Starmer's vision quest

[Rusty Nails]

I can see electorally why he's taken the dishonest/coward's way out, but does it mean that the country will forever be unable to discuss it honestly, despite all the evidence?

It's not the dishonest/coward's way out at all, but choosing the best time to fight which battle rather than letting the opposite side decide whichever one suits them.

Despite your obvious disappointment at him not putting Brexit at the heart of the debate, this (possible) election is not about Brexit but about who stands the best chance of leading the country and Streeting is being very devious in trying to frame the debate around Brexit...which he knows would reduce Burnham's chances.

Imo it is not the right time to reignite the Brexit debate so soon from the last, together with all the other immediate problems we face, and a gradual building up of relations with the EU for a few more years would be more likely to succeed.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Which is why he'll have to argue against his own earlier positions as he is standing in a very pro-Brexit seat.
Not a promising start as a potential leader looking as if he'll flip for popularity at the drop of a hat.

Well he has a choice of toning down the anti-brexit talk or, educate the constituents that he is right and they were wrong all along. Which is honest but the odds are stacked against.

It looks like advantage Wes at the moment.

 

[Psamathe]

One problem I see about the rejoining the EU polls is that I suspect many answering "rejoin" are answering to put us back where we were before. But before we had a load of exemptions and rebates we won't get were we to rejoin eg bigger financial contribution.

EU might also not allow us exemption from joining the € as that would tie us closer and make it harder for a change of government to bounce us out again. But that would mean a fair loss of control by the Bank of England (prompting Fârage to read "Teach Yourself ...").

I wonder how the polling would go if people had the likely terms explained before answering (which would mean they have to think for a short time).

 

[Psamathe]

Despite your obvious disappointment at him not putting Brexit at the heart of the debate, this (possible) election is not about Brexit but about who stands the best chance of leading the country and Streeting is being very devious in trying to frame the debate around Brexit...which he knows would reduce Burnham's chances.

Also I think any rejoining EU would ultimately have to go to a referendum.

Reality to rejoin might have to be get closer to EU (not Starmer's "incremental" but sensibly closer), give people time to see the benefits, maybe still closer, until rejoining is a much smaller step.

The big difficulty is Single Market with Freedom of Movement. Maybe wait until Fârage's ££££ through Reform dries up enough that he sees the US as more lucrative and emigrates.

 

[briantrumpet]

One problem I see about the rejoining the EU polls is that I suspect many answering "rejoin" are answering to put us back where we were before. But before we had a load of exemptions and rebates we won't get were we to rejoin eg bigger financial contribution.

EU might also not allow us exemption from joining the € as that would tie us closer and make it harder for a change of government to bounce us out again. But that would mean a fair loss of control by the Bank of England (prompting Fârage to read "Teach Yourself ...").

I wonder how the polling would go if people had the likely terms explained before answering (which would mean they have to think for a short time).

All that agreed, especially given that the electorate don't seem to read behind the headlines (unlike the good folk of NCAP). It's actually why it needs proper discussion, rather than the pretence of cakeism ("at the heart of Europe but definitely, but absolutely not in the EU!").

 

[Pblakeney]

Well he has a choice of toning down the anti-brexit talk or, educate the constituents that he is right and they were wrong all along. Which is honest but the odds are stacked against.

It looks like advantage Wes at the moment.

He's on a sticky wicket already. On one hand he has to say "Vote for me, vote Labour". On the other hand he has to say...
"Vote for me to be PM as the current Labour Party are shite." Awkward.

 

[briantrumpet]

I guess that this is where I am with Burnham (Andreou is a writer/journalist). The trouble is that by tying himself to ostrichism over Brexit to win the seat, he'd be tying Labour to the same stance that Starmer decided to tie Labour's hands with, were he to win the leadership election.

Alex AndreouMay 18, 2026 at 3:00 PM GMT+1

I really wanted this Burnham speech to leave me hopeful and was actively rooting for it. I found it deflating - to put it mildly. Where it needed to be brave and expansive, it was small and meek. Let me give one example that I found quite instructive, since Andy used it as a framing device. 1/

"If politics can't fix something as simple as a pothole, why should people believe it can do anything?" AB built his key offer on this: more money for local gov't. But the issue is not ONE pothole. It's crumbling infrastructure everywhere. That requires a national response - not more petty cash. 2/

On the EU, we got a rerun of the nonsense we've had for years - "make Brexit work" with a regional accent. I know some will say: he's doing what he needs to win, by telling that Brexity constituency what it wants to hear. But isn't dislike for Lab nationally the result of this exact approach? 3/

Has anyone actually tried to win this sort of area by being honest? Wouldn't that be real leadership? To say: "I know why you voted for this, but it's turned out badly and I think you know that. You now have a choice. Trust the next easy solution the same conmen offer you, or fix the damage."

