Starmer to Meet Streeting After Four Ministers Quit

Starmer.....its time to go...you had your 15 minutes and you blew it!

He's done. Untenable. He looks shellshocked. All respect and authority gone. Deeply despised by the public and his party. A figure of ridicule.

Lets hope he stays. He's destroying Labour. Let him continue as long as possible.

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

He's done. Untenable. He looks shellshocked. All respect and authority gone. Deeply despised by the public and his party. A figure of ridicule.

Lets hope he stays. He's destroying Labour. Let him continue as long as possible.

For a change, I agree with your final point. Leaving now would be pointless as there is no replacement. I'm not even sure Labour are ruthless enough to kick him out, like the Tories did with Johnson and Truss.

It's the King's speech today and the start of a new parliamentary term. Maybe this time the "reset" will work 🙄

25 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

For a change, I agree with your final point. Leaving now would be pointless as there is no replacement. I'm not even sure Labour are ruthless enough to kick him out, like the Tories did with Johnson and Truss.

It's the King's speech today and the start of a new parliamentary term. Maybe this time the "reset" will work 🙄

Despite knowing it ain't going to happen, I might still watch the King's Speech to see if Charles gives Starmer the 2-fingered send off!

47 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

He's done. Untenable. He looks shellshocked. All respect and authority gone. Deeply despised by the public and his party. A figure of ridicule.

Lets hope he stays. He's destroying Labour. Let him continue as long as possible.

The problem of Starmer destroying the labour party if he stays being, the labour party has already destroyed much of the UK business through punitive taxes. With thousands out of work and the clowns in charge giving out welfare like confetti, if left to carry on as they are, the UK will be bankrupt before the end 2028. Another note left on the treasury desk to say there is no money left, would be the biggest understatement of the past two centuries.

12 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

Despite knowing it ain't going to happen, I might still watch the King's Speech to see if Charles gives Starmer the 2-fingered send off!

Would be very nice to see. He was very subtle with putting one over on Trump, who still doesn't see it.

Latest reports suggest that Starmer is not going any time soon. He has a huge majority in the House, and no obvious/viable replacement.

1 minute ago, Surasak said:

The problem of Starmer destroying the labour party if he stays being, the labour party has already destroyed much of the UK business through punitive taxes. With thousands out of work and the clowns in charge giving out welfare like confetti, if left to carry on as they are, the UK will be bankrupt before the end 2028. Another note left on the treasury desk to say there is no money left, would be the biggest understatement of the past two centuries.

The problem is that whoever replaces Starmer will likely cause even more damage. Especially Rayner or Milliband. Both are mad as a box of frogs. Streeting might be slightly less damaging but he's too right wing for the loony back benches.

Either way once again we see that the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.

Electing Labour has proven catastrophic to Britain just as I warned.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

He's done. Untenable. He looks shellshocked. All respect and authority gone. Deeply despised by the public and his party. A figure of ridicule.

Lets hope he stays. He's destroying Labour. Let him continue as long as possible.

As I said in a recent post:

Starmer is a humourless apparatchik with the charisma of a rock and Labour are hopelessly riven by internal divisions over policy. Their victory in 2024 wasn't a reprise of Blair and 1997. At least back then they had some sense of who constituted the 'average' Labour voter and what concerned said voter.

They may still know that, but nowadays they also have to pander to the vocal minorities on trans rights, 'islamophobia' or whatever. As well as kow-towing to Milliband's net zero self harm (not that he cares, living in a big house in Tufnell Park with Hampstead Heath and 'nice shops' - his words - nearby).

The good people of Sunderland have the measure of Starmer and today's Labour party:

“We get a lot of ex-miners, factory workers and bus drivers in here, and the phrase they all use is: ‘I’m never going to vote Labour again as long as I’ve got a hole in my arse.’”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/08/reform-wins-across-northern-england-overturn-decades-labour-control

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The problem is that whoever replaces Starmer will likely cause even more damage. Especially Rayner or Milliband. Both are mad as a box of frogs. Streeting might be slightly less damaging but he's too right wing for the loony back benches.

Either way once again we see that the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.

Electing Labour has proven catastrophic to Britain just as I warned.

Labour has always been a catastrophe for Britain, the majority of people are only now beginning to realise it.

4 minutes ago, Surasak said:

Labour has always been a catastrophe for Britain, the majority of people are only now beginning to realise it.

No, the majority is not tending to vote for a right wing Nazi.

Also, there is no replacement for Starmer. Not even on the long run because you need most of Labour behind you. Streeting won't get it at present

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

no obvious/viable replacement.

Therein lies the nub of the problem, I think, It's all very well for Labour MP's to keep banging on about the need for Starmer to outline a plan for his succession, as a fair few are doing, but this situation really needs tackling head-on one way or the other sooner rather than later, I think. The resultant dithering and uncertainty during any consequential transitional period while Starmer remained in post as a lame-duck PM is hardly likely to benefit anyone, I would have thought.

