Best Of

The fact there has been virtually no change in Makerfield between 2024 and now suggests that it isn’t Labour that’s the problem, it’s Keir Starmer.

The underlying problem is the country wants changes that are 1) too expensive for our budget and/or 2) implausible. So any candidate representing the status quo is going to lose to a change candidate for the next decade at least. Policies, values etc are not that important, if we had a Conservative or Reform govt they would be extremely unpopular too.

Burnham has gone too early - he should have taken over in 2027 and portrayed himself as a change candidate in 2028. It will be very difficult to portray himself as a change candidate when he has been there for a couple of years.

I think Starmer would have worked as a change candidate were it not for winter fuel. Everything that came after was downhill but that was the initial destructive act. I supported the policy but it was utterly toxic against the new Labour coalition as to be fair many Labour MPs said at the time.

Mandelson would have been easily survivable by somebody with more popularity.

From a party POV, he should have made benefit reform a confidence issue and then quit then if it hadn’t passed. Letting that go just gave the PLP the magic money tree. Burnham will have to grapple with that too but he will start with goodwill.

Surely the point of the Labour Party is to attempt to solve national problems with policies that match the culture of the Labour Party?

The WFA cut seemed like an attempt of cod-Thatcherism. No Labour MP went into politics to cheer cutting benefits.

You want to reduce the welfare bill, but are a Labour PM? What do Labour MPs like? Benefits targeted to the poorest, perhaps?

So announce all the old age extras are going in a blender. The result will be means tests/taxed, so as to target the poorest pensioners.

Then you sell that to the MPs as a reform that makes the poor better off, while being fiscally prudent.

No labour MP went into parliament wanting to make a difficult decision. They want to open fetes, garden centres, shops, and do lots of feel good social work while not upsetting anyone.

Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.

I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.

Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.

Have you seen the price of houses these days?

In the Kinnocks Wales?

We have several homes by us in the 1 million region with one seafront home within 400 yards being fully restored and going on the market for 3 million

The Kinnocks represented South Wales as MPs and MEPs and not even Cardiff

But they lived in London. The family home was in Ealing when Neil became LotO. House prices in Ealing from 1983 to today are up approximately 1700%! You want to make money, invent a Time Machine and buy in London in the ‘70s or early ‘80s.

Buying the house would be too hard work.

Better to head to the bookies and use your knowledge of future sporting and political events.

And then go to a stockbroker.

That would be more suspicious. The bookies would all ban you.

But, yeah, you could just buy some shares in Microsoft and the Home Depot.

The fact there has been virtually no change in Makerfield between 2024 and now suggests that it isn’t Labour that’s the problem, it’s Keir Starmer.

The underlying problem is the country wants changes that are 1) too expensive for our budget and/or 2) implausible. So any candidate representing the status quo is going to lose to a change candidate for the next decade at least. Policies, values etc are not that important, if we had a Conservative or Reform govt they would be extremely unpopular too.

Burnham has gone too early - he should have taken over in 2027 and portrayed himself as a change candidate in 2028. It will be very difficult to portray himself as a change candidate when he has been there for a couple of years.

I think Starmer would have worked as a change candidate were it not for winter fuel. Everything that came after was downhill but that was the initial destructive act. I supported the policy but it was utterly toxic against the new Labour coalition as to be fair many Labour MPs said at the time.

Mandelson would have been easily survivable by somebody with more popularity.

From a party POV, he should have made benefit reform a confidence issue and then quit then if it hadn’t passed. Letting that go just gave the PLP the magic money tree. Burnham will have to grapple with that too but he will start with goodwill.

Surely the point of the Labour Party is to attempt to solve national problems with policies that match the culture of the Labour Party?

The WFA cut seemed like an attempt of cod-Thatcherism. No Labour MP went into politics to cheer cutting benefits.

You want to reduce the welfare bill, but are a Labour PM? What do Labour MPs like? Benefits targeted to the poorest, perhaps?

So announce all the old age extras are going in a blender. The result will be means tests/taxed, so as to target the poorest pensioners.

Then you sell that to the MPs as a reform that makes the poor better off, while being fiscally prudent.

No labour MP went into parliament wanting to make a difficult decision. They want to open fetes, garden centres, shops, and do lots of feel good social work while not upsetting anyone.

Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.

I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.

Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.

Have you seen the price of houses these days?

In the Kinnocks Wales?

