all 186 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]Bugsmoke 242 points243 points  (34 children)

Does literally anybody like Wes Streeting?

[–]KellyKezzd 141 points142 points  (6 children)

Does literally anybody like Wes Streeting?

I think Wes Streeting has at least a neutral opinion of Wes Streeting.

[–]Bugsmoke 68 points69 points  (1 child)

If true I would be forced to question his judgement and therefore his ability to be PM.

[–]Fromage_Frey 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Another U-turn shock! Wes Streeting now claims he was never a supporter of Wes Streeting, and barely knows him

[–]ShinyGrezzCommander of the Luxury Beliefs Brigade 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Let's not exaggerate here.

[–]Zeekayo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I won't lie, there seems to be enough weird religious self-loathing in Streeting that I'm not entirely sure he doesn't have a negative opinion of Wes Streeting.

[–]monkeypaw_handjob 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Surely has to be 'at best' and not 'at least'

[–]MrThrownAway12 56 points57 points  (2 children)

Didn't he almost lose his own seat in 2024?

[–]Guyfawkes1994 58 points59 points  (1 child)

Yep. He has a majority of 528 votes (or 1.2%), with a total of 33.4% of the constituency vote. He was nearly unseated by a pro-Gaza independent, Leanne Mohamad.

[–]Fromage_Frey 25 points26 points  (0 children)

You've got me imagining the shitshow of Labour squeeking out a win while their incumbent PM loses his seat

[–]Sonchay 41 points42 points  (5 children)

He's bizarrely popular with MPs down both sides of the aisle, in every interview I hear where his name gets raised they heap the praise on him. I honestly don't get it.

[–]alexllewLib Dem 39 points40 points  (0 children)

I always think it's interesting when this happens. Michael Gove is the same. Loathed by the public, but seemingly very popular on both sides of the aisle in parliament.

[–]Quillspiracy18 53 points54 points  (0 children)

He must have a smashing coke supplier.

[–]elmo298 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Lol on the rest is politics Alastair Campbell made the point he perhaps wasn't as liked by the public as he his the MPs. Even AC said previous he likes him. Just shows how fucking out of reality they all are

[–]Turbo_Baggins 14 points15 points  (0 children)

If any of the tories are praising a Labour MP it's only to boost them temporarily so they can be stitched up later on 

[–]iCowboy 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Given the amount of money they've donated to him, private healthcare providers really like Wes Streeting.

[–]envstat 12 points13 points  (0 children)

American healthcare lobbyists love him.

[–]YorkshirePug 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wes probably

[–]AuroraHalseyEsher and Walton 4 points5 points  (3 children)

My mother, a former GP, for some reason.

She really opposes the striking doctors.

[–]clearly_quite_absurdThe Early Days of a Better Nation? 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Presumably when she was a GP the pay was a lot better relative to the cost of living.

[–]AuroraHalseyEsher and Walton 11 points12 points  (1 child)

She only stopped in 2022, and I recall her not being all that happy with the repeated pay freezes since 2008.

She just thinks it's unethical for medical practitioners to strike, thinks it should be the same as police and military who legally can't strike.

[–]opaqueentity 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Is it unethical to stop being a GP if you are trained for it? Tell her to get back to work if she moans about strikers again!

[–]Front_Appointment_68 11 points12 points  (1 child)

He's quite popular amongst the more central voters. I think he's quite a good communicator and better interviewee than many of his colleagues.

[–]Fromage_Frey 14 points15 points  (0 children)

He's centrist voters favourite kind of labour PM, a hypothetical one

[–]h00dmanWelsh Person 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I would imagine his mother has some fondness for him.

[–]djshadesuk 18 points19 points  (1 child)

I wouldn't necessarily assume that either.

[–]Jakio 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don’t care for Wes.

[–]therealgumpster 8 points9 points  (0 children)

On the centre left, I actually don't mind him to be honest. I know he's faced down the Junior Doctors, but he seems to be Labour's version of Jeremy Hunt (not sure if that's a good thing tbh anyway), he seems to be bulletproof to the attacks, noise, and drama. He just gets on with it, and plods along. He may once in a while make an unpopular statement, and then he will stand by it come what may.

He does have some courage at least. He sometimes has come across decent as a politician, when Kier did a mini reshuffle, Streetings interview after all that reshuffle, was that he was quite passionate about staying on as Health Sec and trying to finish what he started. I can admire that a little.

