You just watch him getting outed and then no candidate will want the job. As usual there will be some 3rd pick on the job. Pathetic.
109
Pheeshfud3 days ago
+34
Starmer may not be great, but he sure as f*** beats a revolving door procession of progressively worse PMs, culminating in one not even outlasting a lettuce.
34
[deleted]3 days ago
+1
[removed]
1
Angrylettuce3 days ago
+9
Plenty to criticise Streeting about, using a homophobic slur isn't one of them
9
Matt-J-McCormack3 days ago
-8
I’d bet money him being bullied at school was made up and even more money he did the bulling.
-8
CishetmaleLesbian3 days ago
+76
Can someone explain the meaning of this for those of us who do not understand how British politics works?
76
WillDigForFood3 days ago
+93
If 20% of Labour's MPs deliver a vote of no confidence, an election to select a new PM is held.
Anyone in the Labour Party can run, as long as they can secure a nomination backed by 20% of the Labour MPs, including the incumbent PM.
They then hold ranked choice elections from that slate of nominees, eliminating nominees until someone has secured 50% of the vote, at which point they have a meeting with the Monarch, who rubberstamps their appointment.
93
taychoo3 days ago
+42
>If 20% of Labour's MPs deliver a vote of no confidence, an election to select a new PM is held.
Sort of, but you're missing a bit.
If 20% of sitting Labour MPs submit letters of no confidence to the PLP, this would mean that the threshold required to put forward a motion of no confidence has been met and a vote would be held in Parliament imminently.
Should the majority of Labour MPs vote against the PM, he would be forced to resign, which would trigger a leadership election within the Labour Party to appoint a new PM. However, under the unlikely event that a stable government could not be formed, a general election would be likely.
>Anyone in the Labour Party can run, as long as they can secure a nomination backed by 20% of the Labour MPs, including the incumbent PM.
While they do need a certain amount of nominations from Labour MPs, they don't need the incumbent PM's backing/endorsement to secure a nomination.
42
Hydronum3 days ago
+26
To the last point, I read that as even the PM is eligible as a number to reach thresholds, and able to run again, they are not barred.
26
taychoo3 days ago
+9
Yep, the PM is still a sitting MP within their parliamentary party, so there is nothing stopping them from providing a nomination to a potential candidate, which may help that MP meet the threshold required to stand in the leadership election.
Regarding the part about them being able to run again themselves. *Hypothetically,* yes, you're correct, there isn't anything barring them from trying to enter a leadership election.
As mentioned, if a PM lost a vote of no confidence, they would be forced to resign. However, they are **not** automatically barred from entering the leadership election that would be subsequently held within the Labour Party, as long as they can secure enough nominations to stand,
However, in practice, this is extremely unlikely to actually happen, as the PM would realistically struggle to secure the required nominations, as they would've very recently lost the confidence of their own parliamentary party. Instead, the Labour Party would rally around alternative candidates, hoping to 'stabilise' things.
9
bobbiecowman2 days ago
You are conflating two very different things. A vote of no confidence in the government (in which a majority of MPs of all parties vote down the government and triggers a general election — vanishingly unlikely with a government majority this big) and a vote of no confidence in Keir Starmer’s leadership of the Labour Party, which is a non-binding resolution that has absolutely no direct consequences.
The current leader of the Labour Party is automatically entitled to stand in a leadership challenge election. This was confirmed by the courts in 2016, when Corbyn was allowed to stand again despite not getting enough nominations (he won).
There are lots of resources around at the moment about the rules around Labour leadership elections. I recommend giving them a read, as most of the things in your comments above are simply not correct.
0
WillDigForFood3 days ago
+2
This is the correct reading.
2
IAmTheNightSoil3 days ago
+2
>However, in practice, this is extremely unlikely to actually happen, as the PM would realistically struggle to secure the required nominations, as they would've very recently lost the confidence of their own parliamentary party.
