Best Of

Burnham is 1.21 to win Makerfield but only 1.45 to be next PM.

Implies there is a far from trivial chance he does not become PM even if he wins Makerfield.

There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, I guess.
It would be no surprise at all if Burnham's ascension to PM is not as smooth as he hopes, or possibly expects, in these unpredictable times.
I suspect he'll make it, though.

I'm in Makesfield at the moment, Andy having restored my faith, provisionally. It's a tight Lab-Ref marginal, judging by the canvass returns. Restore are getting a few votes - yet to meet a single voter for the other parties. Andy is running purely on the basis of his success as Greater Manchester mayor, and doing well. Well enough? Probably, but not a sure thing.

Great intel from the coal face - thanks Nick.

Burnham is 1.21 to win Makerfield but only 1.45 to be next PM.

Implies there is a far from trivial chance he does not become PM even if he wins Makerfield.

There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, I guess.
It would be no surprise at all if Burnham's ascension to PM is not as smooth as he hopes, or possibly expects, in these unpredictable times.
I suspect he'll make it, though.

I'm in Makesfield at the moment, Andy having restored my faith, provisionally. It's a tight Lab-Ref marginal, judging by the canvass returns. Restore are getting a few votes - yet to meet a single voter for the other parties. Andy is running purely on the basis of his success as Greater Manchester mayor, and doing well. Well enough? Probably, but not a sure thing.

Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .

I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .

All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .

Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.

It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.

There are worse crimes.

It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.

WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.

Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .

I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .

All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .

Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.

It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.

There are worse crimes.

It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.

WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.

Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.

The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.

City law firm boosts junior lawyer salaries to £189k in London
https://www.cityam.com/city-law-firm-boosts-junior-lawyer-salaries-to-189k-in-london/

More than the Prime Minister but less than an Olympic swimming pool.

And who seriously believes that Farage will give up all of his 10 jobs for that salary?

Unless he awards himself a million quid a year pay rise on day 1

He’s a disruptor. He’s there to disrupt the mainstream and establishment although he’s a part of it.

The moment he becomes that which he seeks to destroy the game is up, the fun is over.

He’s also surplus to requirements.

Agreed with your first two points, not so sure about the third.

Farage is absolutely vital to the project; noone else works as its figurehead. Tice is a nobody, Jenrick is too obviously a Tory with career disappointment, Yusuf too much an internet troll.

My hunch is that, if presented with an opportunity for actual responsibility, Farage will run away, much as he did in 2016 and 2019. He just needs an excuse.

Meanwhile, on this warm sunny morning in Germany, today’s Rawnsley:

The leader of Reform is…beginning to look a bit desperate. He had been flirting with trying to present his party as one maturing into “respectability” in an effort to persuade voters who are Reform-curious but queasy about racism and extremism that they no longer have anything to worry about. So what explains his ugly turn towards the politics of racial paranoia? Panic is probably the best answer.

Reform still leads all other parties, but any deflation of its bubble is disconcerting for a leader who has prized momentum as the definition of success. Usually inescapable at byelections, he has been largely absent from the contest for Makerfield, where he might be exposed to questions about that [£5 million] donation.

Also troubling to him is the durability of the Conservative party. The Tories are not exactly in fabulous shape, but they are resolutely refusing to concede to Mr Farage’s demand to be recognised as the undisputed master of the right in British politics. Defections from the Conservatives, much fanfared at the time, have caused more strife for Reform than they have trouble for the Tories.

What matters to Mr Farage is that he is threatened by a new competitor he hadn’t expected. After a quarter of a century menacing the Tories from the right, now there is a fireship aimed at his own party from the even further right. If you think relations between Reform and the Conservatives are bad, those between Reform and Restore are ferocious.

For those of us watching from a safe distance, there is a temptation to smile at this cage fight on the extremes of the right. But there is also a disturbing dimension to the grim grapple over who can be the most nasty party of the right. If this grisly competition has so little respect for the wishes of a grieving family, you can be sure it has absolutely none for the rest of us.

Empty waffle. No more insightful than political Twitter.

It’s hardly a Damascene revelation that relations between Reform and Restore are less than cordial.

Reform are also holding/gaining slightly in the polls.

I don't think pooh-poohing Rawnsley's argument here works, either as thesis or as tactic.

The fact that the Tories have not collapsed, despite figures such as Jenrick walking out is, I think, pretty significant. The defections have helped the Tories by getting rid of an overly ambitions and disloyal crew, but have weakened the RefUK "insurgency" brand. The polls are not demonstrating the kind of momentum that could lead RefUK to any kind of power, and may have already turned over. Even more problematic, increasingly Farage is being challenged on the dodgy donations, his closeness to Trump and the question of what he got for mouthing Putin propaganda over Ukraine- and this is defintely cutting through. If the punters are right, Farage will win nothing in the three by-elections and may even see the Tories snatch an unexpected victory in Aberdeen South, which seriously challenges the idea that the right should unite under his questionable leadership.

This could be the beginning of a slow puncture for RefUK which takes them out of the game.

If I had to live in Germany’s I’d give Freiburg serious consideration. There’s a pleasant, relaxed, feel about it, there’s quite a lot going on, and like my own home town it has the sunniest weather in its country. And of course there is a stack of other countries just a few hours drive away, as well as Black Forest scenery and villages nearby. The old square around the cathedral is pleasant and lively, although most of the centre is relatively modern, having been rebuilt after the war - the ‘remodelling’ actually begun in 1940 when a few Germany planes got lost in the weather and dropped all their bombs on it thinking it was in France; at the time the raid was blamed on the allies and the truth only began to emerge in the mid-1950s and the full story not until the 1980s.

I’ve been there on business a couple of times in the 2010’s.

Yes, it’s a very nice part of Europe.

Southern Bavaria for me.

Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .

I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .

All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .

Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.

It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.

There are worse crimes.

It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.