Categories
Burnham is overpriced as the 22% favourite to succeed Starmer – politicalbetting.com
Burnham is overpriced as the 22% favourite to succeed Starmer – politicalbetting.com
I have made this point before but I will make it again that punters are over rating Andy Burnham’s chances of becoming the next Labour leader. In my view he is favourite in the betting almost solely on the basis that he has higher name recognition and he has competed for the job twice before.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Burnham has said he will only stand for Parliament again at the next general election so would only come into the frame as next Labour leader after that. Even then only if Starmer had lost that general election
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
11m
TELEGRAPH: ‘Rise above politics for the sake of our children’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
Both times as a New Labour apparatchik.
Edit. @HYUFD spotted this too.
Burnham didn't run in the 2016 leadership election.
As to which graph is more demonstrative.... well, they show different things I think....
This would be interesting (but sadly the Welsh data is not being provided)
https://i.imgur.com/DMIfzER.jpg
It's a link so that it doesn't kill the PB comments by slow loading
But, of course, it's normally redundant. The thinking is, I believe, that if someone is trans they have to advertise their desired pronouns (ie refer to me as she now, not he). Which may be a bit awkward. If everyone does it, it's not so awkward. But it of course becomes something you don't notice. I noticed the first few times I saw pronouns on emails, now I don't. If someone changed their pronouns I'd very likely not notice from the email sig. So it becomes a bit pointless, IMHO. More virtue signalling from others that they're cool with transgender people.
I'm happy or be corrected if someone has a better explanation /reason for giving pronouns in emails etc. There are of course the cases where it's an unfamiliar name in different language etc and you may not know unless told (or gender neutral name, such as Harpreet etc). Hilary Benn would maybe have found it useful too...
I don't even get the family unit stuff. My parents divorced 50 years ago, each married & divorced again and both are now a-moldering in their graves. I daresay that may have had unfavourable consequences for all involved but I think a golden age of the family unit is barely within living memory if it ever existed at all.
ps, thanks for suggesting I'm not an idiot!
Edit: otherwise, I agree entirely with the header.
I presume it's about avoiding petty partisan point scoring, but politics is all about decision making, and even when everyone can see and agree on an end goal, and even on the broad paths to get there , there will be valid arguments about decisions to be made to get there. Politics might change as a result, but consensus on the broad points doesn't mean we don't still have plenty to legitimately wrangle over. Indeed, our system is predicated on accepting a number of premises but arguing intently over the others.
We should change our politics for the sake of our children, not rise above it - politics should be a good thing.
Maybe I think too much about generic rallying cries.
Do wokey lefties have less stable families than righties? Do they not aspire to them?
If he does, then Burnham could be an MP after it and would throw his hat in the ring. If he doesn't, he's not a contender.
The three liberals, ACB and Kavanaugh all seem certain to vote against it, while Gorsuch appears on the fence. Alito and Thomas look likely to vote in favour of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXvfqUe4EFQ
Climate change activists: "Save the planet — not for yourself but for your children and you children's children".
Batshit crazy people say the former, sane people say the latter.
The Christmas food to order catalogue has shrunk to two sides of A4. I think we are supposed to look online. Christmas chocolates and mince pies are appearing, along with poppies.
You can of course reverse that using "control-"
Incidentally, it’s not the wokeists who still run the Lubyanka, is it Vlad ?
I wonder what @Leon makes of Josh’s take on the moral panic ?
Republican senator Josh Hawley worries feminism has driven men to ‘pornography and video games’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/01/josh-hawley-feminism-men-pornography-video-games
Which is an encouraging message from a conservative publication.
“Then it is possible that we will see an alliance of Moscow, Paris and Berlin, which will confront the Anglo-Saxons led by the United States and Great Britain.”
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1455419497473576964?s=20
I suspect a lot of this is because policy makers are still not yet at the stage of presenting a complete package of workable solutions, so denial remains the easier cognitive path. But with each passing year the solutions will become more obvious to everybody and retreat in cost.
