The vote for Burnham was more of an indication of how desperate people are to get rid of Starmer and his Totalitarian regime before he has the chance to completely sell us all out to his globalist friends and trap us all in the digital slavery world they are putting in place.
Im sure most people think a social media ban for U16 is a good idea, after all the nudge unit and SPBI have spent the last few years pushing the narrative alongside the recently exposed RICU unit to make people believe so, as they cynically exploited the death of a child to push through the online harms act it is strange how suddenly the concerns of the Molly Russell foundation and Ian Russell no longer matter as they oppose this ban.
Of course to ban social media for U16 will mean every person over 16 will have to prove who they are and that they are over 16 - digital ID will do nicely - thank you very much, meaning everything they say or post will be monitored and stored by the death cult that is Palantir, who Starmer is embedding in all of our major institutions. Say something they dont like, complain or expose their lies and you are banned from every platform forever and more than likely arrested and jailed, 12,500 people arrested in the UK last year for "posts", twice as many as the nearest other country and 35 times more than the dictatorship we are told is Russia.
He is a Traitor alongside his front bench and the other 6 who came before him, they should be in the Tower not the Houses of Parliament.
Yeah, the vote was anti-Starmer, but...........
How many of those who went for Reform, could name a single other MP of that party, than the one for Clacton? Very few I would imagine! They voted (indirectly) for Farage!
I've been a Labour member for over fifty years, and am far from happy with Starmer, as I've mentioned many times on this thread, but.......
The PM's days are numbered, and when he exits Downing Street, I for one, won't lose any sleep over it!
Spelly.
There's a report from Laura Kuenssberg on the Beeb's 'site, saying that " ------ we could be heading for our seventh PM in ten years" and " ----- his his exit seems more likely as the weekend goes on."
Will he fall on his sword, and seamlessly hand over the reins to the new Makerfield MP? Or........
Maybe there'll be a messy leadership election instead?
I will obviously have a vote if the latter transpires, but.......
For the good of the party I've been a member of for over five decades, and for the good of your / our / my nation, I would politely, but also strongly suggest, that he goes for the former, but.......
I'm not holding my breath!
Spelly.
@spelly Well it is looking increasingly likely that Starmer will be announcing his exit tomorrow, to enable the self-styled King of the North to take over. I reckon the left wing of the Party will be having something to say about that. There are already calls for an inquiry into the Labour Government's foreign policy ie Gaza - just why are the far left obsessed with Gaza, whilst ignoring other parts of the world where women and children are being killed every day? - and to put welfare before warfare.
Labour party members seem to forget that under Starmer's leadership, the Party was brought back from the brink following the disastrous Corbyn leadership and against all predictions, the Party won the 2024 election by a large majority. Whilst mistakes have been made along the way, the Government have been delivering on their manifesto promises, since elected in 2024.
Will Burnham offer anything different? I doubt it. He made more policy u-turns than Starmer has made in the run-up to the by-election. Just what different is he offering the country?
Will Starmer be standing in any leadership contest? I doubt it, but he should do. There should be a debate amongst candidates about what they are offering the Party and more importantly, the country, that is different to what the Starmer Government is delivering.
Starmer has been the subject of a constant character assassination in the right wing media and social media, as well as within the Labour Party. How long before Burnham is targeted? Will MPs, who care more about retaining their seats than the good of the country, be calling for a new Party leader in 12 months time?
My belief is that Labour members have pressed a self-destruct button and there will now be months of political in-fighting, which will make the Labour Party un-electable.
Interesting post mate!
You ask "Why are the left obsessed with Gaza?" Whilst I would challenge the "obsessed" word, what has happened in that part of the world (and has been eluded to on different threads on this very board) is horrendous.
Yeah, Starmer delivered the 2024 landslide, and walked through the front door of number ten with a huuuuuuuuuuge majority to work with, which (seats wise) he still retains, but the sparkle has gone out.
The increase in NI, was a huge own goal, as was the winter fuel payment cancellation. The latter has since been re-instated due to outside pressure, but it should never have happened in the first place in my (admittedly selfish) opinion. Both have brought hostility to the government, and that directly reflects on the person at the top.
Until Makerfield, Reform were on the rise, and whilst it's only one result, Burnham seems to have given Farage a bloody nose, so...............
I'll move the question on to.........................
"Have Reform peaked?"
I for one hope the answer is a huuuuuuuuuuge "YES!"
Burnham seems to have the Charisma that the PM lacks, so I'll reply to your "Will he be any different?" with "Let's wait and see!"
Labour un-electable? I'm old enough to remember when we were, but I would strongly suggest, we're not heading back in that direction!
It's 20.55 on Sunday evening as I bash this out, and the MP for Holborn and St Pancras is still the PM, but, will he be there tomorrow?
Spelly.
@spelly Totally agree that deaths in Gaza totally horrendous, but why aren't those Labour members railing against Israel for inhumane actions in Gaza also demonstrating on the streets against the actions of Hamas or Putin's illegal war in Ukraine or those involved in the Sudan Civil War or other conflicts around the world? Are the lives lost in those conflicts less important?
@spelly Totally agree that deaths in Gaza totally horrendous, but why aren't those Labour members railing against Israel for inhumane actions in Gaza also demonstrating on the streets against the actions of Hamas or Putin's illegal war in Ukraine or those involved in the Sudan Civil War or other conflicts around the world? Are the lives lost in those conflicts less important?
No lost lives are unimportant, and I have mentioned on this board what I think oif Netenyahu's actions, but...........