We have several homes by us in the 1 million region with one seafront home within 400 yards being fully restored and going on the market for 3 million

Even in our corner of West Yorkshire there are £1m+ properties.

I just think @HYUFD demeaned Wales by his comment as there are million pound plus homes across the country as across England and Scotland

The majority of million pound homes are in London and the Home Counties and those who own them elsewhere are largely corporate executives and lawyers etc not Labour politicians and ex teachers

There are million pound homes in DONCASTER. I passed one for sale only yesterday.

Admittedly rather more house than you'd get in Surrey.

£1m is not a fortune these days. Public sector pensions for anyone in a vaguely professional role must be getting close to being worth £1m.

Much, much more. With index linking, widows benefits and tax free lump sums payable at 60 for people with way better than average life expectancy, it would be almost impossible to buy an equivalent product. This is a good article on the cost of index linking: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-13601165/How-extra-does-inflation-linked-annuity-cost-good-value.html

My advice to Starmer's wife is to gently tell him it's over and to resign on Monday but offer to stay in office until his successor is appointed

Anything else is frankly cruel and whilst not quite the same, can anyone imagine what would have happened if Jill Biden had taken Joe's hand and quietly said time to pass on the batton Joe

To expose Labour to a very public and probably quite demeaning battle to hold on Starmer would be vilified

I rather disagree. Starmer has a very strong case. If the rabble seek Burnham like change then they should resign as MPs and seek re-election on an Andy-isn't-he-lovely mandate.

Starmer is toxic to the electorate and that was evidenced in spades in Makerfield

His race is over

I shall mark your card as a rabble-rouser

I'm sure you're mostly of Tory blood, as am I. So we're perhaps not the best to comment. Nonetheless Starmer has delivered broadly stable government and Reeves has delivered a broadly stable financial background. I think that in both cases this represents hat-tip like achievement.

The background they had to deal with was shameful. Several Tory PMs really let themselves down.

And so Kemi.

She's doing well, but I have no idea if she really can take the bull by the horns and pre-announce the heavy revision to the state that is long overdue. I hope she can.

Kemi will fancy herself as Maggie Thatcher to Burnham’s Harold Wilson and Starmer’s Jim Callaghan and Sunak’s Ted Heath

That's not bad

It means nothing of course but I have been quite surprised two friends who historically would be solid Labour expressing some enthusiasm for Kemi. (As I only have two friends this is powerful evidence!)

Interesting, Farage and Lowe competing to be Enoch Powell of course

I'm not actually friends with Lowe or Farage. I have no time at all for the former and have a degree of respect but would never advocate the latter,.

The fact there has been virtually no change in Makerfield between 2024 and now suggests that it isn’t Labour that’s the problem, it’s Keir Starmer.

The underlying problem is the country wants changes that are 1) too expensive for our budget and/or 2) implausible. So any candidate representing the status quo is going to lose to a change candidate for the next decade at least. Policies, values etc are not that important, if we had a Conservative or Reform govt they would be extremely unpopular too.

Burnham has gone too early - he should have taken over in 2027 and portrayed himself as a change candidate in 2028. It will be very difficult to portray himself as a change candidate when he has been there for a couple of years.

I think Starmer would have worked as a change candidate were it not for winter fuel. Everything that came after was downhill but that was the initial destructive act. I supported the policy but it was utterly toxic against the new Labour coalition as to be fair many Labour MPs said at the time.

Mandelson would have been easily survivable by somebody with more popularity.

From a party POV, he should have made benefit reform a confidence issue and then quit then if it hadn’t passed. Letting that go just gave the PLP the magic money tree. Burnham will have to grapple with that too but he will start with goodwill.

Surely the point of the Labour Party is to attempt to solve national problems with policies that match the culture of the Labour Party?

The WFA cut seemed like an attempt of cod-Thatcherism. No Labour MP went into politics to cheer cutting benefits.

You want to reduce the welfare bill, but are a Labour PM? What do Labour MPs like? Benefits targeted to the poorest, perhaps?

So announce all the old age extras are going in a blender. The result will be means tests/taxed, so as to target the poorest pensioners.

Then you sell that to the MPs as a reform that makes the poor better off, while being fiscally prudent.

No labour MP went into parliament wanting to make a difficult decision. They want to open fetes, garden centres, shops, and do lots of feel good social work while not upsetting anyone.

Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.

I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.

Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.

Have you seen the price of houses these days?

In the Kinnocks Wales?