In any case, why are these dissatisfied Labour MP's keeping so absolutely shtum on who they would like to lead their party in place of Starmer? We can, I think, be forgiven for concluding that clueless idiocy has broken out on the Labour back benches!

And, as for the proposition that Andy Burnham can somehow put himself forward as a contender to replace Starmer, well that is complete pie on the sky IMHO. Even if an existing Labour MP in Manchester could be persuaded to stand down, there is no guarantee that Burnham would win the resultant by-election, as Gorton graphically showed (Burnham would almost certainly have been the Labour candidate in that instance had he not been prevented from standing by Starmer's henchmen on the Labour NEC).

In any event, the constituents of the Labour MP who was standing down in favour of Burnham would undoubtedly feel rather miffed if their existing MP who, in all probability, has a proven track record of working hard to represent their interests, were replaced by one who merely regarded his election as their MP as a stepping-stone to the top job at 10 Downing Street.

37 minutes ago, OJAS said:

Therein lies the nub of the problem, I think, It's all very well for Labour MP's to keep banging on about the need for Starmer to outline a plan for his succession, as a fair few are doing, but this situation really needs tackling head-on one way or the other sooner rather than later, I think. The resultant dithering and uncertainty during any consequential transitional period while Starmer remained in post as a lame-duck PM is hardly likely to benefit anyone, I would have thought.

In any case, why are these dissatisfied Labour MP's keeping so absolutely shtum on who they would like to lead their party in place of Starmer? We can, I think, be forgiven for concluding that clueless idiocy has broken out on the Labour back benches!

And, as for the proposition that Andy Burnham can somehow put himself forward as a contender to replace Starmer, well that is complete pie on the sky IMHO. Even if an existing Labour MP in Manchester could be persuaded to stand down, there is no guarantee that Burnham would win the resultant by-election, as Gorton graphically showed (Burnham would almost certainly have been the Labour candidate in that instance had he not been prevented from standing by Starmer's henchmen on the Labour NEC).

In any event, the constituents of the Labour MP who was standing down in favour of Burnham would undoubtedly feel rather miffed if their existing MP who, in all probability, has a proven track record of working hard to represent their interests, were replaced by one who merely regarded his election as their MP as a stepping-stone to the top job at 10 Downing Street.

An excellent summary. There really is no option but for Starmer to 'soldier on'. A lot can happen in 2-3 years. If Reform continue losing Councillors like they are now, there will be none left by 2029 🤣

3 hours ago, OJAS said:

Therein lies the nub of the problem, I think, It's all very well for Labour MP's to keep banging on about the need for Starmer to outline a plan for his succession, as a fair few are doing, but this situation really needs tackling head-on one way or the other sooner rather than later, I think. The resultant dithering and uncertainty during any consequential transitional period while Starmer remained in post as a lame-duck PM is hardly likely to benefit anyone, I would have thought.

In any case, why are these dissatisfied Labour MP's keeping so absolutely shtum on who they would like to lead their party in place of Starmer? We can, I think, be forgiven for concluding that clueless idiocy has broken out on the Labour back benches!

And, as for the proposition that Andy Burnham can somehow put himself forward as a contender to replace Starmer, well that is complete pie on the sky IMHO. Even if an existing Labour MP in Manchester could be persuaded to stand down, there is no guarantee that Burnham would win the resultant by-election, as Gorton graphically showed (Burnham would almost certainly have been the Labour candidate in that instance had he not been prevented from standing by Starmer's henchmen on the Labour NEC).

In any event, the constituents of the Labour MP who was standing down in favour of Burnham would undoubtedly feel rather miffed if their existing MP who, in all probability, has a proven track record of working hard to represent their interests, were replaced by one who merely regarded his election as their MP as a stepping-stone to the top job at 10 Downing Street.

You make some excellent points, however, I think that to dismiss Burnham's chances of succeeding Starmer as 'pie in the sky' is overstating matters (although I accept that the timescales involved make it difficult).

Unless Starmer goes immediately, there may be just enough time for Burnham to find a constituency. You quite correctly state that there is no guarantee that Burnham would be elected and, no doubt, some constituents would feel aggrieved at the prospect of having him catapulted into their area simply in order to become PM. He also faces the problem of getting the NEC to allow him to stand, although imo they would be unlikely to block his nomination this time around if Burnham has the support of a significant number of MPs and a large percentage of the wider Labour membership. In addition, Burnham is popular in the North-West and Manchester has thrived under his leadership. By extension, the voters in the constituency may feel that a Burnham premiership would be good for the country.

The bookies have Burnham as 2/1 favourite to be next Labour Party leader - which I find surprising - but they are right more often than not.