Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Streeting has resigned. More importantly he's now saying that there should be an orderly transition and the broadest range of voices competing for the leadership (ie Burnham).

That basically means everyone opposing Starmer - publicly that's over 100 backbenchers, all the affiliated unions and privately even more backbenchers and reportedly two thirds of the cabinet - have now united around a single position. Very difficult to see how Starmer resists this given that key to his pushback was basically taking advantage of the division between his opponents.

Edit: Incidentally I think two reads on this. The most likely on my view is that there's probably been some conversations and Streeting isn't stupid so there's some form of deal/understanding. The more Machiavellian is that he expects Starmer to dig in further and still block Burnham either via the Chief Whip delaying any by-election or using his majority on the NEC to block Burnham from standing. That would then precipitate a crisis and all the anger would refocus on Starmer which could present a blameless path for Streeting.

[Josquius]

I don't know what Streeting is playing at. He's basically all of the bad points about starmer.... But more.
Even if Burnham doesn't run (seems unlikely with the time line) there's several other candidates talked of who are preferable to Streeting.

[mongers]

Starmer may have been infected with the delusion virus from close contact with the orange buffoon, so quite likely he'll dig his feet in and refuse to co-operate.

Perhaps preferring to pull the holy temple of labour majority government, down around his ears?

[Sheilbh]

I think anyone who becomes leader of a party, far less PM, probably needs to be almost psychopathically resilient. Constant media scrutiny, all your colleagues want to replace you, everything comes back to you, only getting the most difficult/edge case decisions etc.

I think psychologically leaders need to be able to just shrug that off. I also think in the case of Starmer one thing that has been said a lot is that he is very hard working and very competitive (and as he put it about his five-a-side persona, "a hard bastard").

I've also read a few times that he genuinely thinks he is good at being PM (just not as strong on communication or politics) and would be better than all of the alternatives. I think in part it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of political leadership v being in charge of a large organisation, but I think that is probably his view.

Honestly in a lot of ways - and he will hate this - I think he resembles Boris Johnson. A shopping trolley on policy, massive majority but no drive/focus, everything is someone else's fault so someone else will always resign and, as Helen Thomson and David Runciman flagged (and the left have been saying for six years), a spectacular level of political dishonesty.

[Josquius]

He's the opposite of Johnson surely? All substance, zero style.

[garbon]

He's the opposite of Johnson surely? All substance, zero style.

What substance?

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I think there's zero substance just the image/style of it. He comes across as a technocrat, serious etc but there's no there there.

[crazy canuck]

He's the opposite of Johnson surely? All substance, zero style.

What substantive policy does he have?

[Sheilbh]

Feels very over. Josh Simon (who had to resign as minister after revelations he'd commissioned opposition research/smears on investigative journalists) has said it's time for an "orderly transition". He was head of Labour Together a questionably funded think tank that was very close to Morgan McSweeney and basically provided the staff for Starmer's leadership campaign (and also played a huge role in selecting parliamentary candidates).

Wow it's all going House of Cards. This guy who was key to Starmer's rise and close to McSweeney is the guy who will stand down so Burnham can run in his seat.

I assume (especially with Streeting's move earlier) that this means the soft left and Labour right have done a deal to oust Starmer - with union blessing.

Edit: In fact this is so surprising that I'm seeing conspiracy theories that this is a plot by the Labour right Basically this is a Reform-Labour area that currently Reform would be favoured to win so Burnham may not even get in - I think this is London people underestimating Burnham's personal popularity in the Notth-West.

But also that he might prefer a Labour-Green seat to pitch left. I think that's wrong too and misreads Burnham. But also I think it's entirely the wrong way of looking at what Labour need to fix post-Starmer. I'd add that I actually think in the North-West many Labour-Green seats will have a large Muslim population and I think the break of many Muslim voters from Labour is more permanent - so I'm not actually sure that type of seat would be "easier".

[garbon]

I see Rayner now cleared so back in play.

[PJL]

Yeah I think there's zero substance just the image/style of it. He comes across as a technocrat, serious etc but there's no there there.

Yes, that's been my thinking as well re Starmer, it's been less of a Labour government than a technocratic one.