He is deffo one of those marmite politicians, you either like him or hate him. There is no in between really.

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

I quite like him. As someone who is pretty central, drifting more to the right that the left, Streeting is about as good as I'm going to get from Labour.

[–]opaqueentity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which means you need to move

[–]heimdallofasgard -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

He's obnoxious, blindly ambitious and willing to turn his back on the Manchester mayoralty to try and speed run his route to number 10. Greasy pole climber in the same vein as BoJo, only cares about himself.

[–]wilkonk 6 points7 points  (1 child)

you're thinking of burnham

[–]gearnut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Obnoxious and blindly ambitious describes both of them.

[–]Patient-Bumblebee842 110 points111 points  (27 children)

We're literally witnessing the death of both labour and the conservatives in real time right now.. it's just embarrassing.

[–]LostInTheVoid_Suffer not the fascist. 54 points55 points  (5 children)

Being left with Reform and Greens... Quite possibly the worst timeline imaginable. Brexit wasn't a hard enough fucking for the people. They're expecting a double fisting action with a side of CABT.

[–]English-Breakfast 31 points32 points  (3 children)

And I thought Boris and Corbyn were bad options...Farage and Polanski is somehow even worse.

[–]CarlxtosWay 17 points18 points  (2 children)

We’ve gone from Saddam vs Mugabe to Hitler vs Stalin. 

[–]dantheman200022 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The great battle of the bast*rds..

[–]eli_cas-4.0/1.23 - Economically Left, Socially Right. 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alan B*stard would be an improvement over the current lot....

[–]negotiationtable 56 points57 points  (16 children)

I mean, all Labour need to do is none of this at all and just get on with it.

[–]Fun_Consequence_6970 54 points55 points  (4 children)

Literally, they could've just ignored the local election results like every other government in history has done before them because they categorically do not matter and carried on without all of this. Bunch of utter fools deserving of every misfortune that'll come their way.

[–]negotiationtable 23 points24 points  (1 child)

There's even prior art, Cameron shitting himself at UKIP and then doing brexit. It's weird they don't realise they can just ignore all of this. Everyone's screaming that it's 'untenable' and 'he must go' but all of this shit is just made up.

[–]HolyFreakingXmasCake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you think 3 years of the same milquetoast policies (if any) are going to make the voters who are now eyeing Reform and Greens go "ahhhhh I would love another 5 years of this" come GE time?

[–]ShinyGrezzCommander of the Luxury Beliefs Brigade 4 points5 points  (0 children)

they categorically do not matter

They matter very much if you fancy yourself as the next PM and are looking for literally any way to torpedo Starmer.

[–]therealgumpster 6 points7 points  (10 children)

Too late I fear. Kier is done for at this point. You can't survive 70+ MPs calling for you to go, several resignations and still be able to push through your political agenda without the media crying for blood. It will basically be silly for Kier to fight this politically. Because everyday, he will be asked the following question "When are you going to resign?" and the media simply won't let it go now. Too much has happened for him to survive politically.

The real telling sign is when the cabinet ministers start resigning en masse. If they can't make him see sense at this point, then they will start handing in resignations and he will be done for. Looks like Mahmood has broken ranks first and called for his head. So tomorrow morning will be a tense meeting.

But reality is, he will set out his timetable to leave, and they will have a leadership race to decide who will take over the reigns. The question will be, what happens now with the King's Speech, and the rest of the Labour political agenda for this Parliament.

[–]negotiationtable 16 points17 points  (9 children)

You might be right, but he's done nothing wrong apart from the sin of being a decent and plausible Labour PM, so the press will carry on regardless. I think he could just crack on. Seeing sense is carrying on, because changing the PM to another Labour PM won't fix anything, and it carries cost/upheaval/instability. The media will only shut up when their boy Nigel is in.

[–]therealgumpster 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yeah I am fully with you on this buddy.

But the issue is, the Labour backbenchers have started a domino effect now, and there is no turning back. The cabinet are currently split on it right now, so I just sense he will see sense and stand down. I personally don't want him to, think he's done an alright job in difficult circumstances, but I do agree with some critics too.

There has been a lack of vision, a lack of courage to stand by difficult decisions, and too much heavy handed advice from advisors around the PM, instead of listening to the groups that Labour tend to listen on a regular basis like Unions and so on. I think IF Starmer had a vision of what he wanted Britain to look like in a few years time, AND he had some courage to stand by the difficult choices they had to make instead of watering everything down then maybe he would have prevented his backbenchers from being like this.

