After a day when a great deal happened in Labour Party politics, and at the same time nothing very much happened at all, I have little choice but to talk about this topic.
Let's summarise the situation. Keir Starmer was the Prime Minister in the morning. Keir Starmer was the Prime Minister in the evening.
At lunchtime, Wes Streeting resigned as health secretary but did not mount a leadership challenge. I am quite sure that was for two very good reasons.
The first is that he does not have the support required from Labour MPs to start a leadership challenge.
The second is that he has, like everyone else, read the opinion polls on this issue, which I shared here yesterday, which show that he has almost no chance of winning a Labour leadership election and, as a consequence, resigned to save face but did not start a leadership challenge because he knows there is no way on earth that he could win it.
In that sense, yesterday resolved a question. Streeting is not going to be the next leader of Labour.
Then, in the late afternoon, Josh Simons MP, one of the most unsavoury people, in my opinion, to have become a Labour MP in recent years, resigned his Makerfield seat in Manchester to provide Andy Burnham with a chance of standing to win that seat in a by-election, opening the route for Burnham to become Labour leader if he could then successfully raise a challenge to Keir Starmer.
There are, it should be pointed out, an enormous number of conditional factors implicit in this process.
First, Labour has to let Andy Burnham stand, and they did not earlier this year, and may not do so now, although Starmer has apparently changed his mind and will let him run.
Second, Burnham has to win the by-election, and there is absolutely no guarantee that he will do so. He might have won in every single ward in the constituency in the last election in which he stood for mayor of Manchester, but the simple fact is that, in the recent council by-elections, every single ward in the seat voted Reform on a first-past-the-post basis. What is more, the Labour majority in the seat has been going down for decades. Makerfield was once a safe Labour seat, but now looks to be decidedly marginal. Whether Labour can win here now is very uncertain, and any serious vote for the Greens would seriously upset Andy Burnham's chances, and that vote is a possibility given the recent result in Gorton and Denton, also in Manchester. There is, then, no straight route back to Parliament.
But, presuming that Burnham could get to Parliament, he would still need the support of 81 Labour MPs. He appears very confident of that. Then, and only then, it seems, could he stand for the Labour leadership. Starmer says he will also stand in any such election, and I think it would be most unwise to rule out the possibility that someone else would as well.
Given how impossible the situation for Wes Streeting is now, there are only two such choices. The first is Angela Rayner, but she appears to be a much diminished person as a consequence of her problems over stamp duty and subsequent resignation as a minister and deputy Prime Minister. I cannot see people rallying around her.
What I do not rule out is a run from Ed Miliband. Why? Because Andy Burnham is undoubtedly from the right of the Labour Party, although people like to call him soft left, and his track record is not good, nor are the current associations that are letting him stand.
He voted for the Iraq war way back in the Blair era. As health secretary in 2009, he was involved in NHS privatisation, which is not a good sign, nd the fact that Josh Simons has resigned for him does not look good.
Josh Simons ran Labour Together before entering parliament. This entity was, of course, closely associated with the rise of Morgan McSweeeney and was fined by the Electoral Commission for fundraising activities that it did not declare during his era. Simons appears to have been his chosen successor, and whilst he ran it, the organisation ran investigations into campaigns against left-wing journalists criticising the Labour Party, whilst Simons is closely associated with Labour Friends of Israel. He is, then, incredibly close to the Mandelson / McSweeney project, of which his resignation just feels another part.
That then suggests that Andy Burnham is nothing more than a continuity candidate, and a straight replacement for Starmer.
Certainly, when he stood for leader in 2015, he said and did nothing to make him stand out from the bland opponents of Corbyn at that time. His policies, his economics, and his offerings were all truly neoliberal to their very core. He was deeply critical of the economic ideas of mine that Corbyn used to help him secure his win.
Would Miliband stand against Burham then? I genuinely don't know, but my point is a very clear one. If he doesn't, I doubt that anybody from the left (if we can still describe Ed Miliband as being on the left of the party) might do so, and this leadership contest will do nothing to save the party, its election prospects, or prevent its demise.
And all of this speculation assumes that Burnham can beat Reform now. If he can't, Miliband might get a run, and he is certainly a better prospect than Burnham, but the scale of the challenge from Reform would then be known and be decidedly sobering, at least as far as Labour is concerned, because in that case, everyone would know that voting for Labour would be no way to beat Reform.
We are set for a few interesting weeks of politics. What we are not set to get are answers to any real questions, or an understanding of where politics might be going beyond the fact that it looks like Labour remains in its death throes and has no way to shake them off.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Ed Milliband is well liked within the PLP and he understands the climate challenges we face. And he doesn’t want power. Out of the options we could do a lot worse. He may not be exciting but he has coherent views and experience and could step straight into the role. Whilst currently in the cabinet he’s not been involved in the dreadful media rounds defending the indefensible.
An inquiring journalist needs to find the money and follow it. MP pay plus benefits and pensions is around £100k a year. The exact amount isn’t important but Josh Simons is foregoing 300k of income by stepping down, possibly 800k if he fancied his chances of holding his seat in 2029. He’s not going to have decided to step down out of altruism, he’ll be getting compensated.