[Josquius]

He's the opposite of Johnson surely? All substance, zero style.

What substantive policy does he have?

https://fullfact.org/government-tracker/

Fair bit of small but positive stuff behind the scenes.
The main problem is this just isn't communicated at all.

They could be doing more too of course. Should be making some big changes like democratic reform, killing the water companies and getting a move on with the planning system.
But stuff is happening.

Stark contrast to johnsons talk about ridiculous big things and not doing anything.

[mongers]

He's the opposite of Johnson surely? All substance, zero style.

What substantive policy does he have?

https://fullfact.org/government-tracker/

Fair bit of small but positive stuff behind the scenes.
The main problem is this just isn't communicated at all.

They could be doing more too of course. Should be making some big changes like democratic reform, killing the water companies and getting a move on with the planning system.
But stuff is happening.

Stark contrast to johnsons talk about ridiculous big things and not doing anything.

Though Jess Philips's criticism of him using Woman's rights as a fig-leaf is telling.

[mongers]

Also Burnham on his way:

Shortly after 17:00 BST, Labour's Makerfield MP Josh Simons announced that he was resigning to make way for Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham to seek a return to Parliament.

Here's what followed:

In his statement, Simons said his decision had "not been easy" but that Burnham could "drive the change" he says the UK needs
A few minutes later, Burnham confirmed that he would be seeking permission from Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) to stand in the seat
Burnham said he was looking to "bring the change we have brought to Greater Manchester to the whole of the UK"

[Sheilbh]

What substantive policy does he have?

So I think this is part of the interesting side here and sort of to Jos' point. It's why I'd also push back on Valmy's shift left view - I think it's more complex.

Because there is a policy list here which is basically soft left. The government's raised taxes by £40 billion taxing employers, capital gains, dividends and private school. That has gone on public spending (overwhelmingly the NHS and overwhelmingly on higher pay deals for NHS workers). They've altered the fiscal rules to allow for an extra £100 billion capital spending across this parliament. There's the Renters Rights and Employment Rights Act which are significant. They are slowly re-nationalising railways. They've further embedded Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund which are backing publicly owned renewables projects. They've abolished hereditary peers. They've recognised the Palestinian state and put an embargo on arms exports to Israel (save for parts bound up in multi-party/multi-national contracts which we can't block).

Oex is going to bully me over this (and rightly so) but it is where narrative and strategy kind of matter. Starmer is famously dismissive of "the vision stuff" but I think a politician with an interest in that part of the job - leader as teacher - could easily put this together and actually say the impact/change is coming. But also Starmer let his operation be run by factional hacks - so while they're doing that policy agenda his operation was focused on, as The Economist putit, "hippy-punching". It was always about factionally beating up the left and in terms of comms the message was (inconsistently, unconvincingly and terribly) "I hate the left and am a patriotic fiscal conservative". I think successful politicians are often the ones who are good at resolving/uniting contradictions and Starmer just heightened them which is why both the Labour right and the soft left are moving against him (and look like they're working together).

I would add that I think there's issues with that policy agenda that I don't think this government/the Labour Party is comfortable with. I think part of that is how America-brained we are and not realising that the Tories are not the Republicans. So in 14 years of Tory rule they increased the minimum wage from 40% of median wage (which is a European average) to 65% of median wage (which is only matched by France). Similarly after 14 years of Tory rule taxes were at a post-war record high - we have serious fiscal constraints but that's not from tax cuts but from massive costs of furlough during covid and an enormous (5% of GDP) intervention to cap energy costs in 2022. On top of that Labour have increased payroll taxes, business taxes, andemploymet law obligations and are now shocked to find themselves presiding over higher levels of youth unemployment than we've seen in decades as well as a crisis in low-margin sectors (like hospitality) (Edit: I'd add that a discussion in Labour on how to help address this is basically to give money to those sectors which is just another sector in which we'd introduce the British disease of restricting supply and subsidising demand - e.g. same pattern in the housing market, catastrophically). So I think there is a criticism from both the Labour right and left on this all - and in my view both are kind of right (and I think this is why I reject the tilt left/target the Greens v tilt right/target Reform dichotomy).