'Even if likely successor Andy Burnham wants change...' - pfff, why even raise it as a possibility at this point? There's zero evidence to suggest it, as far as I'm aware.

I'm actually surprised Starmer didn't continue to cling on despite his unpopularity. It didn't stop Blair after all, and who gives a sh!t what a few million disgruntled lefties think as long as the establishment interests continue to be served? I don't buy the Mandelson thing - were people really that angry about it, and again why would the establishment interests care. It's not like there haven't been nonce-adjacent politicians (or nonces themselves) before. It makes me wonder if there are some even more toxic revelations about Sturmer about to come out that finally forced the decision to get a replacement in.

cheers,
I