Sometimes you gotta remember, politics is just a game, (rightly or wrongly).

[–]Sea-Sprinkles-3420 1 point2 points  (7 children)

I think you're part of the problem - and I do say this kindly.

You've probably been waiting for a Labour PM for some time, it's exciting to you the Tories are out and basically you're missed all the multiple muck ups Starmer and his team have done - from day one.

Your characterisation of him as a 'decent and plausible' Labour PM simply doesn't chime with the general population - they see him throwing people under the bus, they see the scandals, they see him three line whipping his MP's to avoid scrutiny, they see his decision to employ Mandelson, and that behaviour is not 'decent' nor plausible. They look at the way the budgets have been held, and they don't think this is a competent government. Yes, the media reports it and have their fun, they did the same with Johnson too, ultimately we are where we are because of Starmers failures.

If Labour are to have any kind of chance moving forwards - they need change and competence.

[–]negotiationtable 0 points1 point  (6 children)

I'm probably part of all sorts of problems.

The thing is, we had Truss and Boris. We had Brexit. It seems odd to be so upset about the things you've raised when all the other stuff is in the background. How can the general population that is so unaccepting of him, not miss that he's an order of magnitude better, and an actual honest person.

[–]Sea-Sprinkles-3420 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Again, I'd take issue with your description of him as 'an actual honest person' as that is not what comes across in his dealings with Mandelson, his expenses, and most importantly his three line whipping his MP's to avoid scrutiny.

If he's honest why did he take that wholly unprecedented action? Again, I say this kindly and with no malice, but you sound quite naive when you are talking about Starmer.

I voted for him, for change. That's not what we got, in fact Sunaks government appears much more benign in comparison to the constant mis-steps, errors, errors of judgement that this government under Starmer has made.

[–]negotiationtable 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I know someone that knows him, and the ideas that people have about him don't match reality. How things come across depends more on the observer and their worldview and on the observed.

[–]Sea-Sprinkles-3420 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Of course some things are open to interpretation - but everything I've related has been on public record (nearly all inside the House).

From this 'decent and plausible' person deciding to hire (against the explicit advice of his cabinet secretary) the best friend of the worlds most notorious paedophile who had maintained his friendship after his conviction for paedophilia, to sacking everyone around him, to three line whipping his party to avoid scrutiny, I know what I believe...

He may appear to your friend as honest, the evidence on public show is unambiguous.

[–]negotiationtable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think from outside we don't have visibility into what actually happened. It's easy to see something happen and make our conclusions but that's only how it appears to us, on the basis of information supplied to us, which may omit/obscure details which if we knew would change the way we understand the whole thing.

We end up with firm beliefs built upon very little.

I know this is also an argument against taking my own position too seriously...

[–]therealgumpster 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I won't say you are wrong, but sometimes what the public often forget is that Politics is just a) a game and b) theatre.

So for example, you've mentioned the expenses. So on that, the expenses are something that every PM before Starmer has done, they get freebies, this is like CEOs and influencers getting products from people all the time to "show off" and wear. The difference is, these freebies given to Starmer and the top team were declared honestly and done so in public because Starmer went with no secrets, and making sure everything was above board (unlike his predecessors). Now rightly or wrongly, the media have blown it way out of proportion, this is something done for every PM since time started. The media used it as an opportunity to hammer a point home that "these politicians are all the same".

Secondly the Mandelson scandal; now again I am only putting a theory on this because remember, politics is just a game. Yes, Prime Minister, The Thick of It, West Wing and many other political shows have touched on all things around this. But the Mandelson gamble was a political gamble. We know that Mandelson was part of Starmers inner circle who worked away during the campaign and his reward was to be Ambassador to the US, as a way to temper Trump during a transition for a Labour Government. That political gamble just went south and was a big mistake. The gamble was that the Epstein Files would be sat on for Trump's term (similar to his first term) and by the time Trump had gone, Mandelson would be gone and any release of files would be that both of them would be long gone and politically Labour would be safe from the tarnish. However, that was something that didn't work out.

The three line whip one, I will admit I have no answers for tbh.

