I'm John Batchel with my good colleague Anatole Levin of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft,

and he's here to help me with the melodrama in Parliament.

As I understand it, Anatole, it is now widespread gossip that Kirstarmer won't do.

He is Prime Minister with an enormous majority in the House,

and his labor majority may be unusually strong. However, he is not, oddly,

and yet I'm unfamiliar with what happens next. The whispering is now loud,

and there's headlines mentioning the mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham,

who used to be a member of Congress, and I believe left most recently to take up a post in a labor

strongholder, at least traditionally, of Manchester. But Mr. Burnham is now what we would say in the

U.S. throwing his hat in the ring. Is this something that's credible or is it aspirational on part of Mr. Burnham?

Is Mr. Stommer someone they can remove easily?

Not easily, no. First, you know, there has to be a move by a very large proportion of

Labour MPs.

And then as far as, and of course, you know, Stahmer has packed the parliamentary Labour Party with his own people.

But then again, a lot of these people are completely loyal to themselves and, you know,

would ditch Stama

in an instant if they were convinced that he would lose them the next elections.

The problem with Burnham is that he isn't in Parliament.

I mean, he is a very credible alternative to Stama.

He's much more charismatic.

He has a lot of personal prestige, especially in the old Labour strongholds of Northern England.

But he's not an MP.

...