2 years of looking for a job) at that point your benefits will be impacted, because 2 years of jobseakers then turning down a job (where there is no practica reason you cant do the job) would seem preety fair to most I think.
in three years time, someone else will probably emerge. The likes of Blair and Cameron came from nowhere, like football managers, the landscape and job prospects change quite quickly.
I suppose it’s whether he has a desire to run for PM.
You're confusing separate issues again. I agree action should be taken for rights for all workers, and against unfair assessments, but guaranteed jobs are a plus, not a negative.
I get you think 'professionals' should be entitled to more than two years benefits without the horror of having to work for minimum wage, like millions of others have to, but you will be in a serious minority on that one, not least with the millions of others.
If there is a way to get rid of him now you could understand members going for it, but the coverage would be pretty disastrous, underlining how much the party is in disarray. The alternative of hoping Starmer somehow starts delivering is obviously not overly palatable either.
It's interesting how Burnham was seen as a total lightweight, all permatan and smiles, in 2015, but has since gone off and shown he actually has substance in the meantime. Not sure how many better candidates Labour could muster than him.
Public Policy 101: forcing people to do stuff on pain of punishment doesn't work. It rarely actually dissuades bad behaviour and it pisses people would otherwise be amenable off and makes them less likely to cooperate. If you walk into a building and are immediately collared by security and subjected to a lecture about the punishment you'd get if you were to break the rules, you're far more likely to nick a pen on the way out. Outside of serious criminal matters where there are other considerations, public policy should first and foremost be aimed at making the outcome you want more desirable and/or more convenient for the majority than the outcome you don't want. It's more cost effective and you don't end up fecking over innocent people.
The simple fact is that the vast majority of people would rather work than claim benefits. Tabloids and daytime TV have massively inflated the issue of 'scroungers' in the public consciousness and governments have fallen over themselves to pander to the delusions of bitter curtain twitchers rather than making it easier for people to find and stay in work.
In this obsession with punishing the tiny minority of people who take the piss, they've created a massive bureaucracy of box ticking and hoop-jumping which punishes legitimate claimants as often as chancers and costs way more than it saves. Your solution is better than what exists now but it's still less cost effective than targeted job creation and increased access to adult education would be and it still carries similar risk, i.e - many of the miscarriages of justice (and deaths) resulting from the existing system have stemmed from someone who was tasked to make a decision as to whether someone was justified in not taking a job making the wrong decision.
Championing Burnham is simply doubling down on an old classic though?
Guaranteed zero hour contracts or as self employed with few rights would not be a positive.
The two issued are wholly linked. The party that implemented an unfair system of assessments that dehumanised sick people, putting them onto job seekers allowance will now implement an unfair system demeaning people who are out of work putting them into unsuitable jobs with very few rights. Not to mention the unfair sanctions that are already in place and causing people to die.
Absolutely.
People are dying due to benefit sanctions and yet some still believe benefits are "easy street" because of the BS programmes and tabloids you mentioned.
If unemployment does increase dramatically more people will realise the lies and misconceptions they had about the UK benefit system. Then we may see a change in opinions based on previously incorrect assumptions.
whenever Mandelson is involved then you know how it is going to end up now.
Assuming your location is correct you seem more invested in UK politics than might be expected.
It always amazed me that so many people like measures that punish the unemployed and are so keen to have schemes to stop them being "lazy" with punitive punishments for not doing pointless things when there is nowhere near full employment. Employment law in the UK is broken with zero hours contracts and a woeful minimum wage.
It is a prime example of disinformation and long term smears shaping a common/popular view.
No surprise really, seems to be happening with alot of topics.
The Starmer leadership should really be the final nail in the coffin of the we need to have a leader who is more ''electable''.
Starmer was the best candidate at the time - but it was more than likely labour would cycle through a number of leaders before they find the right one - at the right time to challenge effectively. The tories went through IDS, Hague and Howard when Labour has a strong majority before Cameron came along.
That second graph is nothing for the left to crow about either. Personally think Starmer has the charisma of lettuce. I don’t particularly like Corbyn but at least he had his beliefs nailed to the mast.
The country is broken. There’s a whole generation that’s using tax/legal loopholes to enrich themselves while voting Tory.
Swathes of ‘Upper working class’ folks are claiming housing benefit to live in a rental property that’s owned by their parent/sibling. The state is buying second homes for Tories.
That’s how broken this country is. People doing this claim ‘It’s legal, everyone can do it, why shouldn’t I’.
This behaviour is abhorrent, costs the taxpayer oodles more, and is somehow wrapped up as the Tories being the goodies. Labour build council houses. Tories help families get ahead.