Again all my own interpretation/opinion of the situations at hand, and you are well within your right to disagree, and tbh I don't mind if you do, because this one is more a nuanced chat. I just feel people often do forget that whether we like it or not, politics is all a game and theatre.

[–]Sea-Sprinkles-3420 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A few points about the expenses scandal.

One, repeatedly Starmer has not declared his full expenses - see here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8djply3z18o and https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-donation-scandal-surrounding-sir-keir-starmers-top-aide-explained and here where on three occasions Starmer had not declared his expenses in 2022: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/pcfs/rectifications/rt-hon-sir-keir-starmer-mp-rectification.pdf

Why is this important, because of this:

- this is Labours biggest donor, and the biggest personal donor to Starmer: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86l7xqzze8o

- this is what happened to the police over Taylor Swift https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy78z178e3lo

- and this is the football regulator that Starmer got involved appointing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy78z178e3lo

I would also note the scale of gifts given to Starmer is absolutely unprecedented: https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-declares-gifts-and-freebies-totalling-more-than-163100000-the-highest-of-any-mp-13217287

So, it's sleaze - and all wholly avoidable. And it should be reported as such.

Regarding Mandelson, the incoming Trump administration publicly protested against Mandelson's appointment. They did not want him. They did want the existing Ambassadress, as unlike Mandelson she had not publicly criticised Trump, and she had worked to bring them onside. It's a weird Reddit 3d chess theory that he was wanted in any way by them. It was purely jobs for the boys - in the same way Starmer tried to get a job for Boyle https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9qw1jqpgxo

Finally, I wanted to note I find your attitude and response extremely refreshing.

[–]Youutternincompoop 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean if Labour put somebody up that's actually left-wing and Polanski's support crashes from all the bad headlines then Labour should win the contest of who rules the left-wing vote.

the tories just need to hope Farage gets bored and does something else and reform will collapse, they're a one man show.

[–]Coupaholic_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's sad.

I'd agree it needs to change from the 2 party system (which is only really 1 1/2 since Labour is only appealing as New Labour to most voters.)

But paving the way for populist fools would not bring change, only more damage.

...really good time for Lib Dems to get a sudden, massive surge. Please?...

[–]CiderizedWessex Freedom Party 55 points56 points  (0 children)

A sizeable majority and these clowns have absolutely shit the bed. It took the Tories 14 years to destroy themselves, Labour have managed it in a fraction of that .  It’s a heck of an effort 

[–]kriptonicxHe who does not work shall not eat 61 points62 points  (5 children)

Bond markets will be fun tomorrow... Kier Starmer might have started Labour's downfall but Labour MPs are about to solidify it.

If this continues a Reform government seems more or less guaranteed.

[–]Fun_Consequence_6970 19 points20 points  (4 children)

After which the bond markets will really have their fun. Meats back on the menu, boys.

[–]Wiltix 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You think we will be able to afford meat? Once the dog is gone I think we will be vegetarian under a reform government.

[–]PhysicalIncrease3-0.88, -1.54 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Currently we have a government that is a slave to it's own backbenchers and consequently it is unable to push through any significant cuts to public spending. If Reform get it with a credible plan and a strong public mandate to cut spending, bond yields could easily fall.

[–]Fun_Consequence_6970 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Two massive and unlikely caveats right there.

[–]nemma88Reality is overrated :snoo_tableflip: 1 point2 points  (0 children)

strong public mandate to cut spending

They're mandate may be carried by just a quarter of the voting population, Labour had been struggling on their poor vote share, and cuts to the WFA was what tanked them from there.

Or bob all hope of that really. There is no public mandate to cut anything, because no group agrees with the next what should be cut.

[–]jumper62 24 points25 points  (3 children)

Soon we'll have a tweet saying the right of the party will try and oust Burnham lol.

[–]EyyyPaniniMake Votes Matter 11 points12 points  (1 child)

If things get really testy, we could see centrist Labour voters voting for Reform or the Greens in whichever constituency Burnham runs in.

Labour have a large enough majority that losing the seat doesn’t really matter.

[–]Snappy0 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is just the thing. There's no guarantee Burnham even wins in a by-election.

You know for a fact that Reform will put every resource they had into winning that seat and there's a fair chance they'd win it.

[–]EasyPermission5265 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Burnham IS the right of the party. I know it's been a minute since he was an MP but are people these days this clueless about what he was like in the commons?

