Jennifer Evans🇪🇺🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🕷

Married,mother and grandmother....

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Pippa, with respect, you appear to have moved well beyond reporting and into advocacy. For months now, the Guardian has seemed determined to promote Andy Burnham as the answer to every question while simultaneously publishing a steady stream of stories predicting the imminent demise of Sir Keir Starmer.

The problem is that much of this narrative relies on unnamed sources, anonymous briefings and political gossip rather than hard evidence. The reality is that Labour remains in government with a substantial parliamentary majority, and there has been no convincing case made as to why a sitting Prime Minister should be replaced by someone who has yet to present a detailed programme, explain how it would be funded, or demonstrate that he commands support beyond a vocal section of the commentariat.

What is particularly striking is that many of the same journalists who spent years criticising Labour for internal division now seem eager to encourage it. Rather than reporting events as they unfold, there is an increasing impression that some are attempting to create a leadership contest through repetition alone.

The British public expect governments to govern, not journalists to act as political kingmakers. Until there is evidence of an actual challenge, rather than another round of anonymous briefings, this looks more like a campaign being waged in newspaper columns than one taking place in the Labour Party itself.

[Gyll King Post Skip Diplomacy @GyllKing]

How utterly disgraceful for Nigel Farage to tell the BBC that the thugs rampaging through Belfast last night had legitimate concerns. That man is a fascist. Not hyperbole. An accurate assessment.

[Jennifer Evans🇪🇺🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🕷 @divojen]

@suzyquiquero @LastBlairite Shameful behaviour..I’m so close to ending my membership..Only hanging on to vote for Keir or against Andy Burnham..😡😡

[Larry the Cat @Number10cat]

@RupertLowe10 These people aren't "patriots" they're criminals

[TRUTH🕊️ @HonestHalo]

Burning public transport and looting shops doesn't punish the criminal,it punishes hard working taxpayers who have to pay to fix it. trapping families in burning homes and blocking our own emergency services isn't patriotism,it is exactly what online agitators want to make Britain look lawless on the global stage. Keir Starmer's call for immediate law and order is the only way forward.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

This story is about far more than ministers being told to resign if they back Andy Burnham.

If the Financial Times report is accurate, Sir Keir Starmer has effectively drawn a line in the sand. Ministers now have a clear choice. Back Burnham and leave the government, or remain in government and accept collective responsibility under Starmer's leadership.

That means any minister who stays in Cabinet after this warning is, by their actions, signalling support for the Prime Minister. The option of quietly backing Burnham whilst remaining in government has effectively disappeared.

For those ministers who may have been trying to keep a foot in both camps, the political cliff edge has arrived. They must now choose between loyalty to the government they serve or support for a rival leadership candidate. To attempt both would inevitably invite accusations of double dealing and undermine the principle of collective responsibility.

[Just me - Thomas @TomSoede]

Keir Starmer is stronger than people think

Something has shifted.

For weeks, parts of the media have spoken as if Keir Starmer was already halfway out of the door and Andy Burnham was already measuring the curtains in Downing Street.

But politics is not theatre alone.

It is pressure.
It is judgement.
It is government.
It is whether you can hold the room when everyone else is testing the walls.

And this week, Starmer did something important.

He made clear that he is not going anywhere.

Not through an anonymous briefing.
Not through an ally.
Not through a whisper to the lobby.

He said it directly to his Cabinet.

If there is a challenge, he will fight it.

And that matters.

Because Keir Starmer is a fighter.

He did not become leader of the Labour Party by luck.

He understands the Labour organisation, the party machinery, the MPs, the members, the unions, the pressure points and the discipline needed to hold it together.

And most importantly, he is not a commentator watching from the sidelines.

He is the Prime Minister.

Because leadership is not only about being popular in a media cycle.

It is about stamina.

Burnham may be a serious politician. I do not dismiss him.

But the more he is scrutinised, the more obvious it becomes that being a good communicator is not the same as being ready to run the country.

Fiscal rules matter.
Markets matter.
Cabinet discipline matters.
Party unity matters.
Delivery matters.

