Top Tweets for #RIPLabourParty

🔍 THE DAILY DEEP DIVE — 26 JUNE 2026 WHO REALLY REMOVED KEIR STARMER? WAS IT A COUP ? There was no formal vote to remove him. No Labour membership ballot. No defeat in Parliament. Labour’s NEC, senior ministers, nervous MPs and a media machine that turned pressure into inevitability. And at the centre sits one important figure: Shabana Mahmood. Mahmood was both Home Secretary and Chair of Labour’s National Executive Committee. In one room, she served in Starmer’s Cabinet. In the other, she chaired the body controlling Labour’s internal machinery, candidate approvals and Andy Burnham’s route back to Parliament. Then, during the crisis, Mahmood reportedly helped tell Starmer that he should consider setting out a timetable for leaving. That does not prove she organised his downfall. The NEC chair cannot dictate collective decisions. But the overlap deserves scrutiny. The politician helping persuade Starmer that his time was ending also chaired the institution controlling Burnham’s return to Westminster. THE NEC OPENED THE GATE In January, NEC officers rejected Burnham’s attempt to stand in Gorton and Denton. The reasons were clear. He had been elected Greater Manchester mayor. Four months later, when Makerfield became vacant, NEC officers changed course. Why ? Reports suggested support had been agreed before Burnham formally applied. What had changed was the mood inside Labour. MPs were frightened. Reform was advancing. Starmer’s authority was weakening. Burnham looked like the man who might save their seats. The NEC did not sack Starmer. But it opened the gate through which his most dangerous rival returned. Without that decision, Burnham could not have become an MP. Without becoming an MP, he could not have challenged for the Labour leadership. That was not a routine administrative decision. THE PLP APPLIED THE PRESSURE Burnham then won Makerfield convincingly. It became a verdict on Starmer. Reports suggested Burnham could command the support of around 200 Labour MPs. Ministers who had served under Starmer began treating his departure as inevitable. They did not necessarily need to launch a formal challenge. They only needed to convince him that he would lose one. When your Cabinet and MPs begin speaking about your leadership in the past tense, written rules mean very little. Starmer eventually said he had heard the answer from his parliamentary party. That tells us who delivered the final blow. Not Labour members. The Parliamentary Labour Party. THE MEDIA CREATED INEVITABILITY The media did not invent every problem facing Starmer. His government made mistakes. Promises were broken. Communication was poor. Many voters felt change was arriving too slowly. The media became part of the machinery. Almost every setback was forced through the same frame: Can Starmer survive? When will Burnham return? How many MPs are plotting? The headlines frightened more MPs. After Burnham won Makerfield, much of the coverage stopped asking whether Starmer would survive. It began discussing Burnham’s government. Who would become chancellor? Who would remain in Cabinet? When would he enter Downing Street? All before Labour members had voted. The media did not pull the trigger. But it repeatedly announced that the gun had already gone off. WAS IT A COUP? Not in the traditional sense. There is no public evidence that the NEC formally agreed to overthrow Starmer. There is no proof of one command centre directing MPs, ministers and journalists. But political removals do not always require one conspiracy. The NEC opened the gate. The PLP applied the pressure. Senior ministers removed Starmer’s remaining protection. Shabana Mahmood’s overlapping roles do not prove she designed the operation. But they expose how concentrated Labour’s internal power had become. She served in the government of the man under pressure. She chaired the institution controlling the route of the man expected to replace him. That deserves scrutiny. Keir Starmer was not removed by the electorate. He was not defeated in Parliament. He was not rejected by Labour members. He was persuaded that the institutions around him had already reached their verdict. That would not be party democracy.

Andy Burnham viene eletto deputato giovedì scorso. Durante il week depone il primo ministro, non senza chiedergli un passaggio di consegne di tre mesi perché non sa da che parte cominciare Quando Starmer si dimette subito, Burnham ne approfitta per un serie di selfie, qualche video si TikTok e per dire tutto e il contrario di tutto: aumentare la spesa militare sì ma meglio che no; limitare l’immigrazione sì, ma meglio non troppo; vicino all’Europa sì ma fatemici pensare. Non sa se l’economia sarà affidata al socialismo di Milliband o al neoliberismo di Streeting. Parla di voler spostare Westminster a Manchester (no, non è uno scherzo). Annuncia che non viaggerà tanto come Starmer perché il lavoro è a casa, ovviamente nel mezzo della guerra in Ucraina, il riarmo europeo, la crisi in Medio Oriente, la crisi energetica. È già stato definito la versione di sinistra di Bojo, il monarca folle che trasformò Westminster in un circo di giullari e saltimbanchi. Tempi cupi.

With Darren Jones now confirming that he will not be entering any leadership contest, I find myself, and I suspect many others, reflecting deeply upon our future within the Labour Party. I did not join the Labour Party to witness a mandate, won through immense effort and entrusted to Sir Keir Starmer by the British electorate, quietly transferred to another individual through pressure, intrigue, and political calculation. Nor did I join in order to endorse a process which appears, at least to many ordinary members, to be drifting perilously close to a political coup rather than a democratic exercise. Let me be perfectly clear. I do not wish to see Andy Burnham become Leader of the Labour Party, and I certainly do not wish to see him become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. That is not born of personal animosity. It is a matter of principle. Leadership should be earned, not assumed. Mandates should be won, not inherited. Legitimacy should flow upwards from the membership and the electorate, not downwards from a collection of parliamentarians, advisers, commentators, and newspaper columnists who appear increasingly determined to decide the outcome before the contest has even begun. What troubles me most is the growing sense that some believe the membership should simply acquiesce and accept whatever arrangement is placed before them. Such an attitude betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Labour Party is. It does not belong to the Parliamentary Labour Party. It does not belong to newspaper editors. It does not belong to political factions. It belongs to its members. Those members pay for the party. They campaign for it in all weathers. They knock on doors, deliver leaflets, defend its values, and devote countless hours of their lives to its success. They are not an inconvenience to be managed. They are the very foundation upon which the party stands. If Andy Burnham genuinely believes he is the right person to lead Labour, then he should place that proposition before the membership and allow them to render their verdict. Let there be a contest conducted openly, honestly, and democratically. Let the 350,000 members exercise the rights afforded to them by the party's constitution. Let us discover whether the enthusiasm proclaimed by certain sections of the media and elements within Westminster truly extends beyond those circles and into the wider Labour movement. For my part, I remain unconvinced. More importantly, I remain profoundly uneasy at the manner in which this entire affair is unfolding. The Labour Party has always prided itself on being a democratic movement. If that principle is to mean anything at all, then the members must be permitted to determine their own future free from coercion, manipulation, or prearranged outcomes. Anything less would not merely diminish the authority of a future leader. It would represent a profound disservice to the very people upon whom the Labour Party ultimately depends.