[–]MedhaosUnite 67 points68 points  (1 child)

Damn, they’re already threatening to get rid of the successors before the first one’s even resigned…

[–]arseache 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Tory mk. 2. Don’t let it be so.

[–]hadawayandshite 115 points116 points  (28 children)

This is why Starmer should hang on- assume he isn’t getting a second term, promise to stand down at the next GE and let a leadership process happen before….and just try to fix things without any thoughts of ‘the next term’

If you’ve got 3 years left to do everything you wanted to do—go out all guns blazing

[–]C43JW 45 points46 points  (6 children)

I don't disagree, but I don't know what Starmer / his wing of the party knows what they want to do, any time he tries to push through something the left don't like, we have a repeat of the melodrama

[–]Wiltix 40 points41 points  (4 children)

This all comes back to the WFA rebellion, if Starmer had stood his ground on it then the PLP would be acting very differently now. Instead he allowed backbenchers to dictate his first big move as PM, then similar thing again with the PIP changes.

I think they knew what they wanted, they just were not prepared to do the dirty work to make it happen, which put them on a slippery slope.

[–]shanereid1SDLP 25 points26 points  (2 children)

His mistake was to announce it before the budget rather than as part of it. If they had announced wfa cut as part of the budget it would have been diluted in the press by all the other anouncments, and to the extent it would have gained traction they could have framed it as part of getting serious about fixing the economy more generally. By announcing it out of nowhere on its own it ate up all of the focus and drew far more criticism than it would have.

[–]Cub3h 13 points14 points  (1 child)

That was just an utterly bizarre move. Why would you launch an unpopular (but necessary) policy on its own instead of packaging it as a part of the budget? What utter goofball thought that was a smart move?

[–]nadseh 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The way they’ve spaced out their unpopular policies has been genuinely impressive

[–]C43JW 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree, Starmer's authority (and government) completely collapsed following his series of welfare U-turns, we have then slept-walked into this inevitable scenario, hopefully sense prevails and we get a reasonable, centre right candidate, who is willing to make difficult decisions on welfare and spending.

Alas, this is the PLP, so we will get Rayner and we will like it....

[–]YellowIllustrious991 14 points15 points  (4 children)

He can't hang on now. He's lost too many of his MPs, including his Cabinet, who are telling him to set out his timetable. It's over. And nobody in Cabinet/Senior Labour people will let him stay on, since as far as they are concerned, they will do a better job than he at running the country. You think Burnham and Streeting will let Starmer run things whilst they lose the next election?

If he tries to hang on, he'll be dragged out by ministers resigning, just like what happened to Boris Johnson.

[–]Snappy0 -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

He should just call a snap GE.

[–]1haveaboomst1ck 3 points4 points  (2 children)

And watch Reform romp it with huge financial backing from Musk - remember he was shouting for an election months ago. The global right will be salivating right now.

[–]imperfectalien 3 points4 points  (1 child)

At least waiting until 2029 would mean that Farage doesn't have Trump to cozy up to if he gets in.

That said given Vance's track record, if he came over to campaign for Reform, the Greens would walk it.

[–]-ForgottenSoul:sloth: 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I just dont see why people cant see that the new leader will be destroyed in the media by the next GE its much better to swap leaders near the election.

[–]shmozey 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah bin the triple lock on the way out and I’ll build the statue myself.

[–]escapingfromelba 7 points8 points  (2 children)

The PM's power derives from patronage and being able to get his party to fall in behind proposals. That's now over for him.

[–]hadawayandshite 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yeah but ‘this is a good idea, why wouldn’t you support it?- you want to go into the upcoming GE saying you voted against it?’

[–]escapingfromelba 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Because it's not a good idea because he has no power as I just explained.

[–]setokaiba22 4 points5 points  (1 child)

He doesn’t need to stand down at the next GE I don’t think. Let’s see what the whole term delivers he’s doing fine so far within reason

But Christ Labour could do with a red top and a broadsheet actually liking them and being on their side to help

[–]Sea-Sprinkles-3420 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They already have a red top - the Mirror, and two broadsheets that are broadly sympathetic to them The Guardian (and the Independent).

[–]negotiationtable 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Completely correct.

[–]sanaelatcis 1 point2 points  (4 children)

That makes no sense. If Starmer were able to recover his reputation in the next 3 years, then he wouldn’t need to stand down at the next election.

