Best Of

https://x.com/guidofawkes/status/2069649219112071576

Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.

Council house building.

Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.

And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.

Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.

There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off

If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.

Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.

Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.

Parliament is in recess from mid July to early September.

So what difference does it make if Burnham takes over in mid July or September?

Because if he takes over in mid July he can't actually do anything until September in any case.

By "do anything" I mean actually change anything of substance. Of course he can talk on TV and do photo opportunities and generally go around sounding like a nice person.

He can take the salary, the fancy car with a policeman driving it, and get in the air miles visiting other world leaders on that nice plane they let him use.

Maybe even take some time to think about what he’s actually going to do, relaxing in the rather smart country house that is Chequers.

Just like every other Prime Minister, then?

Not sure what your problem with Burnham is apart from the fact he's a Labour Prime Minister, presumably?

At least @Alanbrooke started sniping at Starmer after he'd been to the Palace and the car had got to Admiralty Arch on the way back to Downing Street.

My only problem with him is that he’s just as much of an empty suit as the guy he’s replacing.

There’s no vision, he’s just Starmer Mk II, but with the remains of a Northern accent left after Cambridge kicked most of it out of him.

Have you read his book? At least he’s taken the time to set something out in writing however much one might disagree. Many criticisms of Burnham can be made but he’s set out his philosophy in a way SKS didn’t

Well the profound thoughts Burnham is currently associated with are his bond markets and waspi comments.

Which rather give the impression that he's insecure, vacuous and with little clue as to what he's talking about.

And you, a fan of Boris Johnson!

Not a fan, a tolerator.

Boris had his uses, I never expected that he would have zero self-control or that the Conservative party would put no controls over him.

That Labour are so enthused about their equivalent of Boris does bring to mind the history repeats itself quote.

Burnham's elevation is not universally endorsed, and for the Johnsonian reasons you suggest.

I suspect Burnham is smart enough to avoid some of the obvious pitfalls Johnson created for himself.

Can anyone explain the key events in Badenoch now being seen positively?

She has picked some fights, sometimes unwisely, she has seen off Starmer without being at all stellar at the despatch box. What memes, what bits of feed, what bot lines are not getting to me here? I'm microsegmented out of the Kemi revival, it seems.

Because it's something of a mystery not just to me, but by the sounds of things to a lot of people on here.

What are you guys seeing that I'm not?

Mr. Rata, I have mixed views on this. I don't buy into the 'she's great' and have been a bit surprised so many are now so pro-Badenoch. However, it is worth noting the good leader ratings (relatively) and the Aberdeen South by-election victory. I do think her judgement is sometimes significantly lacking. Starmer, not Badenoch, was right to be wary of joining Trump's Versailles War.

I had forgotten that and it is a whopper of an error. That looks more like Starmer rather than Badenoch getting a big call right. Although she has enough sauce to claim Starmer was merely following her lead.

Those of a Kemi Badenoch sceptic nature will find the polling and the trend difficult to deal with.

On the contrary, I think "Good, determined, useless, strong, unknown, competent Conservative" fits reasonably well.

I rather like the word clouds.

Nigel Farage is a massive racist.

Not the complete story, though.

Nigel Farage is a greedy, massive racist.

And short tempered, petulant and entitled.

Like an angsty teen.

Whatever the politics that’s not the sort of character traits I’d want in a PM.

I’ve been neither pro nor against voting reform but his display over this has deffo pushed me into not voting for them next time.

Human side? He's probably tired and burned out as a party leader. He's done it before. He has a lifespan of just a few years in these roles before he's had enough.

More widely, he's always wanted to be an insurgent into the Establishment rather than a member of it. I think that's what accounts for his self-sabotaging behaviour. He doesn't like the scrutiny. He's terrified by the prospect of actually being in charge.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone else was leading Reform into the next election.

I think Farage absolutely wants to be in the establishment club. I think he wants to be in the room for the accession of the next monarch, for example.

In retrospect, had Johnson made him a Lord to mark Brexit day (at the end of January 2020) then that might have been establishment enough for him, and we'd not have seen the Reform party.

Parliament is in recess from mid July to early September.

So what difference does it make if Burnham takes over in mid July or September?

Because if he takes over in mid July he can't actually do anything until September in any case.

By "do anything" I mean actually change anything of substance. Of course he can talk on TV and do photo opportunities and generally go around sounding like a nice person.

He can take the salary, the fancy car with a policeman driving it, and get in the air miles visiting other world leaders on that nice plane they let him use.

Maybe even take some time to think about what he’s actually going to do, relaxing in the rather smart country house that is Chequers.

Just like every other Prime Minister, then?

Not sure what your problem with Burnham is apart from the fact he's a Labour Prime Minister, presumably?

At least @Alanbrooke started sniping at Starmer after he'd been to the Palace and the car had got to Admiralty Arch on the way back to Downing Street.

My only problem with him is that he’s just as much of an empty suit as the guy he’s replacing.

There’s no vision, he’s just Starmer Mk II, but with the remains of a Northern accent left after Cambridge kicked most of it out of him.

Have you read his book? At least he’s taken the time to set something out in writing however much one might disagree. Many criticisms of Burnham can be made but he’s set out his philosophy in a way SKS didn’t

The Thoughts of Burnham Now

Darren Jones positioning himself already as the anti Burnham

https://x.com/bethrigby/status/2069660346629972055?s=61

That will last about as long as it takes him to accept a cabinet post.

lol, BBC has just announced that Darren has ruled himself out.

A few interesting comments (Guardian).

..Separately, when it came to Burnham’s plans, Jones said “there’s room to borrow a little bit more” for specific projects.

He also referred to concerns from some MPs about who would emerge as a new chancellor if Burnham moves – as expected – to replace Rachel Reeves..

..Asked for his view of Miliband as chancellor, Jones said: “I’m not going to get into personalities.” But setting out his “tests” for who takes on the role, he said: “I think the next chancellor needs to be able to have a clear view about the political economy and understand how the Treasury works.

“I think they need to have an important relationship with the prime minister, because, quite frankly, in many circumstances the chancellor in the Treasury is more powerful than the prime minister in Downing Street.

“So, you have to have someone that’s going to enable the delivery of the prime minister’s priorities and not try to control the prime minister. And that relationship is really critical.

“You also need a chancellor that can reassure the markets, reassure the trade unions and reassure the parliamentary Labour party, and by extension the public.”

Asked whether Miliband fell short of his tests, Jones said: “I will let you mark those tests, but those are the tests I think need to be met.”..

I agree with the bolded bit, so I hope it really isn't Milliband.
Streeting would probably pass that test, as he doesn't have a strong base in the party.

There's also the possibility of an old lag like Pat McFadden.

https://x.com/guidofawkes/status/2069649219112071576

Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.

Council house building.

Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.

And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.

Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.

There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off

If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.

Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.

Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.

Build pairs of council houses in every village in Britain (up to perhaps 2% or 5% of the existing housing stock) and let them to respectable people with 50 years of local roots.

The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:

1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.

2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.