Cucking Funt
Member
- Location
- Gaza
- Country
England
Or nightmare, depending on your point of view.
Labour leadership challenge
- Topic starter Forest Hillbilly
- Start date
Andy Burnham's bid to return as MP blocked by Labour's ruling body The NEC.
Andy Burnham has been blocked from standing as a candidate for an upcoming parliamentary by-election in Gorton and Denton by Labour's ruling body.
As a directly elected mayor, Burnham had to get approval from Labour's national executive committee (NEC), after he applied to be a candidate on Saturday.
Some NEC members were concerned about an expensive mayoral election to replace Burnham, and allies of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer feared he could mount a leadership challenge, should he return to Westminster.
The move is likely to infuriate Labour MPs and some ministers who said local party members should have had the option of choosing the Greater Manchester mayor as the candidate.
It is a big political gamble by allies of the prime minister and risks inflaming tensions within the party, which is consistently trailing Reform UK in national opinion polls.
One senior Labour source who had been supportive of Burnham's candidacy said: "They're gambling the PM's whole premiership on winning a very hard by-election without their best candidate. It is madness."
The decision was made by 10 members of the NEC, including Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the on Sunday morning.
Earlier, she told the BBC allowing elected mayors to run as candidates in parliamentary by-elections had "organisational implications" for the party.
Several Labour sources had said the NEC could block Burnham's application on the grounds that a mayoral election would be expensive for the party.
It would also be costly for the taxpayer, with the last mayoral election costing around £4.7m.
Andy Burnham has been blocked from standing as a candidate for an upcoming parliamentary by-election in Gorton and Denton by Labour's ruling body.
As a directly elected mayor, Burnham had to get approval from Labour's national executive committee (NEC), after he applied to be a candidate on Saturday.
Some NEC members were concerned about an expensive mayoral election to replace Burnham, and allies of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer feared he could mount a leadership challenge, should he return to Westminster.
The move is likely to infuriate Labour MPs and some ministers who said local party members should have had the option of choosing the Greater Manchester mayor as the candidate.
It is a big political gamble by allies of the prime minister and risks inflaming tensions within the party, which is consistently trailing Reform UK in national opinion polls.
One senior Labour source who had been supportive of Burnham's candidacy said: "They're gambling the PM's whole premiership on winning a very hard by-election without their best candidate. It is madness."
The decision was made by 10 members of the NEC, including Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the on Sunday morning.
Earlier, she told the BBC allowing elected mayors to run as candidates in parliamentary by-elections had "organisational implications" for the party.
Several Labour sources had said the NEC could block Burnham's application on the grounds that a mayoral election would be expensive for the party.
It would also be costly for the taxpayer, with the last mayoral election costing around £4.7m.
chris123
Member
- Location
- hove actually
- Country
-
England
And Andrew Gwynne feeling better.
steeleye20
Member
- Location
- Croydon
- Country
-
England
Andy Burham would be a more popular choice amog the voters imo, which is the reason for blocking him.
He has a good track record at Manchester, looks capable and brought hope to the Hillsborough families.
Authoritarian right wing and quite nasty, how many voters thought they would be getting that from Labour.
Starmer, was a prosecutor snd that's how it feels tbh, they are exceptionally unlikeable.
'The British FBI' what will the uniforms be like?
😎 .
He has a good track record at Manchester, looks capable and brought hope to the Hillsborough families.
Authoritarian right wing and quite nasty, how many voters thought they would be getting that from Labour.
Starmer, was a prosecutor snd that's how it feels tbh, they are exceptionally unlikeable.
'The British FBI' what will the uniforms be like?
😎 .
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
Ireland
Labour are quite good at holding off elections.
And the clocks struck 13.
Burnham was knocked back solely because he was seen as a threat to Starmer. And more possibly, a threat to whoever else is striving to replace him come June.
I get why they blocked him but the idea it had anything to do with the kind of 'rationality' you are espousing is beyond delusional.
Agreed. He should see out his term as mayor and then step aside if he wants to be an MP.
He has been blocked for political reasons but overall I think it the right decision. Why should the taxpayer have to fund a mayoral election just because the incumbent fancies a new job.
If he gets away with it Khan will be next.
It is not rational to invite a mid term leadership election An avoidable headache.
very good
He promised to see out his term, so of course he tried not to
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
-
Ireland
Cucking Funt
Member
- Location
- Gaza
- Country
-
England
The very notion of an egregious 'implodee' gloating over an implosion elsewhere is, frankly, utterly laughable.
Reform is just a dustbin for busted, despised and psychopathic Tories, qv. Braverman, Lee Anderson, Anne Widdecombe, Andrea Jenkyns, Nadine Dorries, Robert Jenrick, Jonathan Gullis and all the other barking mad misfits jumping on this rather unsavoury bandwagon.
If anyone believes that Reform offers a real alternative, then they really haven't been paying attention.
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
-
Ireland
All he did was show Burnham's own tweet. It's pretty laughable that people want to support a government that can't govern its own party. Or has to make up ways to call off elections: because they will obviously lose.
Hrolf The Ganger
Member
- Location
- a sofa somewhere in Kent.
- Country
-
England
So if you believe that then who do you vote for? Labour, Tories, Greens, Liberals?
The idea that any of those are a better alternative is the stuff of denial.
Have you seen what the last handful of governments have done to this country?
Bring on the 'psychopaths'.
Cucking Funt
Member
- Location
- Gaza
- Country
-
England
Where did I say that any of those are better? You're trying (unsuccessfully) to twist what I said.
Why do I have to vote for anyone if they're all dreadful (which they are)?
Think before posting next time.
Hrolf The Ganger
Member
- Location
- a sofa somewhere in Kent.
- Country
-
England
I didn't twist anything. I'm asking a question.
What I think is that I won't vote for someone who has previously put this country on a road to disaster.
So you won't vote for anyone? That's up to you. Of course, if you don't, then you have no say. Maybe you should think before you wave that right.
A hefty chunk of those who did are now in Reform.
If you don't vote then you have no standing to moan about the government
Cucking Funt
Member
- Location
- Gaza
- Country
-
England
That's a fundamentally flawed argument. If every option that's put in front of you is unacceptable, who are you meant to vote for? I don't want it on my conscience that my vote enabled them.
Apart from anything else, voting for any of these shysters only encourages them. I tend to vote for the most amusing of the fringe candidates.