To those paying attention, the rewards will be considerable. It was obvious to many of us a decade ago that EVs would consume the auto industry. Some did better than I but I’m sat on 60x gains from that bet now (cashed out quite a bit on the way up).
If I had to guess, I’d say carbon sequestration will be the big investment opportunity of the next decade. Not yet obvious to me if there’s a stock play on that or if instead the thing to do is to pick up my shovel (and black pen for the paperwork) and start doing it myself. Got some reading to do on the incentive schemes methinks.
Yesterday at 7am 52% of generation.
Today 8%.
You care about the environment. I get it. It is a justifiable concern, and the aim of reducing our impact on the environment is laudable.
However: your criticism of politicians is a little off. Politics is about people, and people have many needs and concerns: jobs, health, wealth, safety, etc. A politician needs to weigh all these up, and come up with solutions that they hope will work to the satisfaction of the electorate. They are not pretending (at least, most): they are weighing up a vast mass of issues. What care does someone have for the environment if they cannot put food on the table? If they have just lost their job? If they have lost a child to an avoidable disease?
The easiest way of saving the environment would be to stop all economic activity. Which, I am sure you will agree, would have rather negative consequences for many. The environment therefore becomes a compromise amongst many other requirements.
I would also disagree that politicians have done nothing. All around the world, there are increasing amounts of renewable energy, and ever-more legislation to ban all sorts of things that are bad for the environment. You may believe they're not moving fast enough; you might disagree if moving faster meant your job, your livelihood, your welfare, was on the line.
Progress can be made: the Montreal agreement to ban CFCs and stop damage to the Ozone Layer was a massive success. But that was a relatively easy problem to fix, and the technology to move over from those pernicious gasses was present. Climate change is a much thornier issue, and the technology isn't fully there - yet.
People matter: not just the next generation, but everyone.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10152027/Hypocrite-airways-Jeff-Bezoss-48m-gulf-stream-leads-parade-400-private-jets.html
Similarly some of the discussions about Trans rights and the absolutism of some of their supporters when they intersect with natal women’s rights will not look so clever in hindsight I suspect.
The problem I see is that these risks and balances are relevant to democracies. China and Russia not so much.
Yes the crazy brigade of climate activists are saying we shouldn't fly, but as far as I'm aware Biden is not amongst them.
If as I believe (and I think you do too) the future is dependant upon switching to clean technology aviation and not abandoning aviation, then what is wrong with the US President and his entourage flying to a summit designed to help us get there?
What's all this about global warming?
One gets conflicted. Too many people on the planet; need to do something about the birthrate. But, but, but we're living beings, and living beings have a powerful urge both to reproduce themselves and to see one's genes carried on.
Thus Mrs C is mildly jealous...... envious..... of those of her friends who have great-grandchildren! (We're long past the child and indeed grandchild ambitions!)
And some of our grandchildren live a long, long way away. Yes we can use a video link but it's not the same as Granny (or Grandpa) having a real hug!
Ok, you first.
Future generations are going to revere Elon Musk as a visionary who set the human race back onto the path towards its own salvation. And he knows it, hence doing as much crazy shit as possible.
On topic? No Labour leadership change until at least after the GE, so Burnham a decent bet.
When governments do well, they should be congratulated. That's the carrot. Instead, she seems to ignore everything that has been done, even if she thinks it is not enough.
(*) Can anyone point to positivity from her?
The USA was always going to tilt to the Pacific instead of Europe and has been for decades now. It began in earnest under Obama, if not under Dubya Bush.
Any sensible countries would join with the USA in recognising that as the future concern of the world. The UK is sensible, the EU nations are perpetually acting just bickering siblings literally arguing over who gets to sit in the chair.
Brexit hasn't made the EU foolish. It was a recognition that it already was.
I think, Mr T, that while, from looking at the Likes button, you and I agree on quite a number of things, 'Britain and the EU' isn't one of them!
To use a personal example from this site, I've been arguing for decades (not just here) against the poverty trap that means-tested benefits creates. I've been arguing for a long time for a removal of means-tested benefits and for an elimination of the taper in UC that it represents.