Starmer is not perfect.

But he is serious.

And after fourteen years of Conservative chaos, seriousness is not a weakness.

It may be exactly what Britain needs.

I may be wrong, but that is how I see it. What do you think?

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Does this change the optics in Starmer's favour?
I think it probably does.

Last Friday, Andy Burnham appeared on Newsnight and, for someone presenting himself as a potential Prime Minister, it was hardly a convincing performance.

He struggled when questioned about Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules and, more importantly, did not appear to understand what those fiscal rules actually were. For a politician seeking the highest office in the land, that was a significant moment.

Fast forward a few days and Newsnight is now reporting that, during a Cabinet meeting, Keir Starmer made it abundantly clear to his ministers that he is going nowhere. If a leadership contest is triggered, he intends to fight it and intends to win it. The fact that this was said directly to Cabinet is important. It was not a briefing, a rumour or a comment from an ally. It was the Prime Minister setting out his position to his government.

There are also reports that some Labour MPs who had previously been sympathetic to Burnham are now becoming more cautious following his recent media appearances and the growing scrutiny of his policy positions. Whether that is a reaction to his Newsnight interview, concerns about the practicalities of a leadership challenge, pressure from constituents, or a combination of all three, the assumption that support for Burnham is growing inexorably appears far less certain than some commentators would have us believe.

At the same time, Burnham now appears to be stepping back from the idea of an immediate leadership challenge. We are told that, should he win the by-election, he intends to focus first on helping Labour retain the Greater Manchester mayoralty before considering any move against Starmer.

That raises a number of interesting questions. Burnham has repeatedly described being Mayor of Greater Manchester as the job he loved and the role he wanted. Yet if Labour struggles to retain that mayoralty after his departure, and Reform emerges as the main beneficiary, what does that say about his record and leadership credentials?

Meanwhile, Burnham has not won the by-election. No leadership contest has been called. Labour members have not cast a single vote. Yet parts of the media continue to write as though the outcome is already known.

Politics can change quickly. What looked inevitable a few weeks ago suddenly looks far less certain. The more scrutiny Burnham receives, the more Labour members, MPs and voters may begin asking whether he is really the answer to a question many of them were not asking in the first place.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

This is complete hogwash from Clive Lewis, who has spent much of Sir Keir Starmer's leadership opposing, criticising or undermining him at almost every opportunity. That is hardly a secret. Clive remains closely associated with the Corbynite wing of the Labour Party and has consistently taken a very different view of Labour's direction from that adopted by the current leadership.

Talking over colleagues, ranting and raving, and constantly predicting outcomes that have not happened is not evidence of political insight. Quite frankly, there is little substance in what is being said.

The optics have changed and people are beginning to recognise that. Keir Starmer has made it clear that he intends to stay and fight. Andy Burnham, meanwhile, has yet to win the by-election, has not set out a compelling alternative programme and is now talking about delaying any leadership move should he be elected.

The fundamental question remains: what has Andy Burnham actually done to demonstrate that he should lead the Labour Party and become Prime Minister? Beyond media speculation and support from sections of the Labour Left, what is the case being made?

Many of the same voices now championing Burnham have spent months attacking the government rather than helping it succeed. That may appeal to sections of the Labour Left, but it is not necessarily what Labour members or the wider electorate want.

The British public tend to reward delivery, stability and competence. They rarely reward endless internal arguments and leadership manoeuvring. That is a lesson some people in Westminster still seem reluctant to learn.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Claire, you're doing a fine job.

Most of these Parliamentary Labour MPs have not consulted their constituents before making many of the statements and announcements we have heard over recent months. Like most organisations, whether in politics or the trade union movement, there is always a tendency for people to listen more closely to the group around them than to the people they are supposed to represent.

The truth is that even Andy Burnham now appears to be slowing down his timetable, talking about supporting a successor in Greater Manchester before making any further moves. That in itself perhaps tells us something about the realities of the situation.

