Kate Goodwin

Sobriety is my superpower. Can and will help anyone who is struggling with their own journey. DM’s open here but [email protected] is where I am

[Tim Chapman 💙 @timchap]

So widen the picture about Labour, Starmer and Burnham. Labour toils for 14 years to become electable again. Starmer wins a massive majority and in under two years Labour gets spooked and puts all this at risk without blinking. Madness!!

[Ken Agnew @NonsenseDoctor]

@KarlTurnerMP No you haven't. You've got civil war and party suicide. This will tear Labour apart (as usual) and make them unelectable yet again.

[David Head @DavidHeadViews]

Try as I might, I can't convince myself that sorting out the public transport in a major city is cast-iron evidence of being able to run a country.

[Kate Goodwin @KGoodwin2021]

@GordonFielden @FT Every word 🙌🏼

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

For my mind, this demonstrates a complete naivety amongst some parliamentary MPs. They appear more concerned about their own jobs than they are about governing and delivering for the country.

Every MP knows when they stand for election that they can lose their seat at any time. That is the nature of democratic politics. It comes with the job.

The reality is that Labour commands a huge majority in the House of Commons. With a majority of over 300, it does not matter what the Conservatives say. It does not matter what Reform says. It does not matter what the SNP says. Much of it is simply noise.

With a majority of that size, a united parliamentary party can pass legislation, implement reforms and deliver the programme on which it was elected. That should be the focus.

What I find extraordinary is that some appear to believe the answer is to remove the very leader who won the election in the first place. If Andy Burnham were somehow to become Prime Minister without leading Labour into a general election victory, he would immediately face questions about legitimacy. Even senior Labour figures made similar arguments when leadership changed without a public mandate.

If Andy Burnham genuinely believes he is more popular with the country than Keir Starmer, then there is a simple test. Call a general election and seek a mandate from the electorate.

My view is that it would be a disaster. Labour would be walking straight into a trap of its own making, abandoning a leader who won a substantial majority for someone whose popularity has never been tested nationally.

The greatest danger to Labour is not the opposition. It is MPs allowing Westminster gossip, personal ambition and political vanity to distract them from the job they were elected to do.

[Sparra @andysparra]

@anon_opin What is it the right wing media and this shit arse hell site told you is so bad about him?

[Kate Goodwin @KGoodwin2021]

@Jacxdad3376 No. It’s beyond normal comprehension.

[Kevin Craig @KevinCraigUK]

I was in Makerfield on a couple of occasions. I’m delighted @AndyBurnhamGM won the by-election and he will be a great MP and voice for Labour.

Outside of Westminster, everyone I speak to cannot get their head around the idea of changing Prime Ministers now - especially after the Tory leadership chaos they voted for @Keir_Starmer and @UKLabour to draw a line under.

It’s time to unite and get on with governing the country. 🇬🇧

[Crazy (Crikey!) Foxy @cels1952]

Apparently according to @guardian newspaper now Burnham has won a by-election, Starmer should stand aside for him to become PM. Does that mean, every future PM must stand aside for any new MP winning a by-election who has designs on his job? Anyone else find this ridiculous?

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

I would simply say this to Sir Keir Starmer: stand your ground and let events take their course.

If there are those within the Parliamentary Labour Party who genuinely believe that removing a Prime Minister who delivered a landslide election victory is the correct course of action, then let them make their case openly and let the membership and electorate judge them accordingly.

My suspicion is that they will not like the verdict.

Many Labour MPs owe their seats to the leadership that took the party from opposition to government. To turn upon that leadership after such a short period in office would, in the eyes of many members and voters, be viewed as an act of disloyalty and political self indulgence. The consequences would not fall upon Starmer alone. They would fall upon the Labour Party itself.

Those advocating such a course seem to believe that this is merely another Westminster contest. It is not. It goes to the very heart of what the party stands for and whether voters can trust it to govern. Once trust is broken, it is extraordinarily difficult to restore.

What is most disappointing is that Labour was making progress. The government was beginning the difficult work of rebuilding after years of instability, yet sections of the commentariat and elements within the party have chosen to elevate speculation, personality politics and internal intrigue above the business of governing. Much of the noise surrounding figures such as Peter Mandelson appears designed to create division rather than advance any serious political argument.