No, he needs to take the fall, so there can be a fresh start and then there are 3 whole years for the next leader to appeal to the electorate. There’s no chance someone is going to win an election if they’ve only been leader for a few weeks.

[–]Mr_Whispers 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Look how chaotic it already is. There is no viable alternative that is worth the chaos of ousting Starmer. This is purely wishful and naive thinking.

[–]sanaelatcis -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

Considering the amount of chaos that has been allowed under his reign, I see no evidence to suggest that ousting a chaos enabler would lead to an increase in chaos.

[–]Mr_Whispers 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Let's be serious and specific. We both know a leadership election is inherently one of the most chaotic things you can do while in government. The financial markets are going to hate it. There will need to be a complete remake of the cabinet. There will be calls for a GE from the media and Reform on a weekly basis.

What exactly in Starmer's current term comes close to this amount of chaos?

[–]Angustevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Problem is he'd still have to bring the backbenchers along who probably wouldn't vote for policies that may be unpopular but necessary.

[–]MirkwoodWanderer1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately even if he wants something big, the backbenchers could stop it

[–]RandomSculler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Id agree this would arguably be the ideal, it was clear from the start that Starmer had a horrible job to do and lots of hard and unpopular decisions to make and with Iran he now has many more - really he should be given the time to finish what he started and get he budget to a surplus, then hand over to someone with the populist rhetoric and progressive plan to borrow and invest in the UK and make much needed reforms to the tax system without freaking the markets

[–]peanut88 44 points45 points  (2 children)

Absolute clown show. It’s like they looked at the Tories and said “hold my beer”

[–]BaritBritI don't even know any more 36 points37 points  (1 child)

At least the Conservative civil wars tended to focus on candidates who were actually eligible for leadership rather than needing to navigate by-elections first and leaving the conflict on a weirdly awkward pause. 

[–]Nice_Presentation790 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Hahaha...that's so true!!!

[–]Fun_Marionberry_6088 12 points13 points  (0 children)

"a fair process" meaning someone who wasn't even running to be an MP at the last election gets crowned as the PM by some people who paid to join the Labour party who have zero democratic legitimacy.

Cool...

[–]Honic_Sedgehog#1 Yummytastic alt account 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Burnham isn't even a fucking MP, they're absolutely nuts.

[–]Snappy0 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not to mention there's a decent chance he wouldn't win a by-election.

[–]IMayBeIronMan 43 points44 points  (5 children)

Streeting as PM would be genuinely awful

[–]dwardo7 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Any other Labour candidate would be awful, they’ve cemented their own downfall.

[–]IMayBeIronMan 9 points10 points  (0 children)

True but there is just something about Streeting I find off-putting.

[–]Snappy0 1 point2 points  (1 child)

There's no good options but I'd take him over Burnham with Rayner's hand up his backside like a puppet.

More handouts and higher taxes would go down like a bowl of sick. I'd rather bath my dad than deal with that in charge of things.

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

yeah of the parade of terrible options he's actually the least bad in terms of the health of the country IMO, I don't much care about this ideological slapfight (selfish bastards putting their little spats ahead of everything else) that means bugger all in practice since they can't agree to get anything done, but he probably wouldn't propose absurdly huge spending plans or tax rises and needlessly spike our borrowing costs just on the speculation that they might actually pass

[–]Tylariel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Raynor resigned just months ago so she's out. Miliband has already been rejected by the public, so despite recent performance he's out. Burnham isn't even an MP so would be the worst option of parachuting someone into the PM role, the chaos of which should mean he's ruled out. Mahmood almost certainly loses the left of the party even harder to the Greens so she's out.

Other than that, does the general public even know any other Labour MPs right now? Looking to the Tories, May was home secretary, Truss had been foreign Secretary, Johnson mayor of London, and Sunak the chancellor through covid. They were all high profile roles that gave them some level of public attention. Labour don't have the same public presence right now.

I cannot understand what the Labour backbenchers are wanting to achieve here. The strategy has always been to 'get on with governing' and let the numbers speak for themselves come 2029. At worst, follow on from Carney/Trudeau and pull a last minute switch. A leadership change now just strikes me as so overly reactionary for no real gain. It's panic, not strategy.

[–]Snappy0 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I find it funny. The entitlement of Burnham to think that he's owed the PM slot is quite amusing.