Yeah, I would assume that if the majority of MPs wanted the sitting PM to stay on, the PM wouldn't have lost the no-confidence vote in the first place, right? So for them to run again and win in this situation would require a bunch of MPs who had just given them a vote of no confidence to then vote for them to become PM again, which would make very little sense
2
WillDigForFood2 days ago
+1
I mean, a no-confidence vote only takes 20% of MPs.
You could still have the support of 80% of them - you only need 50% of the vote to become PM.
But then, those 20% might just go "No!" again - so why bother risking a cycle of paralyzing elections?
1
FunSpinach20043 days ago
+13
>While they do need a certain amount of nominations from Labour MPs, they don't need the incumbent PM's backing/endorsement to secure a nomination.
Lol exactly why would someone endorse someone to run against themselves.
13
lebennaia2 days ago
+1
If they knew they were fucked, and wanted someone from the same wing of their party to succeed them and continue with similar policies.
1
FunSpinach20042 days ago
+1
So they just only endorse the people they like?
1
bobbiecowman2 days ago
+2
You have just described the process used by the Tory party, not Labour!
They don’t submit letters to trigger a vote of no confidence. A candidate who wants to challenge needs to secure 20% of MPs’ nominations (not a secret letter, but publicly saying they back candidate X).
If anybody reaches that threshold, a Labour Party leadership election is held. If Starmer wants to stand, he will automatically be on the ballot.
2
axw35553 days ago
+49
In the U.K., the leader of the party with the most MPs is PM. It’s not separated out like the presidency is in the US. If thr us worked like us, the leader of whichever party controlled the House of Representatives would be president.
But MOs can challenge the party leader if they believe the leader isn’t doing the job well.
It has specific rules for each party, in labours case she needs 20% of Labour MPs to back her. Which is 81, currently she’s around 10 on record.
Note that this doesn’t mean that she’ll become PM, just that there will be a leadership election inside the party to choose a new MP to be leader. She’s just trying to light that fuse. Whoever wins, they’re PM.
It happened a lot under the tories. Between 2015 and 2024, we had four, because they kept triggering elections and choosing new leaders. One was in office for such a short term that it was a joke that a head of lettuce had a longer shelf life.
49
DaemonPrimarchJ3 days ago
+25
Wasn't just a joke, a newspaper actually got a lettuce and showed it lasted longer IIRC
25
Pleasant_Narwhal_3503 days ago
+12
The famous Liz Truss iceberg lettuce!
12
YinzerKermy3 days ago
+8
Basically it saying challenge his leadership of the party to replace him with someone else in the party. If enough mps vote to challenge it forces a leadership election sort of like a recall election but within the party.
8
Peterd19003 days ago
+4
The Public do not directly elect the Prime Minister
The public elect a Member Of Parliament (MP) to represent a particular area called a constituency. Once all the constituencies elect their MPs, the political party with the most MPs forms the government. The leader of that party becomes Prime Minister.
If the party leader becomes unpopular amongst the party members then they can force him to step down and choose someone else to lead them. each party will have their own procedure for removing the leader and choosing a new one
If the party chooses a new leader that person then becomes Prime Minister
4
Silent-Werewolf78873 days ago
+13
They recently held local elections in the UK. The elections themselves were not that important, as it's only local councillors being elected (think things like fixing pot holes, rubbish collection etc) but they were seen as an unofficial referendum on the current ruling Labour party under Keir Starmer. A populist right wing (Reform) party swooped in and obliterated them. Due to the poor result, a member within the Labour party has suggested she will challenge Keir for the leadership
13
Pleasant_Narwhal_3503 days ago
+8
> as it's only local councillors being elected (think things like fixing pot holes, rubbish collection etc)
I'd argue that local politicians are very important in democracy, because they're responsible for regularly interacting with the electorate and bringing up their wishes and grievances to higher-ranking politicians, who generally don't have the time to do that. If the local politicians are not doing their job right, then the electorate has no political voice, and you might as well not have democracy at all.
8
JustCopyingOthers3 days ago
+5
The public don't directly choose the prime minister, they elect members of parlement who choose the prime minister. Though in most elections you are normally basing your vote on who's likely to be the PM.
A stalking horse is someone expendable who challenges the PM on behalf of all the real candidates. The challenger is likely to damage their political career if the PM wins.