What is often missing from this debate is any consideration of the consequences. If Greater Manchester were to move away from Labour politically after Burnham's departure, what would that say about his record and leadership credentials? These are perfectly reasonable questions, yet they rarely seem to be asked.

Parliamentary Labour MPs should also be careful what they wish for. If Andy Burnham does win the by-election and does eventually trigger a leadership contest, the final decision will rest with Labour members. Those MPs who have rushed to take sides may yet discover that the membership reaches a very different conclusion from the one being discussed in Westminster circles.

The old saying comes to mind: empty vessels make the most noise.

[Just Dave now @justdavenow89]

If Brexit happened again tomorrow how would you vote

please repost after so its not echo chamber vote thanks

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Really, this is just so disingenuous from the Liberal Democrats.

It makes you wonder why, at a moment like this, a Liberal Democrat spokesman chooses to lead with yet another attack on Keir Starmer when they know perfectly well that responsibility is shared across a number of departments. The Home Office has responsibility for enforcing the law. The Technology Secretary has responsibility for bringing forward legislation and regulation. Government is not a one person operation.

Yet once again, the instinct appears to be to blame Starmer for everything that anyone believes has gone wrong.

God forbid we apply the same standard to the Liberal Democrats. Let us not forget what happened in 2010 when they entered government with the Conservatives. That decision helped usher in fourteen years of Conservative rule and the consequences of that period are still being felt across the country today.

By all means hold ministers to account, but at least be honest and consistent about where responsibility lies. Constantly pretending that every issue begins and ends with Keir Starmer is neither serious politics nor credible opposition.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

I think what many of us want to see, Madam Home Secretary, is public support for the leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, and for the work being undertaken by the government as a whole. You, your Cabinet colleagues and ministers across government have worked hard to begin delivering the promises made in Labour's election manifesto.

The time has come to put an end to the constant infighting. Labour members, supporters and the wider public have had enough of it. The focus should be on governing, delivering and demonstrating that Labour remains serious about stability, serious about reform and serious about honouring the mandate entrusted to it by the British people.

Let the media see a united government focused on the national interest. The Labour Party was elected to govern and should be allowed to complete the task it was given by the electorate.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

The more interesting question is why some on the Left, together with sections of the media, appear so determined to present one outcome as inevitable whilst giving little or no consideration to the alternative.

Every article seems to proceed on the assumption that Andy Burnham's return to Westminster automatically leads to Keir Starmer's departure. Yet there is one rather significant detail being overlooked: Burnham has not even won the by-election yet. The voters have not delivered their verdict, no leadership contest has taken place, and Labour members have not voted on anything.

Despite this, some commentators already write as though Burnham's victory is assured, Starmer's removal is inevitable and the future direction of the Labour Party has been settled. That is not analysis. It is speculation.

Where are the articles examining what happens if Starmer remains leader? What happens to those who have spent months predicting his downfall? What becomes of the factions, commentators and publications that have invested so heavily in a narrative built around his removal?

If Starmer were to remain in place, the story would not be one of leadership intrigue but of a Prime Minister who had secured a renewed mandate and several years in which to continue delivering Labour's programme in government. The focus would return to economic growth, public services, housing, defence, Britain's relationship with Europe and the wider challenges facing the country.

More importantly, stability itself has value. Financial markets, international investors and businesses generally favour certainty over political turmoil. A settled government with a clear mandate is more likely to attract investment, support economic confidence and provide the long term stability that both businesses and households require. Those are factors that rarely feature in articles focused solely on Westminster manoeuvring.

A balanced assessment would examine both possible outcomes. Instead, some appear more interested in advancing a preferred narrative than exploring the full range of political realities. That raises a legitimate question: are we witnessing objective political reporting, or political advocacy presented as journalism?

[Barry Halverson @barry_halverson]

@AlistairCarns @AndyBurnhamGM Burnham is a snake. A backstabbing snake, no different to the self obsessed Tory egos we replaced when Starmer won his majority, not Burnham as he had run away. If he ever became labour leader my membership would be cut up.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

This appears to be yet another attempt by The Guardian to influence the Labour leadership debate. The reality is that Andy Burnham is not polling particularly well and is facing a far more difficult path than many expected. At the same time, thousands of Labour members are making their views known and a growing number are signalling their intention to keep Keir Starmer in place.

