Best Of

New National Planning Policy looks good, /if/ it doesn’t get gutted by the Nimby lobby: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.

No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.

Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population

Yeah, same here, It's not the Greens resisting housing developments in my area; it's the Conservatives.

On topic, I do wonder if the New Statesman journalist probed the NEC source on what the current rules on all women shortlists in Labour are?

These were dropped in the last Parliament because women actually made up a small majority of Labour MPs. The balance shifted in the male direction in 2024 but I understand they are being considered rather than having been formally re-introduced - it isn't clear 46% is sufficiently short of parity to justify.

The sole Parliamentary by-election of this term (Runcorn) saw a female Labour candidate... but not an all-women shortlist. By-elections pre-2019 also frequently featured male Labour candidates.

There might be a route to block Burnham here. But I'd want more detail of what it is - it seems to me that this is assertion by the anti-Burnham faction, and the New Statesman has been a bit lax in fact-checking.

You don't need an all-woman shortlist to block Andy Burnham. You just need a shortlist without Andy Burnham on it.

Thing is, if Burnham tries this it will be clear he's coming to trigger and win a leadership contest. The question then is do the parliamentary party want one (and him)? If they do then it's all over for Starmer and he won't be able to block Burnham. His power will already have dissipated. If they don't there'll be no need to block Burnham because Burnham himself will have sussed the situation and he won't bother. He'll stay as Mr Manchester.

TLDR: Burnham either comes back with everything in place to replace Starmer as party leader and PM, or he stays put. This 'all women shortlist' business is a bit of a red herring.

IMO he's a sell at anything in single digits.

It's moderately interesting that Burnham didn't throw his hat into the ring with Runcorn. Better opportunities will be hard to come by. I'm not 100% convinced he wants it. Being PM is hard - even the good ones end up roundly pilloried. He's got a nice high profile job as it is made that bit more high profile by these little flirtations.

He probably shouldn't want it (he and Manchester have been good for each other) but I think he does. Wanting isn't getting though.

If Labour do get tonked in the locals next year, an even halfway proven winner will look more attractive, so there's that.

If Labour do badly in next year’s Manchester City Council elections Burnham may have lost his chance of being a prospective PM.

On topic, I do wonder if the New Statesman journalist probed the NEC source on what the current rules on all women shortlists in Labour are?

These were dropped in the last Parliament because women actually made up a small majority of Labour MPs. The balance shifted in the male direction in 2024 but I understand they are being considered rather than having been formally re-introduced - it isn't clear 46% is sufficiently short of parity to justify.

The sole Parliamentary by-election of this term (Runcorn) saw a female Labour candidate... but not an all-women shortlist. By-elections pre-2019 also frequently featured male Labour candidates.

There might be a route to block Burnham here. But I'd want more detail of what it is - it seems to me that this is assertion by the anti-Burnham faction, and the New Statesman has been a bit lax in fact-checking.

You don't need an all-woman shortlist to block Andy Burnham. You just need a shortlist without Andy Burnham on it.

Thing is, if Burnham tries this it will be clear he's coming to trigger and win a leadership contest. The question then is do the parliamentary party want one (and him)? If they do then it's all over for Starmer and he won't be able to block Burnham. His power will already have dissipated. If they don't there'll be no need to block Burnham because Burnham himself will have sussed the situation and he won't bother. He'll stay as Mr Manchester.

TLDR: Burnham either comes back with everything in place to replace Starmer as party leader and PM, or he stays put. This 'all women shortlist' business is a bit of a red herring.

IMO he's a sell at anything in single digits.

It's moderately interesting that Burnham didn't throw his hat into the ring with Runcorn. Better opportunities will be hard to come by. I'm not 100% convinced he wants it. Being PM is hard - even the good ones end up roundly pilloried. He's got a nice high profile job as it is made that bit more high profile by these little flirtations.

He probably shouldn't want it (he and Manchester have been good for each other) but I think he does. Wanting isn't getting though.

If Labour do get tonked in the locals next year, an even halfway proven winner will look more attractive, so there's that.

He is though a doubly proven loser.

It's just so wildly implausible that he can somehow propel himself to power in the Labour party by basically just saying 'I'm free'.

Meanwhile, this being a Labour government, UK unemployment continues to rise: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98nqe0m008o

And sometimes words just fail me:

"Annual average earnings growth was 3.9% for the private sector and 7.6% for the public sector, across the three-month period."

Isn't it the case that public sector wages lag private sector wages - pay settlements tend to be based on historic rates of inflation. In fact, you can see that quite clearly here in Figure 4/5, with public sector wages well behind private sector during the post-COVID period: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/december2025

add pension contributions , cushy number , conditions etc and it is the opposite.

I think it very much depends where you are. In most of Scotland public sector pay is actually substantially ahead of what the private sector is offering. So, for example, a one year qualified solicitor in the private sector will earn somewhere between £40 and £50k outside the most demanding areas. A procurator fiscal with the same qualifications will be paid £52-54K plus the extras that come from the public sector such as pension rights, more holidays, better sick pay, greater security of employment etc.

This is a problem for the private firms and more generally it is a real problem for the economy since the cream of the crop are tempted to the public sector where their skills are not necessarily fully utilised. This makes growing businesses in Scotland, and in other areas with depressed earnings, much more difficult and removes potential innovators or entrepreneurs from the scene.

In contrast, in more affluent areas we see the public sector really struggling to get qualified staff at all because they cannot compete with what is on offer.

The combination of these effects are to depress growth, entrepreneurship and investment in our poorer areas and to increase these in the richer ones. This is one of the major reasons so much money invested in "levelling up" , regional investment funds etc has simply not worked. Ironically, given this money is public sector driven, it can aggravate the problem rather than address it. Do you want a safe, secure, well paid job in some "enterprise company" or take your chances with a dodgy start up?

I think it is a major factor in our economic performance because we create this huge drag factor. Only existing hot spots can create the opportunities and employment needed for growth. Everywhere else the dead hand of an overheavy, over paid public sector destroys growth.

Which is why there should be no national pay agreements in the public sector. Each local organisation needs to deal with their own pay.

Possibly the best thing they could do is move the public sector pensions to DC scheme, but that has a significant short term cost.

As was mentioned upthread, the vast majority of public sector workers have no idea just how bad are most private-sector pensions now.

Suzie has been given her detention lines that she has to type out 100x

https://x.com/SusieWiles/status/2000943061627548148
The article published early this morning is a disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history.

Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story. I assume, after reading it, that this was done to paint an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the President and our team.

The truth is the Trump White House has already accomplished more in eleven months than any other President has accomplished in eight years and that is due to the unmatched leadership and vision of President Trump, for whom I have been honored to work for the better part of a decade.

None of this will stop our relentless pursuit of Making America Great Again!

"Disingenuously framed" is good, though polysyllables run counter to the style guide.

Lol. But surely not good enough. She talks here as if the president is merely a man. A great man, yes, perhaps the greatest in all of history, but just a man.

a

Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:

• The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
  
• Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
  
• Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
  
• Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
  
• Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
  

Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).

After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…

Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?