Andrew Gwynne, Labour MP for Gorton and Denton is standing down because of ill health. Thus provoking a great deal of speculation as to who will stand in his place.

MaizieD

It won't be the 'agitators' who lose Labour the next GE. It will be the government's utter disregard for what most people actually want. It will because it has attacked immigrants, and people on welfare. It will be because they are promoting the welfare of the wealthy and the institutions that nurture them and telling the rest of us that we will have to endure more 'austerity' and belt tightening.

They potentially have the power and the tools to restore our crumbling infrastructure, to return utilities such as water to public ownership, to invest in the NHS, to support our debt ridden postgraduates, to lower interest rates so that mortgages don't absorb huge chunks of incomes, leaving little or nothing to spend into the economy once the basics are covered.

They won't do it because they are in thrall to the neoliberal economic 'orthodoxy' which is destroying more than just the UK (look at the US, victim of the same 'orthodoxy) as countries' wealth flows ever upwards out of the reach of the rest of the population.

I expected some vision and courage from them, but they have none.

(there are honourable exceptions in the government, but they have to fight hard for inadequate resources.)

I agree with every word.MaisieD

DaisyAnneReturns

Galaxy

His authoritarian approach is Starmers fatal flaw, his version of Hamlets indecisiveness, to link to the Shakespeare thread. It will finish him in the end.
When he got rid of Jamie Driscoll that was the red flag that we or certainly I should have paid more attention to.

I think he's doing okay. Possibly a man for our times. But then I'm not a Labour Party supporter.

If he’s a man for our times it shows what a mess our times are in.

It won't be the 'agitators' who lose Labour the next GE. It will be the government's utter disregard for what most people actually want. It will because it has attacked immigrants, and people on welfare. It will be because they are promoting the welfare of the wealthy and the institutions that nurture them and telling the rest of us that we will have to endure more 'austerity' and belt tightening.

They potentially have the power and the tools to restore our crumbling infrastructure, to return utilities such as water to public ownership, to invest in the NHS, to support our debt ridden postgraduates, to lower interest rates so that mortgages don't absorb huge chunks of incomes, leaving little or nothing to spend into the economy once the basics are covered.

They won't do it because they are in thrall to the neoliberal economic 'orthodoxy' which is destroying more than just the UK (look at the US, victim of the same 'orthodoxy) as countries' wealth flows ever upwards out of the reach of the rest of the population.

I expected some vision and courage from them, but they have none.

(there are honourable exceptions in the government, but they have to fight hard for inadequate resources.)

Lizziedrip 16.26,

I understand your sentiment and in an ideal world it would be wonderful if all political parties work collaboratively and effectively with each other, with no infighting. That is not the norm however. Some parties worse than others- e.g Conservatives and Reform.

Do you think the reason for Labour's current low poll ratings and Starmer's personal ratings (now almost as low as that of Liz Truss) is predominantly because of "infighting within the party"? Surely not, the PM also carries accountability and responsibility for their party's fortunes and their ability to manage "factions' and "infighting". It can't be good to just accept the LP maybe "toast" but better to do something to change that? If so what are the realistic options open to Starmer and his cabinet?

I would like to see Starmer do/say/plan to turn things round. I am horrified to think that Reform might win the next election- so viable, strong, alternative, electable parties are imperative.

All political parties have ambitious cabinet members et al who want to be future leaders and vie for position. It was ever thus. That does not necessarily, in itself, mean there must be "infighting". Clever, confident, successful PMs nurture them, succession plan, make promises and alliances, ( e.g. Blair/Brown) and manages their cabinet team collaboratively. Those that are unable to be collegiate/collaborative, don't read the room- e.g. Thatcher- eventually are toppled. The Conservative Party more recent PM frequently changing PM fortunes arguably started after Cameron stepped down after the Brexit vote.

As a member of the Labour Party, I feel saddened and angered by the infighting within the party.

If the Labour Party is toast - and it may be - it will be of their own doing. Have the agitators within the party learnt nothing by watching the Tory revolving door at No 10?

The reason Labour historically does not win elections is because they fight amongst themselves - they hand power to their opponents on a plate.

I am so sick of this apparent inability by Labour MPs to work together for the good of the country. It’s pathetic! Stop navel gazing!

When Labour gives away its governance at the next election to a bunch of right wing extremists, I want every one of the back biting, self serving agitators to reflect on their own actions. They won’t of course!

It is now in the public domain Starmer personally voted to block Burnham. Some or even many may feel his motivation was self preservation before party. Some or even many may feel it was an act of madness blocking the best positioned candidate to win the by-election for Labour.