I agree the demonstrations are more about Gaza than any other, but.........
I would suggest they're not all lefties!
Got 5Live on as I type this in bed, and there's a link to Downing Street, and the suggetestion is that Starmer is about to stand down.
Spelly.
@spelly Totally agree that deaths in Gaza totally horrendous, but why aren't those Labour members railing against Israel for inhumane actions in Gaza also demonstrating on the streets against the actions of Hamas or Putin's illegal war in Ukraine or those involved in the Sudan Civil War or other conflicts around the world? Are the lives lost in those conflicts less important?
No lost lives are unimportant, and I have mentioned on this board what I think oif Netenyahu's actions, but...........
I agree the demonstrations are more about Gaza than any other, but.........
I would suggest they're not all lefties!
Got 5Live on as I type this in bed, and there's a link to Downing Street, *and the suggetestion is that Starmer is about to stand down.*
Spelly.
* He's resigned!"
Spelly.
... and the in-fighting begins.
How hypocritical (but politics) for the likes of Jesse Phillips,with a grin on her face, saying she wanted Starmer to step down "with dignity", whilst at the same time stabbing him in the back.
Whether or not the King of the North is crowned, the back-benchers and particularly those on the left of the Party have tasted blood. They will demand a subservient leader, who will put Party interests before country, under the threat of another dignified/forced step-down next year.
Things moving on a pace already!
Watching the BBC News (there are benefits to being retired!) and they've just announced that Streeting is not gonna stand for leader, so..........
Are we heading for a coronation, rather than a messy battle for the top job?
Spelly.
And so, nutty Nigel is now calling for a general election eh? Why?
Two years ago, the British people democratically elected a Labour government to serve for five years, so why should this change just because the number one guy is standing down?
Johnson, May, and Truss all resigned, and I wasn't whinging about going to the country. Is it any different now Starmer has fallen on his sword? Absolutely not!
It's looking more and more like we're heading for a coronation, rather than a contest for Starmer's replacement, but it's not set in stone yet.
Spelly.
@spelly Well 1) clearly because it's self serving, but 2) he's calling out the hypocrisy of Rayner and others who said there should be a general election after Sunak walked into the job a few years ago.
Interesting argument either way, but those previous tweets (That last forever) will try and be swept under the carpet.
If people vote for the person there should be, if you vote for the party there shouldn't? I don't think there will be too much change policy wise, but I just hope he doesn't give Ed Milliband the job of Chancellor. He would be even worse than Reeves!
@spelly Just like nutty Nigel, Burnham, Raynor and other Labour luminaries were demanding a general election after each change in the Tory leadership. This demand wasn't right then and it is not right now. The country elected individual MPs standing on a Party manifesto, not a Prime Minister.
If Burnham or anyone else were to come in and turn the Party in a completely different direction on policy, that demand would have more validity. That is why I agree that when an MP crosses the House to join another Party, they should be required to stand in a by-election.
I still think that the far left in the Party will put up a candidate if they can muster the 80 MPs. At least then, Burnham will have to spell out in debates what he is actually bringing to the table other than smiles, empty promises and u-turns.
Just a thought, but didn't Burnham's jubilant entry into Parliament yesterday look like the annual convention of a religious cult, with manic smiles on the faces of those escorting him in and others on the Labour benches. I was half expecting Burnham to lead them in a hymn.
@spelly 1) Just like nutty Nigel, Burnham, Raynor and other Labour luminaries were demanding a general election after each change in the Tory leadership. This demand wasn't right then and it is not right now. The country elected individual MPs standing on a Party manifesto, not a Prime Minister.
If Burnham or anyone else were to come in and turn the Party in a completely different direction on policy, that demand would have more validity. 2) That is why I agree that when an MP crosses the House to join another Party, they should be required to stand in a by-election.
3) I still think that the far left in the Party will put up a candidate if they can muster the 80 MPs. At least then, Burnham will have to spell out in debates what he is actually bringing to the table other than smiles, empty promises and u-turns.
4) Just a thought, but didn't Burnham's jubilant entry into Parliament yesterday look like the annual convention of a religious cult, with manic smiles on the faces of those escorting him in and others on the Labour benches. I was half expecting Burnham to lead them in a hymn.
1) A you say, yes they did, but no there wasn't, so Farage's call is similarly totally out of order!
2) Couldn't agree more with you on that scenario! I've advocated it for years!
3) I would think not, but time will tell.
4) Wouldn't take it as far as the "religious cult" that you suggest. My thought was "It's just a rehearsal for the coronation pictures!"
Spelly.
The constitution of the country is very clear, we do not elect a leader, we elect MP's to represent our constituency, the PM , traditionally appointed by the monarch was the one who commanded the greatest respect across the house
There is nothing to say the Government has to be formed only by members of the largest party or affiliation , any MP from any party or independent can be part of the Government if appointed. If those parties that run on manifestos stuck to their promises then there would be no issue with changing the PM as it should be a seamless transition but this country is in the mess it is in because of the legislations and policies implemented that were not in any manifestos, not voted for and against the wishes of the vast majority of the population.
Our Governments seem to have forgotten that they are elected to Govern, not to rule or impose their narrowminded ideologies on the population, Brexit is the perfect example, it doesnt matter if you agree with it or not, the public voted to leave the EU yet for 10 years half of elected MP's have fought tooth and nail to sabotage it and reverse the decision so who do they represent ?, certainly not the people of the UK.
There isnt an issue that this country faces that isnt as a direct result of Government policies that were never in any "manifesto" or as a result of countless failed policies that they imposed against the majority will.