Would Starmer campaign for Reform?
- Thread starter Ivor Windybottom
- Start date
Would make a change to have one elected.
He was elected as PM by the country, he won’t give that up unless there’s a party revolt.
Perhaps they're paid on results.
It would end up like the (just as thankless) teaching/schools industry, with fewer folk wanting to do the job. Three ex-police have quit at my Missus' school recently, claiming the job demand is ridiculous. I would not want be be an MP, even if you paid me in gold pigs.
Blimey. I knew she was younger than you but I didn’t know she was still at school. Do you have to pay a fine when you go skiing in term time?
Blimey. I knew she was younger than you but I didn’t know she was still at school. Do you have to pay a fine when you go skiing in term time?
Yeah, that joke did come out wrong. Sorry. 
The primary school teacher I know is working several hours every evening and at weekends to catch up on all the admin surrounding teaching. It’s unbelievable the policies safeguarding special needs and statementing issues that they have to deal with.
I think Burnham's got another couple of years remaining as mayor. So there was a tiny glimmer of validity in the Starmer Party's claims that they didn't want an extra by-election. But it was otherwise complete crap.
The daft mancunians will have forgotten all about it in a couple of years, they'll re-elect him to ensure all the crack-heads are kept thriving all over the city.
The daft mancunians will have forgotten all about it in a couple of years, they'll re-elect him to ensure all the crack-heads are kept thriving all over the city.
One of Starmer's heavies was on Sky News earlier. He claimed that mayors are prevented from running to be an MP without permission. I think that's a Starmer Party rule rather than legislation, and it's possible the rule was invented about a fortnight ago.
To be fair, it would get a bit irritating if the mayor role did become widely used as a career progression step, some sort of an MP-in-waiting.
But I still don't understand why we have mayors anyway. We already have the govt for national stuff, and councils for local stuff. Just more ever-expanding nonsense and expense, possibly all stopping each other where views differ so often worse than nothing.
To be fair, it would get a bit irritating if the mayor role did become widely used as a career progression step, some sort of an MP-in-waiting.
But I still don't understand why we have mayors anyway. We already have the govt for national stuff, and councils for local stuff. Just more ever-expanding nonsense and expense, possibly all stopping each other where views differ so often worse than nothing.
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2025
- Messages
- 1,519
- Reaction score
- 1,286
- Country
And unnecessary.
Paedophiles and child abusers agree with you.
Some is very necessary, “naughty” kids who would get slapped about the head by teachers in bygone years are assessed for various conditions now. But the whole inspection thing is OTT. Removing so many schools from LA control has just created alternative bureaucracies and incredibly over paid executives heads etc.
Similar threads
- Big_Spark
- General Discussion