The result of a successful challenge would not be renewal. It would be division, declining membership and the reopening of wounds that many believed had finally begun to heal. Voters have long memories. They remember periods when Labour appeared more interested in fighting itself than serving the country, and they punished the party accordingly.

Those pursuing this path should be very careful what they wish for. They may discover that in removing the leader, they have also removed the very coalition of members and voters that made Labour electable once again.

And if that happens, the only beneficiaries will be Labour's political opponents, including those on the populist and fascist right who would relish nothing more than seeing the party descend into civil war.

It would be a tragedy, not merely for Labour, but for the millions of people who placed their trust in it only a short time ago.

[Kate Goodwin @KGoodwin2021]

@Ferretgrove 💯

[Ferret @Ferretgrove]

If that happens we cancel our memberships.
The Labour Party is not the same as the Tories or Reform, democracy matters.

[Will Kingston @WillKingston]

I say this completely sincerely. This bloke would be a more valuable addition to Parliament than 80% of current MPs.

[David Paxton @DavidDPaxton]

Amazing story this. Screaming mediocrity is Andy Burnham. Twice rejected as leader. His qualification seems to be not being in parliament for 9 years so they’ll parachute him in as prime minister to run the country in a crisis.

[Alan Olive @AlanOlive1]

Good, strong speech from Burnham. I bet he said the same warm words, and made similar grand promises to the people of Greater Manchester only a couple of years ago.
But he's let them down. Just as he will the country.
The King has no clothes.

[Deborah Meaden 🇺🇦 @DeborahMeaden]

Couldn’t have written this better myself..

[Sam Clench @SamClench]

If I had to die on one hill in UK politics it would be that the Binface guy is genuinely sharp and probably adds more to his country’s discourse than most sitting MPs

[Count Binface @CountBinface]

First I spoke to Sky News. Then I had a chat with GB News and LBC…

[Danny Wallace @dannywallace]

It’s about time we started thinking about who should be prime minister after Andy Burnham

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

You are both making the same mistake. Andy Burnham is not some political Messiah waiting to save the Labour Party.

What exactly has he done to deserve the leadership? I have seen nothing that warrants the level of excitement some seem determined to create around him. This is a politician who was part of one of Labour's most difficult periods under Gordon Brown and then left Westminster to become a regional mayor in the North. That is not a criticism of the mayoralty, but it is hardly a qualification for leading the country.

The bigger issue is that many people, perhaps both of you included, appear not to understand where elections are actually won. They are won in the centre ground. They always have been.

The Conservative Party's success came when it occupied the centre right. Labour's success came when it occupied the centre left. The moment either party abandons the centre ground, it starts to lose the broad coalition of voters needed to win a general election.

The irony is that the Conservatives could become competitive again remarkably quickly if they abandoned the far right agenda, removed the dead wood and returned to the centre right. Equally, Labour risks handing them that opportunity if it allows itself to drift back towards the left.

And please stop talking about the working class as if Britain were still living in the 1970s. The old industrial working class has largely gone. Today there are workers across every sector of society with different priorities, different aspirations and different concerns. Winning elections is about persuading that broad middle ground, not appealing to activists on the fringes.

Winning a by election in Greater Manchester proves absolutely nothing about who should be Prime Minister. The people cheering Burnham on are largely those who never accepted Starmer's leadership in the first place. Many MPs owe their seats to Starmer's victory in 2024. They know perfectly well that replacing him with Burnham would be a huge gamble.

My view is simple. If Burnham ever became Labour leader, he would shorten Labour's time in government, not extend it. He would never have the legitimacy of someone who actually won a general election as leader, and every problem faced by a Burnham government would immediately be laid at his door.

Starmer has fought through the difficult decisions. If the economy improves, inflation remains under control and public services begin to recover, the credit belongs to the government that did the hard work, not to someone waiting on the sidelines.

This obsession with Burnham reminds me of Brexit. People convinced themselves there was an easy answer, ignored the warnings and dismissed the risks. We all know how that turned out.

If Labour chooses symbolism over electoral reality, it will be making exactly the same mistake again.