4/ It's not clear to me that voters are not sick of - more than any single thing - feeling like their complaints are managed, rather than understood or resolved. "I completely sympathise with your frustration, madam, here is a £5 voucher." Wouldn't the truly brave 'reset' be to stop fkn doing that? 5/

Finally, Burnham's speech spoke about unity, but was actually quite divisive - honest North vs wealthy South, honest apprenticeships vs posh degrees, honest local gov't vs wicked Whitehall. How does that "bring the country together"? It's just another crowbar in a different set of cracks. 6/

I sincerely hope, since he seems to be so popular, that Burnham grows into the person the country needs. I remain, as ever, open and hopeful. But my initial impression is of a very talented local politician, out of his depth, employing the same political handbook that has ruined Labour. Sorry. 7/7

 

[BoldonLad]

And the problem with that is that it doesn't matter which colour ribbon they pin on on election day, they will always make sure their backers are taken care of. Which means the person in the middle will always be left holding the tax bill. The poor can't pay and the rich won't.

Just today, a conversation with Daughter No4. She is a NMW earner. In addition to her "main job" she occasionally does "agency shifts". One of the Agencies she did work for, made an error with her tax (they failed to apply BR tax code, so, deducted too little tax). So, today, HMRC informed her that she owed them £24!, they adjusting her tax code to get this back over the rest of this tax year. Roughly £2 a month, not the end of the world, but, it did make me ponder what can't they be so "efficient" with the various tax dodgers?

 

[BoldonLad]

True and the same has always been a core component of populism. My question is, how and why people always fall for it? History shows that marginalised groups always tend to stay marginalised. Populism takes root when people grow desperate and angry with the status quo, and look elsewhere. It always ends in the same disappointment/disaster though. I never really understand why a person who thinks that every political party has failed then believes that a different one will succeed?

I think that so long as the majority of people are doing "tolerably well" financially, then, no problem, but, when the majority begin to feel (rightly or wrongly) that they are no longer doing "tolerably well", there come a need to find a reason. The natural human state is not to blame your own short comings, so, the population at large do not think (for example), "well, my productive is crap, so, therefore the Germans/Chinese/ etc etc are doing better than me". The "natural" thing to do is to find some group the blame. So, foreigners (particularly readily identifiable foreigners), or, people of a different religion (again, useful if easily identified. Then, all you need is a cheer leader to channel the dissatisfaction.

 

[BoldonLad]

Burnham wants to win and won’t be standing in nice leafy Devon but in the heart of a Red Wall area where the “Brexit is a disaster” debate probably isn’t the main topic of conversation…as shown by the success of Reform in the council elections.

Yes, I wonder what "working class" credentials he is going to pull out of the hat?

 

[briantrumpet]

I guess that this is where I am with Burnham (Andreou is a writer/journalist). The trouble is that by tying himself to ostrichism over Brexit to win the seat, he'd be tying Labour to the same stance that Starmer decided to tie Labour's hands with, were he to win the leadership election.

Alex AndreouMay 18, 2026 at 3:00 PM GMT+1

I really wanted this Burnham speech to leave me hopeful and was actively rooting for it. I found it deflating - to put it mildly. Where it needed to be brave and expansive, it was small and meek. Let me give one example that I found quite instructive, since Andy used it as a framing device. 1/

"If politics can't fix something as simple as a pothole, why should people believe it can do anything?" AB built his key offer on this: more money for local gov't. But the issue is not ONE pothole. It's crumbling infrastructure everywhere. That requires a national response - not more petty cash. 2/

On the EU, we got a rerun of the nonsense we've had for years - "make Brexit work" with a regional accent. I know some will say: he's doing what he needs to win, by telling that Brexity constituency what it wants to hear. But isn't dislike for Lab nationally the result of this exact approach? 3/

Has anyone actually tried to win this sort of area by being honest? Wouldn't that be real leadership? To say: "I know why you voted for this, but it's turned out badly and I think you know that. You now have a choice. Trust the next easy solution the same conmen offer you, or fix the damage."