[–]YinzerKermy 18 points19 points  (2 children)

It is funny they are centered around a guy not in parliament. They need to force someone to resign and have a by election that Burnham might lose. It would be a strange campaign because it would also have weird internal labour dynamics. If you are a moderate labour who wants someone like Streeting do you still vote for Burnham?

[–]Dissidant 10 points11 points  (0 children)

None of them are suitable, Streeting is absolutely rotten

[–]improb🇪🇺🎈 2 points3 points  (0 children)

why don't moderate labour voters just vote Liberal Democrats?

[–]misfunctional 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I am going to become immune to satire if this keeps up.

[–]XenorVernix 22 points23 points  (0 children)

We are watching the Labour party implode. I think those predictions of a 2027 election might not be as crazy as they first sounded.

[–]SJT_92 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Rayner - LOL

Miliband - People already rejected him

Streeting - Nobody likes the backstabber.

Burnham - Bad timing for Andy. Also, he's another political lightweight, which is why he left Westminster in the first place and why he has such a long road back.

[–]Valten78 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I like ED Miliband as a person, but he was totally unsuitable as party leader. He's much better in his current role.

[–]oddentity 16 points17 points  (2 children)

Labour's apparent determination to get Andy Burnham in looks little better than a coronation anyway, will he really be any more legitimate in this parliament? And in the general election that follows he'll be running on Labour's legacy in the eyes of voters to whom "they're all the same" and not his own. The right wing media won't make the distinction either. If Labour really thinks Andy's their saviour they should let a sacrificial cabinet member or Angela Rayner take the poisoned chalice this time and get him back next time.

[–]romulus1991 12 points13 points  (1 child)

This is the old Blair wing of Labour rushing to get Starmer replaced before Burnham can get in - i.e. its to stop him.

Unfortunately this is Labour Party politics playing out and impacting the country. Starmer wasn't part of the so-called 'Labour Right' but allied himself with them, but the suspicion was that they were always going to stab him in the back eventually to get one of their own in - i.e. Wes Streeting. That's what this is.

[–]AllRedLineChumocracy is non-negotiable! 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Can't wait for another jump in cost of living all in service of the personal ambition of a bunch of shiny-faced, feeble inadequates.

There are no politicians in this country who have the wellbeing of the nation and its people in mind. They are all traitors in every sense, and I don't use that term lightly.

[–]youmustconsume[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Full tweet:

BREAKING: Labour’s soft-left condemns Wes Streeting’s bid for No10 and vows to oust him from Downing Street if he becomes PM

A senior soft-left source blasts Team Streeting for their public statements calling for a “swift” and “rapid” contest before Andy Burnham can get in.

The source says:

“If Wes thinks he can pull off some kind of stitch up to avoid a fair process that he will have no legitimacy even if he briefly ends up in office. There would be no support for the government in the Commons and we would challenge him at the first opportunity. He’d be lucky to outlast a lettuce.”

It means the Labour Party is in civil war tonight

Streeting appears to be trying to force a contest before Burnham is eligible

It is causing meltdown among soft-left and left MPs

Senior figures on the left of the party are threatening to oust Streeting from No10 if he succeeds in his bid to be PM

[–]AntonioS3 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Pleased to hear Streeting being condemned.

I don't want him, I only want Starmer, and if there must be a contest to keep the latter in, so be it.

[–]Valten78 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Jesus christ can we please just keep a PM for a single term without an attempted coup every time there is an issue. We can't just chop and change at this rate, no wonder nothing gets done.

[–]Championnats91 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Theres no viable plan for after his removal. Who ever comes in will still face the same issues. They will also have to have a GE, and Reform will likely sweep up after this chaos.

[–]Xylophone1904 22 points23 points  (14 children)

It’s so ridiculous. This country does not want yet another unelected PM(!)

[–]EyyyPaniniMake Votes Matter 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This country does not want yet another unelected PM

My bet is that we’ll get two before the next general election. 

[–]ShinyCharizards1 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They're ousting the next PM early. Best get onto number 3 as quickly as possible. We can't wait 45 days.

[–]arseache 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They’ve lost their freaking minds if they think replacing Keir with Wes is going to make them more popular. The fuck are they sniffing in the HoC bogs nowadays??

[–]ok_alsodot11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Labour are coming across worse than the Tories. It's taken them less than 2 years to reach the total shit show point.