We have several homes by us in the 1 million region with one seafront home within 400 yards being fully restored and going on the market for 3 million

The Kinnocks represented South Wales as MPs and MEPs and not even Cardiff

But they lived in London. The family home was in Ealing when Neil became LotO. House prices in Ealing from 1983 to today are up approximately 1700%! You want to make money, invent a Time Machine and buy in London in the ‘70s or early ‘80s.

You dont even need the house prices, they would have had more than enough through salary to save a couple of million, which invested would turn into a few million.

Neil was vice president of the European Commission - thats a 300k euros role with and 80k a year pension. She was a Euro MP which is around 100k salary and 45k a year pension for 15 years service.

Perhaps those surprised that such wealth can be accumulated might change their mind on taxing wealth a lot more?

FPT

The header should read "The Cabinet is Revolting".

Organisations are singular.

It is a group of people, so 'are revolting' is correct.

One of humanity's great wordsmiths agrees with me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk47saogI8o

And this organisation, as noted before, is anything but singular.

When was the last time we had a vaguely competent Cabinet?

The Coalition government in 2010.

Those LibDem in that 2010 Cabinet:

Michael Moore - ex-MP
David Laws - ex-MP
Chris Huhne - ex-MP
Danny Alexander - ex MP
Vince Cable - ex MP
Nick Clegg - ex-MP
Ed Davey - LibDem leader

Within a decade, virtually all of that Cabinet expertise has either resigned or been booted out by the voters. That was their reward for vague competence...

The fact there has been virtually no change in Makerfield between 2024 and now suggests that it isn’t Labour that’s the problem, it’s Keir Starmer.

The underlying problem is the country wants changes that are 1) too expensive for our budget and/or 2) implausible. So any candidate representing the status quo is going to lose to a change candidate for the next decade at least. Policies, values etc are not that important, if we had a Conservative or Reform govt they would be extremely unpopular too.

Burnham has gone too early - he should have taken over in 2027 and portrayed himself as a change candidate in 2028. It will be very difficult to portray himself as a change candidate when he has been there for a couple of years.

I think Starmer would have worked as a change candidate were it not for winter fuel. Everything that came after was downhill but that was the initial destructive act. I supported the policy but it was utterly toxic against the new Labour coalition as to be fair many Labour MPs said at the time.

Mandelson would have been easily survivable by somebody with more popularity.

From a party POV, he should have made benefit reform a confidence issue and then quit then if it hadn’t passed. Letting that go just gave the PLP the magic money tree. Burnham will have to grapple with that too but he will start with goodwill.

Surely the point of the Labour Party is to attempt to solve national problems with policies that match the culture of the Labour Party?

The WFA cut seemed like an attempt of cod-Thatcherism. No Labour MP went into politics to cheer cutting benefits.

You want to reduce the welfare bill, but are a Labour PM? What do Labour MPs like? Benefits targeted to the poorest, perhaps?

So announce all the old age extras are going in a blender. The result will be means tests/taxed, so as to target the poorest pensioners.

Then you sell that to the MPs as a reform that makes the poor better off, while being fiscally prudent.

No labour MP went into parliament wanting to make a difficult decision. They want to open fetes, garden centres, shops, and do lots of feel good social work while not upsetting anyone.

Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.

I have always wondered how James Callaghan was able to buy a 130 acre farm in East Sussex.

Especially when you see Harold Wilson very modest little Cottage in the Isles of Scilly.

Callaghan was born and educated about half a mile from where I live in to a fairly modest Brixham family.

A little known fact he attended Furzham Junior School, still there as a school today.

The fact there has been virtually no change in Makerfield between 2024 and now suggests that it isn’t Labour that’s the problem, it’s Keir Starmer.

The underlying problem is the country wants changes that are 1) too expensive for our budget and/or 2) implausible. So any candidate representing the status quo is going to lose to a change candidate for the next decade at least. Policies, values etc are not that important, if we had a Conservative or Reform govt they would be extremely unpopular too.

Burnham has gone too early - he should have taken over in 2027 and portrayed himself as a change candidate in 2028. It will be very difficult to portray himself as a change candidate when he has been there for a couple of years.

I think Starmer would have worked as a change candidate were it not for winter fuel. Everything that came after was downhill but that was the initial destructive act. I supported the policy but it was utterly toxic against the new Labour coalition as to be fair many Labour MPs said at the time.

Mandelson would have been easily survivable by somebody with more popularity.

