Sir Keir Starmer’s authority is fading markedly after yet another scandal but an alternative candidate, such as Andy Burnham, could struggle to force a contest

I think they should move before the May elections if they’re serious. They shouldn’t wait till a terrible defeat forces them to act, especially if - as looks likely - Reform will be the beneficiaries of that defeat.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    7·
    2 days ago

    Andy Burnham can’t be a candidate for MP, he doesn’t even have a seat. So he’d have to find a seat in a recently vacated constituency, and I don’t think they’re currently is any, win that seat, and then immediately challenge Starmer for leadership despite not having a cabinet position.

    I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s extremely unlikely for all those things to happen before 2030.

    Also he’s relatively unknown outside of Manchester. So he’d have to have a big PR drive.

    • frankPodmore@slrpnk.netOPMEnglish
      1·
      1 day ago

      Also he’s relatively unknown outside of Manchester. So he’d have to have a big PR drive.

      Within the party, he’s very well-known, and running for PM is its own PR drive! But yeah, you are correct that the obstacles are considerable.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        2·
        1 day ago

        I wonder how many of his supporters are actually registered with the party. Traditionally there’s not been a lot of point registering with labour, them not being in power for so long.

        Also it’d be unlikely Starmer would endorse him so even if there was a free constituency, how would he get to be a labour candidate?

        • frankPodmore@slrpnk.netOPMEnglish
          1·
          1 day ago

          Yeah, the leadership have a pretty tight grip on who gets to run. If they suspect Burnham’s coming back to Westminster in order to take down the leadership, they can just block him from the candidacy. That comes with its own risks, but it’s obviously the best way to protect the leadership, so that’s what they’ll do!

    • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
      4·
      2 days ago

      Also he’s relatively unknown outside of Manchester

      Is he? The king in da naaarth? Unknown? That’s virtually regicide you’re talking, fella!

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        3·
        2 days ago

        Well apparently I’m not from the north because when I ask my parents about him they said who? So he obviously doesn’t have as much reach.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
          3·
          2 days ago

          I’m about as southern as you can get. Yet know about him. As far as I can tell. Pretty much anyone with more then minimal interest in politics would recognise his name. Certainly anyone within Labour as his name as come up for leadership a few times.

    • Oli@mastodon.world
      2·
      2 days ago

      @echodot @frankPodmore
      I believe there is a safe (safe’ish) labour seat in Manchester where the current Labour MP may “chose” to resign on grounds like ill-health

      That takes care of being an MP - everything else depends on whether the right of labour continue to prefer the prospect of defeat to the prospect of compromising with the left of the party

      I suspect the right of Labour would prefer death to anything close to socialism

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      Technically. While it’s very much assumed. And has never happened in modern history.

      That being an MP is required is very debatable. Parliamentary rules state must site in commons But that is not the same as representing a constituency. The siting rule relates more to it no longer allowing a member of lords. As it did historically.

      Labour rules require the leader to be an MP. As dose the Conservatives. But parliament only assumes the PM will lead the party. It is not a requirement. Not to mention Labours leadership is very able to change rules when wanted.

      It’s never happened and likely never will. But the only real rules are a PM must exist. They must have the confidence of parliament. And are required to sit/occupy parliament. Not having the right to vote would Def cause issues. But it’s fun to consider how messed up parliamentary rules Vs traditions etc can get.

  • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
    31·
    2 days ago

    Unfortunately the majority of Labour MPs still support the ideals and plans of the Blue Labour leader Starmer.

    So a leadership challenge is not going to change anything. The labour right did to good a job of everything they suggested the left would do. Wipping out opposition.

    A leadership change can only end up with another leader owned and run by the wealthy and opposed to any reequalizing of our economy.

    As long as our government is opposed to accepting the inequality in our economy is the issue. Things for the not wealthy will only get worse. Giving the far right more opportunity to sell their false ideas. With 0 opposition.

    Meanwhile the gap between economic growth going to the wealthy over the working class will continue to grow.