Methods of choosing leaders vary between parties.
5
neromoneon2 days ago
+1
"There is only one way for Labour MPs to formally initiate a leadership challenge. A challenger (or challengers) must be nominated by at least 20% of the combined ranks of Labour MPs. Currently, 81 Labour MPs would need to jointly nominate a challenger. Nominations must be submitted in written form to the general secretary of the party. This triggers a leadership contest.
In these circumstances, a sitting leader is not required to seek nominations (they are on the ballot paper by default)."
[https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/labour-party-leadership-contests](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/labour-party-leadership-contests)
1
Bonny-Mcmurray3 days ago
+1
I don't think anyone has yet mentioned that the Labour party won power away from the Tories in the last big election when the Tories were so fucked as a party that they couldn't keep a PM for a month. Then Labour, under Starmer, adopted Tory policies and rhetoric. I'm not a UK resident, so I'm not an authority on why Labour is doing this shit, but I assume it is because centrists have a habit of trying to appeal to the right instead of the left for re-election when they have power. This recent election (again) showed that this doesn't work because it pushes voters to whatever party is even further to the right (Reform).
1
Capable_Kiwi25143 days ago
+2
>I assume it is because centrists have a habit of trying to appeal to the right instead of the left for re-election when they have power. This recent election (again) showed that this doesn't work because it pushes voters to whatever party is even further to the right (Reform).
This is pseudo-poli sci. Centrists as a component of the political spectrum do not have habits; rather, individual political parties have habits which are created by their particular history.
Whether or not a pivot to the right works is context-specific. It worked great in the 90s, and it's worked great for the current Canadian government. It all depends on the situation---what the electorate wants, how it views its choices, and what it expects from the pivotibg party---it's not a general rule that pivoting right doesn't work.
2
Ravvnhild3 days ago
+1
The Rest Is History podcast just did a 4 part series on the rise of Margaret Thatcher that deals with exact scenario in the 1970's. Excellent podcast.
1
IAmTheNightSoil3 days ago
+1
I like those guys a lot. I'm currently listening to their series on 1974 and then probably will listen to the 1970s series afterwards. The sense of instability, dysfunction, and decline that seems to pervade that period feels a lot to me like the US today, even though the particulars are totally different in many ways
1
Silent-Werewolf78873 days ago
+144
Because a revolving door of leaders tends to go down so well with the public. Replacing Starmer with a complete nobody should go down well
That's a brilliant plan, ese
144
Spanyanagonyam3 days ago
+12
100% this.
I'm trying to think if there's ever been a situation where a government has switched out its leader mid-term and things got better as a result?
I can think of plenty of examples where things very much got worse, but not one where things got better.
12
Captainatom9313 days ago
+66
May to Johnson - went from third place polling to a landslide win.
Thatcher to Major - went from disaster to winning the most votes of any political party in British history at a general election.
Eden to Macmillan - went from the suez screwup to a landslide re-election.
And outside of the UK, Trudeau to Carney just happened.
66
snkn1793 days ago
+14
Haha way to disprove the point. Also here in Australia, we've had 4 elections since 1993 where the leader (who likely would have lost) got booted out and the party ended up remaining in power the next election.
Hawke to Keating - goes from the "unwinnable election" to a strong Labor victory
Rudd to Gillard - Labor victory (though close, ended in a hung parliament)
Abbott to Turnbull - LNP victory (another close one)
Turnbull to Morrison - LNP victory, and probably one of the biggest upsets in recent memory (2016 US election vibes)
14
Captainatom9313 days ago
+6
And once you get to the regional level it becomes even more common. It literally happened this week in Scotland, under Humza Yousag the SNP were tanking but John Swinney managed to steady the ship and they've won again, albeit with fewer seats.
6
IAmTheNightSoil3 days ago
+6
As a guy who doesn't know UK political history very well, I read the previous post and thought "Sounds like a good point." But then here you are providing tons of examples of this exact thing happening. Thank you for posting this, you prevented me from believing an apparent historical inaccuracy
6
asdf_1_23 days ago
+20
Trudeau stepped down as PM and Mark Carney won the leadership race to see who would replace Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and become PM.