From a party POV, he should have made benefit reform a confidence issue and then quit then if it hadn’t passed. Letting that go just gave the PLP the magic money tree. Burnham will have to grapple with that too but he will start with goodwill.

Surely the point of the Labour Party is to attempt to solve national problems with policies that match the culture of the Labour Party?

The WFA cut seemed like an attempt of cod-Thatcherism. No Labour MP went into politics to cheer cutting benefits.

You want to reduce the welfare bill, but are a Labour PM? What do Labour MPs like? Benefits targeted to the poorest, perhaps?

So announce all the old age extras are going in a blender. The result will be means tests/taxed, so as to target the poorest pensioners.

Then you sell that to the MPs as a reform that makes the poor better off, while being fiscally prudent.

No labour MP went into parliament wanting to make a difficult decision. They want to open fetes, garden centres, shops, and do lots of feel good social work while not upsetting anyone.

Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.

I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.

Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.

An estate of £1.5 million, including property, is a healthy amount, but it’s not exceptional. Let me quote a website…

Figures released by HM Revenue & Customs have revealed that the number of deceased estates valued at more than £1 million has risen by over one-third in five years.

In 2013-14, there were 8,340 estates worth over a £1million, whilst in 2018-19 the number stood at 11,210.

Inflation since then has been high. £1 million in 2013-4 is basically £1.5 million now. G Kinnock was working as an MEP. She presumably inherited from her husband, who was at the top of UK politics. If they bought property in London in the 1970s, they would’ve benefited from the property boom. This seems a weird example to claim politicians are just in it for the money,

Her husband, last time I checked, is still alive so no inheritance from that source.

Ahhhhhhhhhh! My apologies. I could’ve sworn he passed away.

Nope - he's still aaaaaalllllllrrrrrriiiiggghhhhtttt!

One Reform MP sums up the Makerfield result, ‘we were either too racist or not racist enough’

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/19/reform-uk-weaknesses-makerfield-nigel-farage-labour

Or the question being asked was not about racism but about who should be PM.

Yes. I cannot really see that Reform have done especially badly, given that their entire schtick in recent months has been 'Get Starmer Out', but every voter in the by-election knew that the quickest way to do that was to elect Burnham.

What do you think a good result for Reform would be in the Greater Manchester Mayoral election? What would be lacklustre?

It's easy for people to rationalise poor results after the event, so it might be more instructive to set a yardstick beforehand.

I said beforehand that Burnham was the favourite, and that has been my consistent position.

You on the other hand are claiming that a byelection won on the express understanding that the Labour Prime Minister would be ousted is somehow a victory for Labour. Perhaps that is what passes for a victory these days, but somehow I can't quite see if Ben Houchen had won a parliamentary byelection by promising to unseat Badenoch, that you'd be telling us what a great night it was for the Tories.

As for Greater Manchester, I wouldn't attempt even a casual prediction (which is all it would ever be) until all the candidates are known.

One thing I will say in Andy Burnham's favour.

Tuesday is the tenth anniversary of the United Kingdom voting to put economic sanctions on itself and I had planned to do several threads on Brexit but now I'll be doing lots of threads on Starmer being ousted/the Labour leadership contest instead.

Didn't we recently have a very well written series of guest headers explaining how well Brexit has gone? So I believe therefore, Brexit has probably been more than covered.

Those headers probably need to be countered BBC style with something that represents the wide consensus across economists that it hasn’t, actually, been a brilliant success.

It’s moot though for a betting site. Public opinion continues to move firmly against it, which is what matters in this context. The contrast with SINDY is really interesting, where we are in stasis.

I don’t recall that as the thrust of the argument. It was more that those who claimed it was a disaster were overstating their case, and used data to show this. If you want to show the opposite I’d love to read it.

It started like that (and was convincing - I don’t really believe it’s cost the economy as much as that particular study suggested), but when you start suggesting zero or even positive impact you’re in an very small and eccentric group of analysts.

I feel no need whatsoever to show the opposite, in the same way I don’t feel the need to demonstrate that the planet is getting hotter.

If you say it is zero or even positive impact then you match the real world data, not the hypothetical assumptions that are divorced from real world data.

Any "models" showing that the UK has performed poorly start by assuming the UK will have performed better without Brexit and work backwards from there. Any good economist knows not to make such assumptions, when you assume it make an ass out of u and me.

The real world data confounds the assumptions.