Best Of

I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.

The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.

Good morning

Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position

He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza

Its a really important decision because it will do so much to shape his government. He also needs a Chancellor who can survive the buffeting that is coming from both the markets and from inside the party as so many have to learn yet again that austerity was not a choice but a necessity.

I would be very concerned if it was Ed Miliband. He has some relevant experience but the policies he has promoted in Environment through both net zero and in the North Sea have been hugely damaging and anti-growth.

Louise Haigh, in my opinion, has neither the skills or experience for it but its not unusual for the person who has run a successful campaign for the leader to get it. I suspect she is undervalued.

Streeting has shown he is quick and robust in the way he has faced down the most powerful unions in the country at Health. His problem, and the reason he is not a candidate, is that he has very little of a following in the party (like Reeves in that respect) so he doesn't add any great strength to the ticket. He's probably rightly favourite though and I suspect the markets would like it.

I don't think that Yvette Cooper has the stamina for it given her health problems.

Mahmood would be a possibility, especially if Burnham wanted another woman in the role.

It needs to be someone who will stand up for the interests of the country against the dead hand of the Treasury, and finally start to undo Osborne’s damage,

I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

Streeting for me. Sane enough not to spook the markets. EdM might spoil the markets and I'd keep him at energy where he seems to have a genuine interest and passion and doing some of the right things. I think a chancellor who can also explain things well and come across as positive would be a good thing: Streeting. Plus keep your enemies close etc... I don't seem EdM as a serious future leadership contender, nor Mahmood for FF43's reasons, above.

Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
...
...
There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.

We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.

I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…

I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.

I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.

You can have it now.

Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

Lazy bastards simply string out the work.

That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.

I see the hindsighters are chiming in with their hindsight.

In an all my years covering politics I have never met anyone so lacking in interest in the skills a leader needs - the ability to tell a story; to listen to colleagues; to woo, persuade & chivvy. Keir Starmer isn’t just uninterested in these requirements of the job. He is dismissive & contemptuous of them. @AndrewMarr9 sums this up in the @NewStatesman rather more memorably than I could …

https://x.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/2069114432379068770?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

All evaluation of the past - like how the PMship of Starmer is to be assessed - is hindsight. There is nothing wrong with it. Robinson and Marr are, sadly, right.

As an example of Starmer's regime, is it possible to identify a single genuine courageous hard choice he has made and stuck with WRT the electorate and/or his MPs?