Though it helped Carney a lot that Poilievre (the opposition's party leader) utterly dropped the ball when Agent Orange went on his attack tirades against Canada, cementing Carney's re-election as PM in the election he called shortly after replacing Trudeau.
20
Bleatmop2 days ago
+2
I think you are under selling what happened considerably. Poilievre had a 27 point lead at one point. Sure, his closeness to Trump certainly hurt him but there was more to it than that. Carney also obliterated the NDP and even set back the Bloc who were expected to sweep Quebec. It's the single greatest turnaround I have ever saw or heard of in politics of all time. In any country. Furthermore if another election were to be held today he would win an overwhelming supermajority. The NDP and Bloc could even be reduced to zero seats and the CPC would be down to a handful of haybail seats.
2
Gisschace3 days ago
+6
As a non Labour voter this is such a stupid idea, they’re going to make themselves look as stupid as the tories, and I just want competent and stable leadership for a change.
I have a Labour MP so going to email him to say don’t be foolish
6
Veronome3 days ago
+2
Exactly. It makes the party look weak *even if* the replacement were to be "better".
They'll have larger scrutiny, and if they fail it re-enforces the perception of "Labour politicians = rubbish" which is a deep pit to climb out of (just ask the Tories).
2
Only-Associate-47463 days ago
+34
We need a stable leadership at this time in the World, haven't the years of Tory government taught us anything.
34
DarkHorizonSF3 days ago
+16
Agreed. I don't like Starmer and didn't vote for him, but I think it's completely strategically wrong to remove him now. Labour's situation right now is that they have no idea how to answer Reform, and they are /slowly/ recovering the economy but people aren't feeling it much yet.
I think the right strategy here is for Starmer to say he has a mandate to do XYZ and will continue, but that he won't be leader for the next general election. He stays on, absorbs the unpopularity, and works on the economic fundamentals while others in the party work on the right vision for the future. There's then a process in 2028 that sees him pass the baton on shortly before the autumn budget, and declare the election date for autumn 2029.
As for that right vision for the future, the best chance of them winning is to find the right cocktail of 1) radically pro-Europe, 2) national pride standing up for ourselves and our allies internationally, and 3) actually answering the questions Reform poses. As a leftist I'd also throw in more genuine left-wing economic politics, but cynically they could and would 'skip' that.
16
TheWhiteManticore3 days ago
+6
The cycle of Biden style governance resulting in far right populist getting into power must end.
6
Midnight-Rising3 days ago
+45
Ah yes, more infighting, that always works out well
45
[deleted]3 days ago
-44
[deleted]
-44
Spanyanagonyam3 days ago
+27
Genuine question: why do you say that? What is it specifically about Starmer's government that is a "f****** unmitigated disaster"?
I totally buy the idea he's not a great communicator, doesn't do politics well, lacks a unifying vision for the country, all of which makes him a rather uninspiring leader who's scored own goals. I also get that you'd say many of the problems that he inherited haven't got much better.
But "f****** unmitigated disaster"? Strikes me as the exact kind of ridiculously over-the-top hyperbole that's got us to the point where nobody can succeed as PM and we'll just keeping bringing them in, destroying them and ditching them again 2 years later. Is the country on fire? Is the economy nose-diving into the shitter? Are we global pariahs?
Already 6 PMs in a decade and people want a seventh. That'll solve it!
27
EasyPermission52653 days ago
+21
I think the UK has become ungovernable. A stable but very uninspiring PM like Starmer causes plebs to think he is the worst thing ever? These people are so deeply unserious.
21
Pleasant_Narwhal_3503 days ago
+11
I agree. But it's not just the people, all the major political parties in Britain are also deeply unserious. Tories and Labour spend more effort backstabbing fellow party members than fighting for the nation. Reform have scapegoats instead of solutions. I have no idea why the Greens dare call themselves "green" when their MPs regularly oppose the development of solar, wind, and nuclear power.
I guess this is inevitable when it's a democratic system where the government reflects the people.
