Or the question being asked was not about racism but about who should be PM.
Yes. I cannot really see that Reform have done especially badly, given that their entire schtick in recent months has been 'Get Starmer Out', but every voter in the by-election knew that the quickest way to do that was to elect Burnham.
That's the Richard Tice and Chris Mason line. But it rather begs the question, then - why did Reform go into the by-election with such high hopes of victory?
There was also an extremely nasty incident in Edinburgh last night, involving someone allegedly mowing down delivery cyclists and running about with a big knife.
Baffled as to why it’s not got into the news yet (other than our local press). I suspect there would be a different reaction if the ethnicities were reversed, and I’ll be keeping a close eye on how the Crown Office approach it.
Good morning
It's in Scotland and the media seem to think news from there is not newsworthy !!!!!!!!!!!!
And this organisation, as noted before, is anything but singular.
When was the last time we had a vaguely competent Cabinet?
I don't know how to judge the overall competence of ministers.
There's poor media performance of course, but they might be strong elsewhere. Sometimes the decisions taken might indicate, but not always if we don't hear about what alternatives there were, or we dislike the choice but it was executed effectively. Sluggish delivery might be a sign, but when is it their fault for not wrangling Whitehall and when is it reasonable? Is the failure the fault of the Treasury, the classic ruiner, or should a competent minister deliver despite that?
We mostly go by vibes.
Bridget Phillipson is Michael Gove with extra smugness and much worse manners.
Ed Miliband has several of the right ideas although he is a bit hit and miss on others.
Mahmood is just a muppet.
I think I agree with your post there less and less the longer it goes on.
Tuesday is the tenth anniversary of the United Kingdom voting to put economic sanctions on itself and I had planned to do several threads on Brexit but now I'll be doing lots of threads on Starmer being ousted/the Labour leadership contest instead.
Didn't we recently have a very well written series of guest headers explaining how well Brexit has gone? So I believe therefore, Brexit has probably been more than covered.
Those headers probably need to be countered BBC style with something that represents the wide consensus across economists that it hasn’t, actually, been a brilliant success.
It’s moot though for a betting site. Public opinion continues to move firmly against it, which is what matters in this context. The contrast with SINDY is really interesting, where we are in stasis.
I don’t recall that as the thrust of the argument. It was more that those who claimed it was a disaster were overstating their case, and used data to show this. If you want to show the opposite I’d love to read it.
It started like that (and was convincing - I don’t really believe it’s cost the economy as much as that particular study suggested), but when you start suggesting zero or even positive impact you’re in an very small and eccentric group of analysts.
I feel no need whatsoever to show the opposite, in the same way I don’t feel the need to demonstrate that the planet is getting hotter.
Reflecting on the Makerfield byelection result, I think (as I said) that Burnham was the favourite going in, and never really looked troubled.
Reform would always have struggled, but I think could have performed better if they had developed an effective counternarrative against Burnham, beyond their charge that he was using Makerfield as a stepping stone. That was clearly believed by a lot of people, but it couldn't really go anywhere. I felt where Burnham was weakest was at the point of WASPI - it was an embarrassing f U-turn in real time. But for whatever reason it didn't seem that this was capitalised on.
They also had a problem with the plumber, who I don't think was a terrible candidate, but was undoubtedly damaged, particularly by the Vorderman letter to the women of Makerfield. The letter was an utterly cynical piece of confected outrage, and I think in response I would have issued an utterly cynical confected apology, and gone the 'bad boy forgiven' route. I also might have been tempted to put Kenyon up for an interrogation with someone like Kuensberg so the public could see him sweat it out. High risk, but I think many women might have seen it and ended up with some sneaking sympathy. His line would have been - 'sorry, regret my comments, however do we want a society where the only people who are allowed to hold office are people who have never said anything regrettable on social media?'.
Even with all that, I think Reform's best result would have been to be 'robbed' by Restore. That would have fit their narrative nicely. Sadly they just missed out.
I agree on your second paragraph (notsomuch that the outrage was confected, more than people can change) but I wonder if the issue might have been that he hadn't really changed and Kuenssberg or someone similar would have found that out? We (or at least I) can't know that, but perhaps Reform themselves did and so avoided the spotlight strategy. They don't exactly have a track record of slick media performance, Farage aside.
Starmer has three important international Summit meetings coming up.
NATO on 8th July in Ankara
EU on 22nd July in Brussels
G20 on 15th Dec in Miami.
I suspect that Burnham will agree to Starmer remaining PM to attend the first two, but will want to introduce himself on the world stage at the G20 in December.
To be honest what is the point in him attending anything if he is defacto no longer PM, especially NATO with his defence review in tatters
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
Yeah, absolutely nothing grubby about the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha currently degrading the country with their loathsome presence.
Yes, probably they will. More surprising is places like Jamaica which seem to have had political unanimity on the question for decades but still haven't gotten round to it.
It doesn't take long to do even where referendums are required so not sure what the hold up is.
Canada will be last, due to generally being unconcerned.
I don't think the monarchist bootlickers will be too arsed about Jamaica (too not white) or New Zealand (too unimportant). It's Australia and/or Canada that will sting.
I care about all of them.
The monarch is a unifying figure for a family of nations that have shared values in common that's needed in today's world now more than ever.
In the case of Canada, that's arguably been politically decisive.
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
Burnham has quite recently talked about fairly major tax rises to [partially] fund his spending wishlist. If he follows through on that it would represent the biggest break with the consensus that you can't tax Britons since the 1970s, at least.
It would dwarf the relatively limited forays into increasing National Insurance to fund the NHS (Brown and Johnson) that have previously been the furthest any government has gone in that direction since before Thatcher.