At the Budget the taper got reduced and my response was I was delighted at the issue being recognised and that it was a great first step but more needs to be done in the future. Now in the future I will continue to argue that the taper is pernicious and the fact that we now have a real tax rate of 70% is far too high even though it was previously 75%, but I'm happy to recognise the progress even if I'm not happy for it to stop there.
That's balance and its completely lost upon Greta and her ilk. They can never say "this is a good step but more needs to be done". Instead its "you're not doing anything, why aren't you doing anything?"
Andy Burnham isn't in a position that currently gives him a chance.
I also think, FWIW, that our politicians have been very slow to appreciate both the seriousness of the situation and the scale of the changes needed. Not because they are stupid but because we have collectively and the parameters of what they can sell in democracies are ultimately set by us.
Climate change has been on the agenda for decades now and we've been making iterative progress for decades now. Long since before Greta came to our attention. The Paris Accords which this COP is seeking to put more flesh on the bones to were agreed in 2015, three years before Greta began her campaigning. She's jumped on a pre-existing bandwagon, she didn't start it.
I think if you're to pick one person who's done more than anybody on this I'd have to choose David Attenborough, who notably was inside the hall speaking to the delegates, not outside saying that those inside the hall don't matter and aren't doing anything.
The problem of climate change is a different one although overpopulation does drive other environmental damage. The birthrate needs multiplying by the percapita carbon footprint, so maybe 50 Malawian babies have the same footprint as one American.
I hope our white ball form can help inspire our Test side downunder this winter because I'm not feeling optimistic about that as it stands. This World Cup and getting Stokes back has been a boost though.
Goons are goon are goons, whether they are Greens or Greta.
It's not enough. You've failed and your words are just Blah ! Blah ! Blah !
As for the second: the problem is that the Malawian people live in relative poverty. It is one of the poorest countries in the world, and many people rely on subsistence farming. It is fair and right that those people might want to have a better quality of life, without hunger and endless work. That means a more 'western' / 'first world' lifestyle, and that means, at the moment, increased carbon footprint. As those fifty Malawian babies grow up, their carbon footprint will increase massively as (hopefully) their living conditions improve.
The key to improving lifestyle and the environment is to reduce overpopulation pressures - yet maintaining the rights of people to have kids if they want.
Heed ye not the Word of the Doom Goblin!
She is a pressure group. Their function is to press. They are not expected to be balanced.
I also think, FWIW, that our politicians have been very slow to appreciate both the seriousness of the situation and the scale of the changes needed. Not because they are stupid but because we have collectively and the parameters of what they can sell in democracies are ultimately set by us.
Politicans have many problems to deal with; Greta has one. If you're a politican, you have to worry about crashing living standards, widespread unemployment etc. For Greta, these are all a price worth paying to reverse climate change.
"Money moves faster than politicians"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/02/dogs-bark-cop-caravan-moves/
As an example of an utterly positive revolution, look at gat marriage. from unthinkable in the 1980s, to being accepted over vast swathes of the world in the 2010s. The same can probably be said for gay rights in the 1960s to 1980s.
Or the way perceived roles of women - and of men as well - have changed considerably since the 1960s. Relatively few people in the UK are calling for women to leave the workplace.
There has been massive societal change over the last few decades, and there have been barely whimpers in reply.
Of course. She is a monomaniac and balance is needed by those responsible for real world decisions. But so is the pressure or those decision makers will not be able to go far enough.
Sigh.
Are you sure?
I don't think you can judge anything on the metric of "Boris cracking jokes". Even as PM he cracks jokes about everything.
Mr. Enjineeya, aye, instead of we have archbishops pontificating (ahem) about the genocide, and an energy policy that's ever so green but risks the lights going out if it isn't windy enough, or is too windy.
It only really matters - and it does matter - where children are involved. Here the evidence is clear: children benefit hugely from a stable two parent family unit but the gender of those parents does not have a statistically significant impact. Moreover the (single) study I saw (years ago) indicated that those same sex couples *who self-selected into a married relationship* had a very similar profile in terms of length/stability as opposite sex married relationships