11
negotiationtable3 days ago
+17
There is no one who will do better either in Labour or any other party. The problem isn’t Starmer.
17
3scap3plan3 days ago
+9
can you explain what he has done for you to call it a "unmitigated disaster" or has the gulag sent you outside for your daily exercise?
9
Madbrad2003 days ago
+2
Liz Truss was an unmitigated disaster. The idea that Starmer is anywhere close is truly bizarre
2
Substantial_Milk81703 days ago
+13
Giving the cabinet a weekend deadline before pulling the Thanos 'Fine, I'll do it myself' is peak British political drama.
13
Smooth-Ad52573 days ago
+6
20% unhappy people? Sounds like normal baseline in the 21st century especially in these social media times manipulated by oligarchs. Let the chaos reign ...
6
DARKKRAKEN3 days ago
+5
Who is she? She wouldn't have a chance.
5
lebennaia2 days ago
+1
She doesn't need to stand a chance personally, she's acting as a stalking horse.
1
RevolutionaryWorry873 days ago
+2
Conservatives v2?
Party infighting and political ambitions kill any public support at all.
2
GingerTop_Carrotlad3 days ago
+2
Basically, labour are hurting a lot and an mp has decided to do something. Labour lost something like 74 per cent of seats they were defending in local elections, and even really bad results (tories in 2023 according to Google list c. 57 per cent) aren't really coming close.
There's several ways of looking at this though.
Common narrative is keir is not doing well. Certainly problems do seem to be at the top judging by the number of resets and lack of clear messaging. But also, media is heavily biased against, and a lot of social media is driving popularity downwards.
Worth reflecting though; the mp who has done this has strong links to David Lammy. Whose politics definitely track to the right leaning side of labour (such as it is). Lammy has a lot of links to us, vance particularly. The same us whose npps stately said it would basically interfere in European politics, including ours. That is very conspiracy, but... Equally possible just to be fair, that she has decided to act out of frustration and worry and many backbenchers are agreeing with her.
Ultimately we probably do need to change track at this point. But, who replaces Starmer? If Lammy puts his hat in ring considering his links to us, will not be happy. The best option, Burnham, cannot stand. We'll probably end up with Streeting, or just more damage to labour. More. Not less. This mp has not helped things.
2
[deleted]3 days ago
-1
[deleted]
-1
InorganicTyranny3 days ago
+1
This is a Labour MP mounting a leadership challenge to the PM who is also a member of their party. Almost certainly in response to the poor performance of Labour in the recent local elections. None of them like Trump (or Farage) and they’re doing this because they think Keir isn’t the man to face down Labour’s opponents.
1
brokeboipobre3 days ago
+1
How does UK politics work? How does a contender challenge the PM just like that?
1
FrankSand3 days ago
+21
Not exactly. But the US equivalent would be like if the speaker of the house was the head of Government and a member of his party challenged his leadership and triggered a vote in the house for new leadership.
21
lebennaia2 days ago
+2
Not quite right, as the House of Commons has a speaker, who is politically neutral.
2
jzsean3 days ago
+5
ty for americanizing this, i feel included. - a texan
5
cardew-vascular3 days ago
+5
It will happen similarly to Canada where Justin Trudeau had his leadership questioned and the writing was in the wall so he resigned as leader. A party leadership election is then called and members of the party vote for the new leader of the party, and the new party leader becomes PM.
It was more complicated for Canada at the time as Carney won but had no seat, so an election was called. If the replacement PM is already a sitting MP then no election is necessary they just have a new PM.
5
Istobri3 days ago
-1
I think an election was slated to be called anyway in the next year, but Carney moved it up to April 2025 (he became party leader in March), partly so he could secure a seat in the House.
Luckily for him, the Liberal Party had just revoked the nomination of the long-time MP for Nepean (Chandra Arya), so Carney could run to represent that seat.
-1
Infarad3 days ago
+4
Challenge is initiated via the standard glove slap, followed by duelling pistols at dawn.