A football manager or academic leaving their position early by agreement usually negotiates for the majority of their contracted years to be paid out.
So who is compensating Josh Simons, how much, and where did they get the money from?
I would have thought Josh Simons would have been promised the first available seat to return to Westminster and a department and even a peerage.
Of course he is probably already on the Israeli payroll and bonuses in some form are highly likely.
These are really valid questions, sadly, like Labour Together, I suspect such transparency will only happen after intense investigation.
I had asked this question when the rumours about Burnham’s search were doing the rounds. You must assume that ermine is the offer for standing aside. I think it proves that these people are incredibly out of touch. You would throw away £300k on the whim that the polls can be defied. As Lucy Porter observed on the News Quiz the other week, Good Luck with that.
Richard I would add to your comment “ Josh Simons MP, one of the most unsavoury people, in my opinion, to have become a Labour MP in recent years”. He is near the top of a very long list. When he resigned, as a minister, it seemed odd how easily he stood aside. You have to wonder if running Labour Together had guaranteed a peerage already and standing aside with such ease, speeds up the process, avoiding the tiresome work required to deal with constituents. That assumes if he had ever done much for his voters. Democracy is just an inconvenience to people like him. If by some miracle Burnham does get elected no doubt a gong will add to ermine. Ker Ching.
Richard I think your opinion, unsavoury people, is backed up by reading his Wikipedia entry. You did mention it in your piece but I would actively encourage commentators to look at the turnout and majority of this page.
Makerfield (constituency) – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makerfield_(constituency)
I interpret the tide as turning when Blair turned up.
Lets hope the Greens can find another Hannah Spencer and really turn over the apple cart.
Thank you
@Ian Baker,
If the paymasters/mentors (and we know who they are) are mapping this out, Starmer will be able to ‘decorate’ Symons well in his departure honours. Not long to wait. Then Lord Symons will be able to claim enormous benefits in the other house and continue the paymasters’ work there.
And undoubtedly he will take on chairmanships and directorships and be a very comfortable bloke.
I listened to a bit of Any Questions today and was sickened to hear
1. Full agreement that the triple lock should be done away with as Michael Gove so badly wanted. Never mind that those who contracted to a reasonable pension have had their age threshold raised, and that without other lucrative occupational pensions won’t be able to eat or keep warm this winter, in spite of a lifetime of contributing.
2. That young people should no longer be encouraged to go to university but to take up a trade so they can get work more quickly and without student debt. All very nice for the 1% who will benefit from their labours. And this, in spite of the incredible social turnaround that came when intelligent, capable working class children were liberated from the strictures of their parents, some of whom had to leave school as young children to earn for the family.
Reverse gear, accelerator down and backwards we go…
@ Roseanne
Somebody else mentioned Question Time in another thread. I finally listen to it over the weekend.
What you say is spot on. Back to your opening comments, Lord Danny Finkelstein’s opening remark was I believe in the household analogy.
His stupidity reminded me of something
edsigalaClassic – Not the Nine O’Clock News – I Believe…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmWLJmbytkk
It was bad enough Stephanie Flanders proving her neoliberal beliefs, Yes PPE Oxford with Yvette Cooper. But Alex Forsyth points out that Nigel Farage says it was for security or doing Brexit or what ever his latest excuse will be. No mention of that BBC report about the household analogy.
For those who didn’t have the ‘pleasure’ of listening the question we are both talking about is between 24 and 39 minutes.
BBC Radio 4 – Any Questions?, Lord Finkelstein, Stephanie Flanders, Layla Moran MP, Mike Tapp MP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002w8cv
Thank you
Given that Josh Simons is a creature (as you say, unsavoury) of the Labour-together cabal, I wonder if the plan is to allow Burnham to run, but block any campaign funding. To help Reform defeat him, and consequently eliminate him as a challenger. It’s quite likely that McSweeney/ Mandelson are still pulling the strings behind the scenes.
My suspicions run along similar lines. Simons is certainly not to be trusted.
I would not be surprised by Miliband or Rayner. Rayner has conveniently just been cleared by the investigation, and more clearly represents the left of the party than Starmer, etc.
Possibly most importantly, whether a successor is Burnham, Miliband or Rayner, In would expect Reeves to be gone, and my hope then (particularly if Miliband or Rayner win) would be that her replacement is at least somewhat less of a financial market sock puppet.
Miliband will be destroyed by the media……..again. What happened to that headstone he had made with his pledges on it? I think that you will find it is standing on his political career already. John Warren used to tell us rightly about how it was the party political system these days screws up British politics and became THE political system to stop change, never mind what happened in Parliament – the parties are the battle ground really and that is bad because they are even less accountable to the public than through parliament. This is why so much is riding on the Greens and why Reform is benefiting.
My view is that Labour needs to split. It would be however too honest for many in it to accept. The pretence that you can compromise with extreme capitalism will remain, and those who believe this whilst voted into power by us will continue to be corrupted by money.