All eyes will be on him as he manages the aftermath of his decision.

MaizieD

MayBee70

DaisyAnneReturns

I don't think he's doing OK at all.

That's okay. If we all agreed there would be no discussion and learning would be much more difficult.

It isn’t the norm for parties to change their leader every time things aren’t going as well as they’d like; it was ‘normalised’ by the Conservatives but that doesn’t mean Labour should do the same. Perhaps we can now just let Starmer get on with being PM and Burnham get on with being Mayor.

That's fine if you are happy with the prospect of Labour losing council seats year by year and losing the next the next General Election.

Because, unless it suddenly starts caring for the interests of most people in the UK, instead of the wealthy and the xenophobes, both of which it is busy placating, it is toast.

But the people that need a more socialist government are voting Reform. They rejected Corbyn. They’re losing council seats to Reform candidates even though they’re then shown to be incompetent when elected. And the media are encouraging it.

DaisyAnneReturns Sun 25-Jan-26 14:13:08
I don't think he's doing OK at all.

"That's okay. If we all agreed there would be no discussion and learning would be much more difficult".

I agree, we will all have different views as to whether Starmer is doing well or not. The polls however consistently show Starmer's ratings falling, so the majority are not persuaded he is doing well. The right wing press also is not friendly towards him for obvious reasons and thats not going to change any time soon.

Even if you are a Labour Party voter you will be in a large group who feel Starmer's ability to lead, be consistently strategic domestically in the UK, ability to read the room and ability to communicate to the public has not inspired the nation and runs the risk of losing the next election if there is not a change in direction/ and/or leadership. Burnham recognises that as do other contenders.

The biggest difficulty for Starmer is 2 fold I feel:
1) Reform consistently doing well in the polls and May elections not too far in the distant future
2) Arguably more imperative, the growing faction in the labour partly who feel Starmer is not on brand, not reading the room, not communicating well with the electorate, not doing enough for those who voted for the Labour Party and have a big appetite for change- the questions are how, who and when....

Starmer has to manage both those challenges with or without Burnham.

MaizieD

Oh dear. Now we have two threads on the same subject...

I'm waiting to hear how Starmer reacts to NEC decision and his message.

Isn't Starmer a member of the NEC?

According to the BBC Starmer was a member of the 10 strong NEC committee

Burnham is yet to comment on the decision. which was made by 10 members of the NEC, including Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, party chair Ellie Reeves and the prime minister himself on Sunday morning

NEC sources told the BBC the vote was 8-1 in favour of blocking Burnham's candidacy.

The prime minister was among those who voted to block him from standing.

Mahmood abstained as the chair, while Labour's deputy leader Lucy Powell voted to allow him to stand.

I don't think he should have been a member of that committee.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr4e7ep468o

MayBee70

DaisyAnneReturns

I don't think he's doing OK at all.

That's okay. If we all agreed there would be no discussion and learning would be much more difficult.

It isn’t the norm for parties to change their leader every time things aren’t going as well as they’d like; it was ‘normalised’ by the Conservatives but that doesn’t mean Labour should do the same. Perhaps we can now just let Starmer get on with being PM and Burnham get on with being Mayor.

That's fine if you are happy with the prospect of Labour losing council seats year by year and losing the next the next General Election.

Because, unless it suddenly starts caring for the interests of most people in the UK, instead of the wealthy and the xenophobes, both of which it is busy placating, it is toast.

“It [the decision] was made by a 10-strong sub-group of the National Executive Committee, known as the "officers' group" or "steering committee," which met on Sunday morning, January 25, 2026.

Key details of the decision-making process:

The Panel: The 10-member panel was chaired by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood.

The Vote: The panel voted 8-1 to block Burnham from applying for the selection.
Split Vote: Labour deputy leader Lucy Powell was the only member of that panel to vote in favor of allowing Burnham to stand.

Abstention: NEC chair and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood abstained.

Reasons Given: The NEC cited the high cost and logistical disruption of a potential, immediate mayoral by-election in Greater Manchester, as well as the need to focus resources on upcoming local and devolved elections.

While some members of the wider NEC complained that this decision should have been made by the full body, it is common practice for candidate selections to be decided by these sub-groups of NEC officers.” source Chat GPT

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

Oh dear. Now we have two threads on the same subject...

I'm waiting to hear how Starmer reacts to NEC decision and his message.

Isn't Starmer a member of the NEC?

Starmer is a member but we can have no idea whether HD voted or not.

It wasn’t decided by the full NEC

Just nine members chaired by Shabana Mahmood

DaisyAnneReturns

^I don't think he's doing OK at all.^

That's okay. If we all agreed there would be no discussion and learning would be much more difficult.