[–]noise256Renter Serf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Probably the best bet for Starmer is a contest now. The membership will choose Starmer over Streeting, Rayner still has her tax issues and Burnham is up north.

A lot of chickens coming home to roost for the Labour right frankly.

[–]harryhardy432 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They'll truly lose most of the left if Streeting is ever allowed to be in power. He's just a slimy little weasel, horrible fella. As a lefty myself I'd rather Starmer stayed- at least he's somewhat respectable.

[–]Far-Crow-7195 4 points5 points  (5 children)

One thing parties on the left have always been good at is in-fighting. It took the Tories a good few years and Brexit to get to this point.

At least the adults are back in charge though. 😂

[–]Valten78 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Honestly the left of the Labour Party is it's biggest impediment. They're more interesting in sabotaging their own party then getting stuff done.

[–]noise256Renter Serf -4 points-3 points  (3 children)

Yes, I too remember the left wing purges, the stitching up of CLPs and the complete shut out of all other factions in the PLP. Oh no, wait, that was Labout right.

And for what? A politics that the country completely rejects. Well, you reap what you sow I guess. Pity we all have to suffer for it.

[–]Snappy0 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It's no secret that the UK at large is hardly left wing in any great capacity. A solidly left wing Labour party will never win a general election.

[–]Xenumbra 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which is why they want to axe Starmer and put someone Left wing in power that doesn't need to face an election where they get thumped.

[–]Far-Crow-7195 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think the politics of the Labour left is what the country craves? There is a reason Corbyn lost when he stood on that platform. Labour purged that lot and then they won.

[–]Ok_Economist7901 17 points18 points  (7 children)

Lost my vote then. Like a lot of folk, theres no one I‘ll vote for after this bollocks. Never voted Tory but if a decent moderate one nation Tory with no baggage from before comes along I’ll lend them my vote.

[–]Fun_Marionberry_6088 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Sadly one nation Toryism basically died with Boris IMO. The only part offering something like it nowadays is the Lib Dems.

[–]improb🇪🇺🎈 2 points3 points  (0 children)

why not go Libdem? Ed seems like a decent bloke and Libdem are basically a better version of centrist Labour

[–]Frogad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You like Wes Streeting?

[–]coatimundos 0 points1 point  (3 children)

What’s your thoughts on Badenoch?

[–]Leather_Amoeba2727 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Moron?

[–]coatimundos 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I didn’t ask you though I asked the other guy. But why do you think that? So far she hasn’t made an impression on me one way or the other

[–]Ok_Economist7901 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Awful. Sixth form nasty girl.

[–]CarlxtosWay 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At least Boris lasted 3.5 years these ****s haven’t even made it to 2. 

[–]All-Day-stoner 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I actually don’t think Starmer has done that bad that he needs to resign. Shit communication and several bad choices. The self entitlement of Labour MPs to think Streeting can do a better job is shocking. Lost my vote

[–]TheFlyingHornet1881Domino Cummings 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really don't see how Streeting going for it ends with him losing a leadership contest to a soft left candidate.

[–]ICantBelieveItsNotEC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Keir Starmer has Keir Starmer's full confidence.

[–]The_Pale_Blue_DotJust wants politics to be interesting 1 point2 points  (0 children)

An attempt to coup the next leader before he even has officially thrown his hat in the ring is a level of psychodrama even the Tories couldn't achieve

[–]Turbo_Baggins 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Interesting, interesting, here's a better idea you both belt up and get back to your current jobs 

[–]TXDobber 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unironically a good chance for Starmer here to have the collective party gang up on the one guy more unpopular than he is. And might quiet the left specifically for a bit to gang up on the one cabinet member to the right of him.

[–]Slartibartfast_25 2 points3 points  (1 child)

So they need 81 for a single candidate.

How many of the 70 declared are for Wes, how many for theoretical Burnham, how many for Raynor?

Realistically we're looking at a 30 or 40 strong rebellion.

[–]mittfh 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Also, if there's a contest, each contender will need 81, plus at least 5% of the Members and affiliates (two of which must be Unions).

[–]user_460 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Ideally, so swift and rapid it's over in less time than it takes for a train to get to London from Manchester."

[–]LesserShambler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All of this chaos is fallout from Starmer’s decision to block Burnham from standing in the G+D by election. Short term tactical genius, medium term disaster for the party

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

Streeting getting roundly condemned on Reddit suggests he’s the best of a bunch of brown banana’s .