Andy Burnham has plan to return to Westminster ‘within weeks’. Allies sayGreater Manchester mayor said to have identified seats where MPs would step aside to allow leadership bid.

Water and/or then energy companies are an outstanding priority?

Railways are not - yes, the job is in hand. The Labour government is already transitioning rail services into public ownership- timescale completion date later in 2027- as the current PRIVATE contracts expire. This will create a unified entity. The network of regional operators is being renationalised in sequence, depending on end of contract term.

The new public body will be called Great British Railways- GBR.

The current Labour Government comms evidently has not reached public consciousness.

Why do you think Blair did so well in winning elections?

My opinion ...because, Oreo he was Tory-lite so non-labour people liked him.
It was a Tory v Tory election and everyone was sick of the Tories.

Blair wasn’t a Tory and Labour won two elections with him, so he was doing something right.
In the main, voters here like a centre government best or slightly left of centre.They don’t want very right wing or very left wing.
This is what a lot of the Labour membership still don’t understand.

Why did Tony Blair win three elections:

1) he had effective election campaigns, he was highly polished and media savvy. As a Labour PM, Blair managed to bring the right wing media on board to a level not achieved by his peers e.g. Starmer
2) The "New Labour" Brand he introduced- he positioned Labour more to centrist from left- though not as much to the right of centre as Starmer.
3) he was optimistic- "Things can only get better"
4) First time elected, the country was fed up of 18 years of Conservative rule and Tory sleaze scandals. But he was elected 2 times more based on his platform of achievements to date - e.g. strong economy, public investment had been good, he had not raised taxation in the way feared and opposition parties were divided and didn't appeal to the majority of the electorate.

LemonJam

Water and/or then energy companies are an outstanding priority?

Railways are not - yes, the job is in hand. The Labour government is already transitioning rail services into public ownership- timescale completion date later in 2027- as the current PRIVATE contracts expire. This will create a unified entity. The network of regional operators is being renationalised in sequence, depending on end of contract term.

The new public body will be called Great British Railways- GBR.

The current Labour Government comms evidently has not reached public consciousness.

I don’t think taking over the whole water industry is feasible or affordable in this parliament, although taking over the worst performing services as they fail may be. I do think it’s a priority, I just don’t think it can happen with so many competing issues. I’d rather they sorted out the NHS waiting lists for example.

I wish you were right in saying rail is in hand. - the franchises are not all up, and anybody who uses rail services would tell you it is far from a good service. It is lower lying fruit, and would buy goodwill and votes if it is improved.

The Labour government started rail re nationalisation after as it came to power in 2024. It had to get the legal framework into place etc.etc

Labour inherited the legally binding end contract dates of all the existing networks. Service, routes, targets, ticket prices, annual increase limits etc were already set within those existing contracts, so I guess it's not surprising service has not yet much changed.

We all wait and hope to see service, route and cost benefits once the government regains ownership and has contract control under GBR, later in 2027.

I know. I keep up with such things.

And this is the problem with the media encouraging dissatisfaction with governments and the need for change without giving them time to get policies going. The media encourage simplistic thinking to the detriment of us all.

And I do think that Labour PR is pitiful - they have done some good things and are doing more - where are these in the headlines?

Labour inherited the legally binding end contract dates of all the existing networks. Service, routes, targets, ticket prices, annual increase limits etc were already set within those existing contracts, so I guess it's not surprising service has not yet much changed

That is interesting. I made a two day cross-country journey by rail recently and the service was excellent on every train, every station and even the tube.Clean, comfortable and on time, extremely helpful staff and the only problem was out of their control: badly behaved children under the supervision of their parents.
How sad all this is set to change and return to the abysmal standards of British Rail.

And Luckygirl you may blame the media all you like, but the public is perfectly capable of observing and thinking for itself; it is the actions of the Labour party and its doleful leader that are to blame for its unpopularity.

Great that you had a positive rail travel experience recently easzybee.

Uk trains were privatised in 1994- so a long time ago! Times have changed a bit- more and bigger cars on the roads, potholes, climate emergency, fuel crisis, high petrol prices etc.- whether privatisation has been a good or bad thing is another post possibly. However it’s generally accepted it lead to higher prices, high share holder profits, and more complicated, multiple ticket options across various networks.

Greater Manchester residents have a more recent experience with their bus and tram network coming into public control and whether it has resulted in improvement.

One swallow does not make a summer though eazybee

Public satisfaction with rail services in Britain is generally low and declining, with roughly 42% to 43% of users expressing satisfaction in recent polls.
Major complaints relate to poor value for money, frequent delays, and overcrowding, with around 40% of people rating service quality as poor and many avoiding rail travel as a consequence.
Even more tellingly, polls show that a significant majority want rail to be renationalised, including Tory voters.

