18
Is a Labour leadership challenge a realistic prospect? (www.thetimes.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Also he's relatively unknown outside of Manchester

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year 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-healthThat 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 partyI suspect the right of Labour would prefer death to anything close to socialism

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year 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!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •