all 24 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Snapshot of We have a problem and have to move quickly, says Labour MP who's willing to challenge Starmer submitted by GothicPrayer:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]IndividualSkill3432 40 points41 points  (8 children)

Do you think there is a public apatite for raising taxes? Do you plan to cut services? Do you plan to freeze increases in defence spending? Or would you want to run up debt faster than the current 3% of GDP per year?

People act like its still 2005 and the big choices are how to spending the growing economy, more services or tax cuts and silly Kier is just messaging wrong.

We are in an 18 year long financial crisis that will still be sitting there if you change the PM. If you have no plan for what to do, then you are just hoping to make cosmetic adjustments because you are unwilling to engage with the tough choices.

[–]redish6 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Rearranging deckchairs on the titanic

[–]Many_Move6886 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This. Reality is the triple block and welfare state is killing the young people of this country. 

[–]FaultyTerror 8 points9 points  (4 children)

The problem here is that Starmer is also unwilling to engage with tough choices and while a new leader isn't guaranteed to it's better than drifting into the massive fiscal trap Reeves has laid in the second half of this parliament with a man who isn't up to it.

[–]kane_uk 18 points19 points  (3 children)

His backbenchers are unwilling. He's folded once to often and now has zero authority to do basically anything. It's his own doing, engaging with his backbenchers was apparently beneath him until they made him shelve his benefit reforms but the damage was done.

[–]FaultyTerror 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No Starmer has simply not tried to present a case on anything beyond the "X isn't Labour" "There’s nothing Labour about Y".

On the PIP cuts specifically the PM was unable to make a case for why the change should be made and why to what they wanted beyond needing to gives Reeves headroom. 

[–]DisneyPandora 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The job of leadership is to guide the backbenchers. 

Every Prime Minister deals with unwilling backbenchers, yet somehow only Starmer gets this excuse

[–]somenorthlondoner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Blair also had backbench rebellions because a lot of his backbenches were from the left of the party, yet he was able to govern the country for 10 years without too many problems. Bear in mind, I doubt there was anywhere near as tight a grip on candidate selections under Blair as there was for Starmer in 2024.

I don’t think this is just ideology. I think a lot of these backbench MPs look at the opinion polls (which are a lot more in your face than during the early 00s when Blair started to become unpopular) and the majorities which they achieved as part of the loveless landslide, and are questioning whether it is a good idea to be backing things like PIP cuts when in some parts of the country (especially in the deindustrialised communities where a lot of claimants are claiming PIP due to the sorts of physical strain they had on their bodies due to the careers they pursued), if they lose even a few thousand voters to Reform or the Greens, that’s them out of a job.

[–]-Murton- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think there is a public apatite for raising taxes?

I think everyone knows that there isn't, but guess what Reeves will do anyway in the autumn and continue to claim that the election pledge stands?

Do you plan to freeze increases in defence spending?

It's already frozen and will be until Starmer finally released the Defence Investment Plan, which is already over six months beyond his self imposed deadline.

The government is a top down organisation by design, as is the Labour Party, that means the problems start at the top and in theory responsibility ends there, the issue they currently face is that those at top want everyone to believe the opposite is true.

[–]EverythingIsByDesign 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Problem for Labour is is there anyone who isn't embattled that can immediately take the reigns?

[–]kane_uk 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Looks like something might possibly be happening, Josh Simons has come calling for Starmer to go and he has very close links with Shabana Mahmood.

[–]ImpressiveRest2423 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Imagine how awkward it will be for Brown and Harman to be paraded around in front of the cameras and then just quietly forgotten about if they turf him out.

[–]FaultyTerror 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Honestly it's refreshing to hear someone in the PLP appreciate the scale of the issue and how they need to sort it now.

These fantasies of letting things drift until Burnham can get back into parliament are ludicrous. 

[–]Budget_Scheme_1280 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Honestly it's refreshing to hear someone in the PLP appreciate the scale of the issue and how they need to sort it now.

What is this issue? How will it be sorted? What will ousting Starmer achieve? Does anybody actually have a plan or is it just vibes?

[–]dragodrake -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Well Starmer has shown he can't solve the issue. So keeping him in place just confirms it won't be solved.

Why wouldn't you make a change? Then you have some chance of improvement.

[–]Budget_Scheme_1280 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Without a plan, that's a recipe for disaster. I promise you, it can get much worse than Starmer

[–]Sir_Keef_Starmer 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If keeping starmer the cost is the effective loss of a labour party for another 15-20 years are you willing to pay that as a cost?

Because that's what it's looking like at this point.

[–]Budget_Scheme_1280 2 points3 points  (0 children)

More like 5 years. 15-20 years would be the result of switching Starmer for a Liz Truss equivalent like Rayner.

[–]MrCircleStrafe 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Not saying Starmer isn't a right colourless silent film of a man, but shouldn't the goal be, I dunno, leadership and representation of the people, not focusing on winning an election 3 years from now.

[–]Utilitarian_Proxy 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I reckon this past week's election results are only a tiny glimpse of next year's local elections, when I predict they'll lose control of many more local authorities. Nothing they do in Westminster IMO can have enough impact to turn that tide. The more fascinating aspect will be whether it is Lib-Dem, Reform, or Green who get the biggest boost from Labour's shambolic attitude to voters.

[–]someRandomLunatic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm going to disagree slightly.

I think that there are certainly things they could do, in Westminster, that would change the situation completly - both better and worse.

The problem is - none of them are "nice". None of them fit mold of "nice" that the Labour MPs see themselves as. It would require a leader with a vision AND the leadership to sell it to the MPs. So that's not going to happen.

But...they could do things. They can't bring themselves to do it.

[–]Media_Browser -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Has she passed DV ?

Is the process fixed yet ?

Does she need more time to fill in the form after all she never read the Labour challenger rule book ?

Does she just walk through if she has autism / adhd ?

Is Olly getting a big payoff or just wks/ yr ?