4
initial-algebra3 days ago
+1
The people do not elect the prime minister, they elect members of parliament (MPs). Technically, the prime minister is chosen by the head of state (the King), but by convention they are the leader of the party (or coalition) with the most seats. In actuality, they are the person with the highest confidence, meaning support from the rest of parliament. That's not *exactly* the same as being the leader of the ruling party, because MPs can ultimately vote however they please. The risk of having a leader without the confidence of parliament is that an MP can table a motion of no confidence; if it passes, the head of state will dissolve the government, triggering a general election. This is a very risky way to shake up the leadership, so parties would generally rather resolve leadership challenges internally.
(In theory, a vote of no confidence doesn't *have* to lead to dissolution and a general election, but this is the expected outcome.)
1
trueGildedZ3 days ago
-5
think like american impeachment but done just by his party
-5
fitzgoldy3 days ago
+2
A complete nobody going to 'challenge' should be fun.
Presumably she's just trying to make a fuss hoping others join in the challenge.
2
Pxlfreaky3 days ago
-2
Why does it feel like the UK gets a new a PM every month?
-2
LoopStricken3 days ago
+17
Because for a while, the Tories were haemorrhaging leaders.
17
Spanyanagonyam3 days ago
+18
Because people are f****** stupid, and think it's like football managers where if you don't feel it's going great you just switch out the guy in charge and then things get better.
18
Exasperant3 days ago
+2
Because idiots want to point to a brief spell of Tory chaos every time anyone suggests the current Labour PM might actually be a bit shit and perhaps could be replaced with someone better.
He's been in the job 2 years, and only got it through a mix of forgotten promises and the alternative destroying itself.
2
ScopeLogic3 days ago
+1
Which vegetable this time?
1
Cyzax0073 days ago
+1
So much focus on who should be the leader instead of the leader... No focus whatsoever on actually doing her job...
1
abbzug3 days ago
-21
It's a shame that Keir's strategy of kicking out leftists and trying to appeal to transphobes didn't work. Who knew.
-21
Spanyanagonyam3 days ago
+7
Yeah because courting the leftists worked so well at the previous election.
7
EasyPermission52653 days ago
+5
The leftists completely fucked up the party for a generation. When the leftists were finally kicked out, the party immediately won. You failed like you always do, get over it.
5
BailingBoats3 days ago
One day, the British public will realise that Corbyn won more votes in 2019 than Starmer did in 2024. That will be a glorious day, leading to serious questions and solutions about how our politics works.
But it is not this day it seems.
0
VogonSoup3 days ago
+5
If only elections were decided by who got more votes.
(Not /s)
5
BailingBoats3 days ago
+2
Seriously. Britain isn't really a full democracy. FPtP is plainly the biggest problem in our politics. No matter what political change a person wants in this country, FPtP is in the way. We all have an interest in getting rid of it.
2
[deleted]3 days ago
-11
[deleted]
-11
MoleWhackSupreme3 days ago
+16
That’s not how this works, he will be replaced by another Labour MP if he’s replaced at all.
16
[deleted]3 days ago
-16
[deleted]
-16
Spanyanagonyam3 days ago
+1
But nobody has voted in Reform so what was the point in your comment?
1
Terrible-Group-96023 days ago
Would be funny if West gets the job
0
MarketCrache3 days ago
-14
[Labour Friend of Israel.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Friends_of_Israel)
So, she's good to go...
-14
run-on_sentience3 days ago
-31
MPs. MOs. PMs. GMOs. POS.
Can anyone actually give information on what any of this means? I don't feel like googling British politics because I don't want to end up on a list.
-31
Spanyanagonyam3 days ago
+7
Why would you end up on a list?
7
BalrogPoop3 days ago
+7
Cabinet is the group of most senior government ministers, they run the various ministries, departments, agencies etc.
This labour MP (Elected member of parliament, like a US house representative, not necessarily in the cabinet) has said if one of the senior MPs doesnt start the process to remove their unpopular leader, then she will start the process.
Basically, a junior government member is saying
> " This leader sucks and everyone hates him. Senior members do your job and replace him with a better one, or I'll rally the party and do it myself "
92 Comments