The more important question is what happens to the Labour Party and the Parliamentary Labour Party if the membership gets its way and backs the current leadership. The trade unions and sections of the Left need to recognise that there is a significant difference between online noise and the wider mood of both the public and Labour members.

Yes, there is plenty of drivel, abuse and constant commentary from the Right, but volume does not equal majority opinion. The loudest voices are often the smallest groups. What matters is where Labour members and the wider electorate stand, and increasingly there is evidence that many are choosing stability, unity and a government focused on delivering results rather than returning to internal ideological battles.

If Labour is to win again, it will be because it listens to the mainstream of its membership and the country, not because it chases the demands of a vocal minority on either side of the political divide.

[Clare Hepworth OBE @Hepworthclare]

I'm caught in a "Catch 22" dilemma.
I do not want Labour to lose the Makerfield seat.
And I certainly detest the possibility of a ReformUKLtd win.
But I'm a democrat
I cannot agree with the actions of Andy Burnham & his intention to depose a democratically elected Labour PM.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

I'm fearful, Angela, that you will now find yourself consigned to the backbenches for the remainder of this Parliament. It is a real shame, because you are a talented politician who made one significant error and have paid a very heavy price for it. The media then turned on both you and Sir Keir Starmer, and the consequences have been damaging for you both.

I had hoped that, once you received a clean bill of health regarding the allegations against you, and it became clear that there had been no deliberate wrongdoing despite what parts of the press suggested, you would eventually return to government. I believe that would have been thoroughly deserved.

Instead of backing Sir Keir Starmer, you chose to support Andy Burnham in a challenge to his leadership. In doing so, you have attached yourself to a project that offers little beyond personal ambition. Burnham has presented himself as an alternative leader, yet has failed to set out policies or ideas that are materially different, and many of his aspirations could not realistically be delivered within the lifetime of this Parliament. In the space of just a few weeks, he has reversed position on so many issues that it is difficult to know what he genuinely stands for.

I think there is going to be a considerable shock when ordinary Labour Party members, rather than trade union leaders, give their verdict. My view is that they will back Starmer overwhelmingly in any leadership contest.

I have no objection to Andy Burnham serving as a Member of Parliament, or even joining the Government. However, this kind of disloyalty towards a sitting Labour Prime Minister is not something that will be easily forgotten. If Starmer survives, and I believe he will, the political consequences for those who sought to remove him may prove permanent.

[savvytraveller @wineexpert1968]

@HeatherJLpals @TedUrchin Anyone with a brain and an ounce of decency can see that Starmer is a hard working decent bloke trying to do the right thing for the country & he’s doing a pretty good job.

Can’t think of anyone that could do better right now.

[Don McGowan @donmcgowan]

I hadn't watched Yusuf's interview until now … I have some thoughts!

Firstly, that's two weeks in a row that a Reform UK representative is brought on to the show and kept separate from the other guests.

They are allowed to have uninterrupted, unchallenged segments of the show to themselves.

Secondly, what happened to journalism in this country?

Laura Kuenssberg allowed him to talk, largely unchallenged, for ten minutes. She had one question prepared that was repeated several times — the Kemi Badenoch strategy.

That Yusuf was allowed to repeatedly claim that two-tier policing was the biggest challenge to this country is shocking.

We know that there's no such thing and this is the LITERAL weaponisation of Henry Nowak's death, while saying that Reform respected the family's wishes.

There are very few in politics that repulse me as much as Zia Yusuf, and yet we are still fed his petulant lies, week in, week out.

When Reform UK collapses after Farage is found guilty on one of his impending corruption investigations, the fact that this guy will be consigned to the dustbin of history, is well worth celebrating.

Happy rainy Monday.

Thanks for posting the full clip, Narinder. 😊