Best Of

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?

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)
  

That last one is at least more likely than the rest. The Public Accounts Committee inquiry report from earlier this year ( https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/204755/local-roads-branded-national-embarrassment-as-govt-urged-to-tackle-15bn-repair-backlog ) says the DfT data reckons local road quality is "stable" but industry estimates are that it is declining; and the public think it's getting worse and the AA says pothole related breakdown callouts are at a five year high...

Certainly around here the road quality seems pretty poor -- the council seems to manage to do point fixes on the worst stuff but there's too much "usable but lousy" roadway that really could use a complete resurfacing.

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.

Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

“Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.

It does. Parliament has unlimited power. Starmer could have legislated away those constraints on day 1 if he was prepared and wanted to.

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.

Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

“Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.

You make it sound like the main agenda is insulating the state from too much democratic influence, lest the people vote for the wrong policies or people.

Not really. I don't fully trust politicians or civil servants to get it right (although nor do I think they are malevolent). That includes those whose instincts I kind of share or who are democratically elected.

It isn't unreasonable for them to have some friction - to follow a process, to do the analysis, to properly consider counterarguments in consultation.

No, I don't want politicians - even those I quite like - to pull the lever and instantly get the outcome they desire. Perhaps you do, but that just makes you a fool - it doesn't make me some kind of deep state obstructionist.