Reading and listening to Clive Lewis this week was a relief. He signified that there are those of us who know that there are better possibilities. That might be all we can take for now. Matt Frei’s interview with him and then C4 New’s almost satirical slot on the Labour party portrayed Labour as an unserious joke of a party. It was both true but also appalling, because it further damaged Labour and propels people towards what exactly – Reform – the Tories – both?
We can only keep following Clives example and keep talking up the other possibilities like the politics of care.
Let’s go back a square and plot the direct line showing how we’ve got to this situation.
Starmer is in No 10 because of the Labour Right’s destructive actions in 2018/2019, and McSweeney’s (and Mandelson’s) crusade to destroy those they hated and then put Starmer in power. Both those are probably more connected than we yet know.
Those two major players are now deeply disgraced. One faces criminal charges. Starmer’s judgement – or lack of it – in relying on them so heavily is the primary reason for his current plight. This, along with his lack of empathy, charisma bypass and no visible internal values system, is what made M&M select him as “their” man.
Starmer’s inability to make sound judgements has been glaringly obvious in almost all his decisions as PM. Hence the U turns, embarrassing own goals and inept missteps. Hence where we are right now.
Bearing all that in mind, does anyone anywhere seriously believe that Starmer will make the right judgement about standing down as PM?? I think not.
He will simply continue to fiddle with the papers in his in-tray while “his” party – and the country – goes down in flames.
I really do struggle to understand the motivation of a Starmer, a McSweeney and a Streeting. Reform politicians are a collection of grifters, racists and racist gtifters. Conservatives are looking to enhance their status and future business prospects, and probably also believe that things ought to be done in a certain way. Green politicians and those on the left (if any remain) of the Labour party are, primarily I believe, ideologically motivated to try and improve our government.
What is Starmer/McSweeney/Streeting doing? If he just wanted to be PM for the status, why not be a Tory? If they want to provide better government, why do the lack political convictions, or default to policies that have been implemented for decades without success? What do they want?
I suppose the question for Labour members in a future leadership contest is whether the potential Starmer replacements are as politically empty as him, or actually possess real political convictions. We might actually have to go all the way back to Thatcher to find a PM who governed from a place of ideological convictions (all the wrong ones unfortunately). Brown perhaps also did have political convictions, but he never governed as though he did…
I really don’t understand the centre/right of Labour. It makes no sense to me why these people are involved in politics.
You characterise Andy Burnham as of the right, but he did say that the Government should not feel beholden to the Bond Markets, and indeed the markets are apparently getting anxious about the prospect of him making it through all the challenges you outlined to become the PM.
Apparently the PM can cause the by-election to be delayed for potentially months. Even past the next Labour Party conference. Normally the chief whip would schedule the by-election within 3 months, but 3 months puts it into the parliament recess period, so would be delayed further.
Meanwhile, if Burnham has to resign as Mayor first (not clear whether it is from now, or whether he can wait until he is nominated as the Labour Party candidate for the constituency, or even can delay until/if he is elected), Reform could win the next Mayor election, which will probably turn a big chunk of the Labour Party off Burnham as the cause of that loss.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-combined-authority-mayoral-elections/what-you-need-know-you-stand-a-candidate/qualifications-and-disqualifications-standing-election-pcc/disqualifications/members-parliaments-and-assemblies
If you are successfully elected as the combined authority mayor where the combined authority mayor takes on the functions of the police [fire] and crime commissioner and you subsequently become a member of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd, the Northern Ireland Assembly or any legislature outside the UK, you are automatically disqualified from holding office as a combined authority mayor and the office of combined authority mayor would become vacant.
So there’s no legal obligation on him to resign before becoming a candidate in the by-election. Indeed he could hedge his bets by not resigning, then if he loses the by-election he can just carry on as mayor of Greater Manchester. Whether the Labour NEC would agree with that is a different matter.
At least there is a chance of change, Burnham seems to have the backing of the left of the party so maybe he no longer believes in neoliberalism.
Milliband is of Jewish heritage and sympathetic to Labour Friends of Israel and has against boycotts and sanctions. His grandmother lived in Israel after fleeing Europe. He has not labelled the genocide in Gaza as such. Difficult to imagine that he would be able to take a position against the LFI stranglehold on Labour.
It seems obvious from the recent English local elections Welsh and Scottish elections that voters are turning to Reform, Green or nationalist. Therefore Burnham or any other Labour candidate will stand a very slim chance of being elected again, let alone getting a Labour Prime Minister who will stand any chance in the 2029 General Election.
Another potential reason for Streeting not to make his formal leadership bid yesterday is that politicians who do that, don’t have a great record of winning.
You could end up with the potential candidates, despite having openly manoeuvred themselves into a position to stand, each wanting one of the others to be the one who sticks the metaphorical knife in. A kind of game of “you go first”, “no, no you go first”
For anybody who thought Angela Rayner might be a fags papers width better than the other potential runners see the middle section of Double Down News Newswatch
Double Down News – What The UK Did is SHOCKING & no one’s allowed to talk about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl9LKnyAVmc