I cant help the feeling I have that Labour's positive achievements have come into place despite Starmer and Reeves.

Agree with Luckygirl at 17.35. It would take a decade to turn public services around, partly because the public has been encouraged by social media to resist any attempt to raise taxes to pay for them. The Starmer government can’t be blamed for this.
A change of leader would destabilise the Labour Party even further, which is why it is being urged by the right-wing press and its followers. Any new prime minister would be picked to pieces within six months. This is not in the country’s interests.

Labour inherited the legally binding end contract dates of all the existing networks.

Not quite right. Not all the networks. The East Coast line was already nationalised (for the second time) and, IIRC, there was another. smaller line, which was also being state run.
The East coast line has always run perfectly well when nationalised and returned a profit.

Ilovecheese

I cant help the feeling I have that Labour's positive achievements have come into place despite Starmer and Reeves.

I think your 'feeling' is correct. Successful policy implementation isn't necessarily dependent on the PM. It has a great deal to do with the strength of the minister driving it and their ability to push a policy through.

The treasury isn't helpful. From what I've read it never is unless it's a case of saving rather than spending money. It is neoliberal to the core and sees only costs. It isn't interested in benefits which would improve wellbeing but have no apparent financial benefit.

Reeves is not the person who is needed to insist on radical changes to the economy . She's firmly stuck with the household economy myth and has no apparent understanding of how a national economy works.

MaizieD

^Labour inherited the legally binding end contract dates of all the existing networks.^

Not quite right. Not all the networks. The East Coast line was already nationalised (for the second time) and, IIRC, there was another. smaller line, which was also being state run.
The East coast line has always run perfectly well when nationalised and returned a profit.

You have forgotten Scotland and Wales, both were nationalised before Labour came into power.

MaizieD

Ilovecheese

I cant help the feeling I have that Labour's positive achievements have come into place despite Starmer and Reeves.

I think your 'feeling' is correct. Successful policy implementation isn't necessarily dependent on the PM. It has a great deal to do with the strength of the minister driving it and their ability to push a policy through.

The treasury isn't helpful. From what I've read it never is unless it's a case of saving rather than spending money. It is neoliberal to the core and sees only costs. It isn't interested in benefits which would improve wellbeing but have no apparent financial benefit.

Reeves is not the person who is needed to insist on radical changes to the economy . She's firmly stuck with the household economy myth and has no apparent understanding of how a national economy works.

Seems to me that the current narrative is that anything good that happens is despite the fact that Starmer is PM. Anything the government does to minimalise the affect that Brexit has had on the economy, even though he has worked tirelessly to rebuild our fractured relationship with Europe, isn’t thanks to him. Anything we now have to pay to improve our trade with Europe is his fault, not the fault of the people who took us out of Europe in the first place…even the fact that he made the Labour Party electable again has got nothing to do with him either….

Very good point, MayBee.

Mea culpa, Casdon

Luckygirl3

And this is the problem with the media encouraging dissatisfaction with governments and the need for change without giving them time to get policies going. The media encourage simplistic thinking to the detriment of us all.

And I do think that Labour PR is pitiful - they have done some good things and are doing more - where are these in the headlines?

Good points.

Was it ever thus?

The media[and advertising industry] is too powerful, in my opinion.
I suppose people have always said so.

24 hour news on tv hasnt helped at all.

Thanks Maybe and Luckygirl.
There is no let up and no measured thought it seems to me.

This is a time to look at the wider picture. Starmer is negotiating a closer tie with Europe which is exactly what we want at the moment. Brexit was a vote for isolation encouraged by the idea that we are the powerful nation of past times. The only beneficiary of the decision was Putin. Now Trump has shown us the error of our ways. Starmer has to manage the situation as best he can. We have to get our act together.This is not the time to change PMs. The supposed candidates are underwhelming. Europe has respect for Starmer sl leave him to it.

I hope it never comes to the time when we have to rely on Europe to support us because we are not included in NATO. Trump will not always be in control.
I have not heard Europe has respect for Starmer but rather that they are enjoying watching him trying to ingratiate himself. That is as maybe, but the vote to leave Europe was democratic; Starmer is pursuing his own path for his own reasons without a mandate or even discussion.

Keep up.
encompass-europe.com/comment/the-good-diplomat-starmers-bilateralism-with-eu-member-states

And from politico-eu, which is a prominent Brussels based media company.
www.politico.eu/list/politico-28-class-of-2026/keir-starmer/