It isn’t the norm for parties to change their leader every time things aren’t going as well as they’d like; it was ‘normalised’ by the Conservatives but that doesn’t mean Labour should do the same. Perhaps we can now just let Starmer get on with being PM and Burnham get on with being Mayor.

I don't think he's doing OK at all.

That's okay. If we all agreed there would be no discussion and learning would be much more difficult.

MaizieD

Oh dear. Now we have two threads on the same subject...

I'm waiting to hear how Starmer reacts to NEC decision and his message.

Isn't Starmer a member of the NEC?

Starmer is a member but we can have no idea whether HD voted or not.

DaisyAnneReturns

Galaxy

His authoritarian approach is Starmers fatal flaw, his version of Hamlets indecisiveness, to link to the Shakespeare thread. It will finish him in the end.
When he got rid of Jamie Driscoll that was the red flag that we or certainly I should have paid more attention to.

I think he's doing okay. Possibly a man for our times. But then I'm not a Labour Party supporter.

I don't think he's doing OK at all.


He really hasn't addressed key issues which people wanted real change in.

The cost of living

The NHS

The water companies

Instead he has made error after error, has tried to out-Reform Reform over immigrants and Welfare benefits and has the incompetent Reeves as Chancellor. The LP is losing members and voters hand over fist.

Oh dear. Now we have two threads on the same subject...

I'm waiting to hear how Starmer reacts to NEC decision and his message.

Isn't Starmer a member of the NEC?

Politics is about taking and managing risks, managing conflict, strategy, reading the room, communicating the message. In my view Durham has a much longer track record is success than Starmer in such matters.

It remains to be seen but Starmer may have misread the room on this one. Perhaps also better to have Burham p**** inside the tent than now p***** in.

In theory, I understand Burham could remain as Mayor and also stand as an independent candidate in the byelection. Or even leave as Mayor and stand as an independent ( high risk stagey for him . Each of those scenarios would create even higher levels of risk and conflict for Starmer to navigate.

Am waiting to hear how Starmer reacts to NEC decision and his message. Even without Burham he still has to navigate leadership threats.

Whoops sorry just started a new thread about this upon reading the breaking news about blocking Burnham.
Imagine it will be ignored so apologies anyway.

Galaxy

His authoritarian approach is Starmers fatal flaw, his version of Hamlets indecisiveness, to link to the Shakespeare thread. It will finish him in the end.
When he got rid of Jamie Driscoll that was the red flag that we or certainly I should have paid more attention to.

I think he's doing okay. Possibly a man for our times. But then I'm not a Labour Party supporter.

Sorry. That should have been to Casdon.

Casdon

LemonJam

The NEC decision to block Durham could prove a huge mistake, that could further have adverse repercussions on May local elections.

There's going to be a strong backlash against the NEC and Starmer's judgement being brought into question for the decision. Also may be an adverse impact on bye election result and union relations if Unison's recent new leader voices her concerns further.

Arguably Burnham was a strong candidate, well regarded in Manchester area. Reform and the Green Party will throw everything they've got at this bye election now. Labour has until next weekend I understand to name bye election candidate- wonder who Reform will field?

I don’t know LemonJam, I think the loss of Burnham as mayor would have had longer term repercussions for Labour than the gain of Burnham as an MP.

I agree LemonJam. I really do wonder if it wouldn't have been best to have used Burnham's knowledge and given him an extra job taking the Mayoral areas forward to a 'House of Regions'.

This would provide balance to the Lords, and the money could come from restructuring the upper house as Starmer has already said he wants to make changes there.

The election for a new mayor was going to cost a lot of money I believe. If I lived in Manchester I would question the loyalty of Burnham to my city.

LemonJam

The NEC decision to block Durham could prove a huge mistake, that could further have adverse repercussions on May local elections.

There's going to be a strong backlash against the NEC and Starmer's judgement being brought into question for the decision. Also may be an adverse impact on bye election result and union relations if Unison's recent new leader voices her concerns further.

Arguably Burnham was a strong candidate, well regarded in Manchester area. Reform and the Green Party will throw everything they've got at this bye election now. Labour has until next weekend I understand to name bye election candidate- wonder who Reform will field?

I don’t know LemonJam, I think the loss of Burnham as mayor would have had longer term repercussions for Labour than the gain of Burnham as an MP.

His authoritarian approach is Starmers fatal flaw, his version of Hamlets indecisiveness, to link to the Shakespeare thread. It will finish him in the end.
When he got rid of Jamie Driscoll that was the red flag that we or certainly I should have paid more attention to.