4/ It's not clear to me that voters are not sick of - more than any single thing - feeling like their complaints are managed, rather than understood or resolved. "I completely sympathise with your frustration, madam, here is a £5 voucher." Wouldn't the truly brave 'reset' be to stop fkn doing that? 5/

Finally, Burnham's speech spoke about unity, but was actually quite divisive - honest North vs wealthy South, honest apprenticeships vs posh degrees, honest local gov't vs wicked Whitehall. How does that "bring the country together"? It's just another crowbar in a different set of cracks. 6/

I sincerely hope, since he seems to be so popular, that Burnham grows into the person the country needs. I remain, as ever, open and hopeful. But my initial impression is of a very talented local politician, out of his depth, employing the same political handbook that has ruined Labour. Sorry. 7/7

From another journalist - I think the point is that by simply not discussing it at every turn, it's a bit like the US gun lobby shutting down debate about gun reform after every mass shooting by saying "Now's not the time".

Chaminda Jayanetti May 18, 2026 at 7:37 PM GMT+1

I get why people see the EU Rejoin question as a difficult one for Burnham - Makerfield is Brexity, the Labour membership is overwhelmingly pro-Rejoin - but I don't think it need be hard to navigate I think I'd tell him to just say "any road to Rejoin must run through Makerfield", or wtte first and foremost, let's face it - the Labour membership is not going to vote against Burnham for not being sufficiently pro Rejoin. it's not happening.

Second, to be credible and to be worth the EU's while, Rejoin has to be the consensus position of 60%+ of the population - free movement and all it has to get to the stage that being pro-Brexit becomes a political liability for the Conservatives, and possibly even politically difficult for Reform itself that's when you have something that is not plausibly going to get blown apart in one election cycle now that doesn't necessarily mean it becomes the solid position of Makerfield specifically - but it does need to become at least close to 50-50 in places like Makerfield. it can't simply be done via the Remain heartlands. this ought to be self-explanatory.

By setting out that "the road to Rejoin must run through Makerfield", it allows Burnham to acknowledge the ultimate desirability of rejoining, while making it clear to his prospective constituents (and those in similar seats) that they are central to that question the task of Remainers, and any pro-Rejoin Labour leadership, then subsequently becomes how to win those voters round.

I think campaigning from the ground up locally, and a Labour govt that is popular with those voters, are both prerequisites but after that a case will have to be made repeatedly and relentlessly - I think at first a case for closer ties with the EU to benefit the economy and security, based around Europe being our natural partners ("don't believe me? look at a bloody map") Atlanticist-Brexit is utterly discredited. and then, I think, making sure that nothing is ruled out in the next Labour manifesto as a bare minimum. Let's be clear - rejoining the EU is probably a 15-20-year project *from now*.

 

[Shortfall]

The 'popular radicalism in working class areas' that the Greens have tapped into is based almost entirely on it's pro Palestinian policies imo. I don't see white working class people flocking to the Green Party.

View attachment 15190

I made a similar observation here (https://ncap.cyclechat.net/threads/starmers-vision-quest.32/post-177079) which generated the standard NCAAP response

 

[Rusty Nails]

I think campaigning from the ground up locally, and a Labour govt that is popular with those voters are both prerequisites.

Herein lies the problem with Burnham going in too hard over Brexit at this potential by-election...Labour is clearly not popular with these voters so one of the prerequisites has not yet been met.

 

[Psamathe]

Second, to be credible and to be worth the EU's while, Rejoin has to be the consensus position of 60%+ of the population - free movement and all it has to get to the stage that being pro-Brexit ...

I see Freedom of Movement being a major motivation for the "Stay Out" supporters.

Maybe pro-EU politicians need to be smarter before raising rejoining by rathen than continually talking about the horrors of all these immigrants instead start talking up immigration as a benefit to eg NHS, care sector, construction sector, wider economy, etc. so rather than seeing immigrants as the curse we need to stop, more start to see it as the benefit it is.

eg Make it much easier for broad sectors of workers from EU to get more generous work visas eg "You want more houses we need people from EU to get enough builders to construct them", "You want your parents to get social care we need carers from EU to help provide enough carers", etc.

Once public sentiment has moved a bit that will have weakened Reform's maybe biggest argument. Then talk about rejoining.

 

[briantrumpet]

Herein lies the problem with Burnham going in too hard over Brexit at this potential by-election...Labour is clearly not popular with these voters so one of the prerequisites has not yet been met.

It's definitely not an easy thing to resolve, but will need leadership, not simply accepting the status quo with a shrug of the shoulders.