Oh wasn't trying to put a left wing case forward just that during the last leadership election a big argument for Starmer was this idea of electability. The party should water down some of the left wing politics in favour of a leader who be more liked by the ''public'', Starmer is currently showing this to be an empty argument.
i think he’s Labours version of Theresa May. Just a really awkward, uncharismatic leader.
Out of interest if he stepped down who would you have replace him? (You can’t choose Corbyn
)Yeah, if there's a silver lining of the current Labour disaster it's that at least it's shown that this mythical 'electable' centrist strategy just doesn't work in 2021.
Of course it's been apparent for a while that for a lot of the people in Starmer's current camp, 'electability' has had more to do with destroying the left and undermining a leader who will challenge the status quo. A lot of them are the same people who were calling Corbyn unelectable even whilst he was winning leadership elections resoundingly and performed well in 2017.
This canard that you can put up somebody who looks like they could play a prime minister on a Doctor Who Christmas special to sit quietly and appeal to a mythical centre ground is now I presume thankfully dead and buried.
Had a look at the betting on this as I was thinking of putting a bet on.i think he’s Labours version of Theresa May. Just a really awkward, uncharismatic leader.
Out of interest if he stepped down who would you have replace him? (You can’t choose Corbyn
Andy Burnham, the clear favourite at 18/5, then Angela Rayner and Lisa Nandy on 8/1.
What?
I doubt it.
I agree Starmer isn’t doing a great job at the moment, and I’d ultimately settle for him doing for labour what kinnock did, bridesmaid if not the bride. That said, this election proves nothing about the current strategy.As someone said, labour was up against a war time type government, an economy about to boom, a very successful vaccination programme, house prices on fire and no real way to cut thru the against,COVID etc. Nobody could win against that. Circumstances favoured incumbents and that’s what we saw across the country.Admittedly labour does have a huge problem with changing demographics, but if there’s one thing we know for sure, it’s the electorate also hated Corbynism. so there’s no answer there.
Yep.
The only thing I would add is that Neil Kinnock had much much more passion and fire for Labour than Starmer has.
It is true, always was. But the centrists don't care or won't accept it.
But Corbyn was unelectable. Labour got murdered. Whatever problems labour have now, were set in place at the last election. I don't know anyone who thinks labour can win by putting in an inoffensive leader and hoping they appeal to the middle ground.
Are you answering a question that wasn't asked?
The post was about a wider issue than just Corbyn.
So how did Labour manage to receive less votes in Hartlepool than they did under Corbyn? If this was Corbyns fault Labour wouldn't be going backwards.
Starmer? And his team?
Last edited:
I think part of the problem is the current political landscape is dominated by a populist 'personality' and Starmer is clearly devoid of that. Dial the clock back 15 years or so and he would look pretty good, plenty of polish and adept at wishy-washy non-answers. I think if Labour want to fight the Tories with a decent leader they probably need to play them at their own game and go for the cult of personality angle, however the unfortunate thing is (possibly Burnham aside) there is no one like that in the Labour Party, in part because no one in the Labour Party seems to say what they damn well want and get away with it.
I could be entirely wrong though, probably am. It's all a bit crap at the moment and I don't envisage it getting any better for the next five to ten years.
A cult of personality is not an option for the left. The right wing press will turn them into an evil caricature and half the party won’t be able to take them seriously anyway.
Don't disagree one bit to be honest.
That's is the question of the moment isn't it. The Tories picking up all the Brexit votes didn't help, what's your solution to that one?
Do you always answer a question with a question?
To clarify, Labour received a lower number of votes than the previous Hartlepool election. So no, the Brexit party votes is not a valid explanation.
Last edited:
Agree.
Have no idea. The left last campaign with RLB was complete dog shit and there isn't anyone who really stands out atm. The reasons I liked Corbyn leadership where foreign policy relate and no one in the labour party comes close to him on this. Also the failure of getting any reforms in the Labour Party and very standard social democracy getting destroyed has got me feeling pretty bleak about any electoral politics.Out of interest if he stepped down who would you have replace him? (You can’t choose Corbyn
I guess I would maybe support any candidate that is interested in promoting some level of party democracy or even someone who's thinking about the structural issues in UK politics. I'm not a fan of Clive Lewis but at least his plan of labour running on electoral reform makes some sense. Also while I'm not a massive fan of this type of politics, it's pretty dreadful that Labour have yet to have someone who isn't a white guy as leader.
Although 1) The left can't win and 2)We've known this for the best part of a decade and it doesn't make a difference to a lot of people.
“Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will''.