Best Of

My money is on Tuesday.

Weekly Cabinet.

He'll make it known that this is when he'll make a decision. Turf out all but Ministers and a few key political appointees. Not civil servants a Labour Party political cabinet meeting.

Go round the room, look everyone in the eye, open and transparent. No repurcussions back me yes or no.

I suspect a majority will say NO

He confirms to them he will not stand for re-election if it's over 50%, in that case he'll request a meeting with the King Tuesday pm

If its under 50% he will put himself to a MP vote if any MPs get the 80 odd needed for a nomination.

This potentially allows Streeting to get his 80 plus, if not it's a coronation.

Far better to walk in to the Cabinet Room and do it this way, either way it's ballsy and puts Cabinet on spot.

No one quite expected him to be this bad.

Hello

All credit to you then.

If Starmer had been called Kevin or Keith, he would never have got this far. Labour has been somewhat blinded by nostalgia because of his name.

Not sure that's true.

I think they were blinded by the fact that he ran a quango, and therefore assumed he could run a country.

Two very different jobs, as events have shown.

The Crown Prosecution Service is hardly a quango.

It's a non-ministerial government department.

As to assuming he could run a country, until you do it no previous job can prove someone could do it. Business is very different, mayors are tiny, and so on.

These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.

"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

The reason this has happened is

a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.

What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.

1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
2. Go for PR
3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

All popular, big, and easy to describe.

He has said no PR this side of a GE.

How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?

Meanwhile this - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/nhs-hospital-nottinham-inquiry-baby-deaths-kj99rx3lw - will be familiar to Burnham from his time in Health. What's his plan to deal with these sorts of widespread scandals? A reminder: a Parliamentary Commission recently pointed out that good maternity care was the exception rather than the rule in Britain.

At what point do we stop underwriting Thames Water profligacy? The water rate payers of South East England have been royally shafted for 35 years. Is there a reasonable solution?

Shouldn't the solution be investigatory rigour. Set an empowered regulator on them with escalating fines for every infraction. A few months and they'll be insolvent and unlikely to get a further bond holder bailout.

No. Let them go bankrupt. Purchase the assets for pennies on the dollar. Then nationalise it totally. The privatised industry with a regulator model has been tested to destruction and doesn't work for strategic industries.

I want to expedite their insolvency and this seems a reasonable way to get there. Plus a good wedge of fines might cheapen the cost of nationalisation,

Burnham will at least have authority in the way Starmer didn’t seem to ever have despite the election win

Will he though?

How well does he actually know the current Labour MPs?

How credible will his Cabinet be? If he is seriously considering appoint Haigh to a senior post, that is not a good look.

Will he have the courage to get rid of the dead wood currently in office?

Haigh was a very good Transport minister. Her caution for fraud should be regarded as spent.

Plus she pleaded guilty and was given a conditional discharge. That is more than a caution.

Legally her conviction is spent but politically it will never be.

What like web hacking

Burnham will at least have authority in the way Starmer didn’t seem to ever have despite the election win

Will he though?

How well does he actually know the current Labour MPs?

How credible will his Cabinet be? If he is seriously considering appoint Haigh to a senior post, that is not a good look.

Will he have the courage to get rid of the dead wood currently in office?

Haigh was a very good Transport minister. Her caution for fraud should be regarded as spent.

Sorry but I think fraud disqualified her from high office.

It wasn't a serious offence.

Fraud is always serious. It destroys trust.

These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.

"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

The reason this has happened is

a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.

What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.

1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
2. Go for PR
3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

All popular, big, and easy to describe.

He has said no PR this side of a GE.

How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?

Meanwhile this - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/nhs-hospital-nottinham-inquiry-baby-deaths-kj99rx3lw - will be familiar to Burnham from his time in Health. What's his plan to deal with these sorts of widespread scandals? A reminder: a Parliamentary Commission recently pointed out that good maternity care was the exception rather than the rule in Britain.

Maternity scandals are the rule rather than the exception in the UK.

I understand that the annual cost of litigation over maternity exceeds the annual cost of all maternity units. In part this is because of the lifetime cost of disability, but even so an astonishing figure.

Not unique to the UK, indeed the US figures are pretty appalling too, so to a degree Obstetrics is intrinsically high risk.

But there is an underlying issue between midwives and obstetricians in the UK over responsibility that goes back further than Wendy Savage in the Eighties. I think there is fault on both sides but a fundamental difference in culture.

There also has been neglect of services because there are few government targets apart from pressure to reduce section rates.

I find it shocking that something so fundamentally important as the start of new life is treated so neglectfully.

One of our children is in a special school. I think about 20% of the pupils are there because of accidents at birth or very preterm deliveries. If half of these could be avoided then that would save 10% of the special education budget.
But it doesn't stop there. Lack of early diagnosis and treatment is another major problem. Like many children our child was diagnosed with "autism" which is no more useful than when they used to diagnose children as "spastic" or "morons".
Today we got a proper diagnosis privately .He has a treatable condition but it is probably too late. The treatment cost is a few thousand pounds. If we had got that four years ago then that would have saved the taxpayer £5 million in lost tax revenue and care fees.

These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.

"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

The reason this has happened is

a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.

What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.

1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
2. Go for PR
3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

All popular, big, and easy to describe.

He has said no PR this side of a GE.

How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?

Meanwhile this - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/nhs-hospital-nottinham-inquiry-baby-deaths-kj99rx3lw - will be familiar to Burnham from his time in Health. What's his plan to deal with these sorts of widespread scandals? A reminder: a Parliamentary Commission recently pointed out that good maternity care was the exception rather than the rule in Britain.

At what point do we stop underwriting Thames Water profligacy? The water rate payers of South East England have been royally shafted for 35 years. Is there a reasonable solution?

Shouldn't the solution be investigatory rigour. Set an empowered regulator on them with escalating fines for every infraction. A few months and they'll be insolvent and unlikely to get a further bond holder bailout.