Reflecting on the Makerfield byelection result, I think (as I said) that Burnham was the favourite going in, and never really looked troubled.
Reform would always have struggled, but I think could have performed better if they had developed an effective counternarrative against Burnham, beyond their charge that he was using Makerfield as a stepping stone. That was clearly believed by a lot of people, but it couldn't really go anywhere. I felt where Burnham was weakest was at the point of WASPI - it was an embarrassing f U-turn in real time. But for whatever reason it didn't seem that this was capitalised on.
They also had a problem with the plumber, who I don't think was a terrible candidate, but was undoubtedly damaged, particularly by the Vorderman letter to the women of Makerfield. The letter was an utterly cynical piece of confected outrage, and I think in response I would have issued an utterly cynical confected apology, and gone the 'bad boy forgiven' route. I also might have been tempted to put Kenyon up for an interrogation with someone like Kuensberg so the public could see him sweat it out. High risk, but I think many women might have seen it and ended up with some sneaking sympathy. His line would have been - 'sorry, regret my comments, however do we want a society where the only people who are allowed to hold office are people who have never said anything regrettable on social media?'.
Even with all that, I think Reform's best result would have been to be 'robbed' by Restore. That would have fit their narrative nicely. Sadly they just missed out.
The plumber was a truly terrible candidate. Does anyone think for a moment as an MP he would have had the slightest comprehension of his responsibilities as a law maker? That he would be able to absorb vast quantities of complex data and research in order to be able to contribute usefully to the top table of national debate? That there are others as useless is little excuse.
And your thought about 'confected outrage' is totally male centric. Just because people fantasise about women (men and women being men and women) doesn't allow people to display this to the entire planet about named individuals such as Vorderman, or the daughters of your friends.
Starmer has three important international Summit meetings coming up.
NATO on 8th July in Ankara
EU on 22nd July in Brussels
G20 on 15th Dec in Miami.
I suspect that Burnham will agree to Starmer remaining PM to attend the first two, but will want to introduce himself on the world stage at the G20 in December.
To be honest what is the point in him attending anything if he is defacto no longer PM, especially NATO with his defence review in tatters
We aren't going to get a defence spending review finished by 8th July - so sending SKS there to cop the flak makes sense..
Burnham seems to have a very popular idea that speaks to cost of living concerns when it comes to public “control” of utilities. He’s so far communicated this very well as a direct link to all voters across his coalition. Smart politics.
Smart politics, and terrible policy.
SWR has become a shitshow since nationalisation and Water would be worse too.
In fact, I'd go the other way: I'm increasingly in favour of privatising our major trunk roads and motorways.
People talk about how good, clean and smooth the main roads are in France, and that's because of PPP.
Yes, probably they will. More surprising is places like Jamaica which seem to have had political unanimity on the question for decades but still haven't gotten round to it.
It doesn't take long to do even where referendums are required so not sure what the hold up is.
Canada will be last, due to generally being unconcerned.
Some things just hang around for ever. Trollope's political novels (c 1860s) have lots of references to two issues: decimalisation of the currency and disestablishment of the Church of England. The first, younger readers will be interested to learn, happened in 1971, (a tube of Smarties went from 7d to 3p) and the second has never happened and isn't much on anyone's agenda.
Reason for hanging on to our monarchy in abroadland? The political capital expended. Even if 10% of the population are royalists, that can turn elections. So you generally leave it to the next lot. Eg Corbyn publicly declared he had no intention of abolishing the monarchy.
The BBC yesterday uploaded this 10-minute archived video from 1970 about preparation for decimalisation:-
Reflecting on the Makerfield byelection result, I think (as I said) that Burnham was the favourite going in, and never really looked troubled.
Reform would always have struggled, but I think could have performed better if they had developed an effective counternarrative against Burnham, beyond their charge that he was using Makerfield as a stepping stone. That was clearly believed by a lot of people, but it couldn't really go anywhere. I felt where Burnham was weakest was at the point of WASPI - it was an embarrassing f U-turn in real time. But for whatever reason it didn't seem that this was capitalised on.
They also had a problem with the plumber, who I don't think was a terrible candidate, but was undoubtedly damaged, particularly by the Vorderman letter to the women of Makerfield. The letter was an utterly cynical piece of confected outrage, and I think in response I would have issued an utterly cynical confected apology, and gone the 'bad boy forgiven' route. I also might have been tempted to put Kenyon up for an interrogation with someone like Kuensberg so the public could see him sweat it out. High risk, but I think many women might have seen it and ended up with some sneaking sympathy. His line would have been - 'sorry, regret my comments, however do we want a society where the only people who are allowed to hold office are people who have never said anything regrettable on social media?'.
Even with all that, I think Reform's best result would have been to be 'robbed' by Restore. That would have fit their narrative nicely. Sadly they just missed out.
Reform ran a terrible campaign with a poor candidate and took Restore's bait.
There was also an extremely nasty incident in Edinburgh last night, involving someone allegedly mowing down delivery cyclists and running about with a big knife.
Baffled as to why it’s not got into the news yet (other than our local press). I suspect there would be a different reaction if the ethnicities were reversed, and I’ll be keeping a close eye on how the Crown Office approach it.
Looks like the Bandon pipe bomb was far right terror too. The house the pipe bomb was found outside of was is said to be that of a couple involved in developing accommodation for asylum seekers.
Don’t be so negative.
The Peace Process is spreading by example.
Isn’t it great when successful cultural practices are taken up by others?
County Cork is known as the Rebel County for good reason. People still sometimes find caches of weapons and explosives from the War of Independence.
So I would say that this was more a matter of keeping old traditions alive.
Burnham seems to have a very popular idea that speaks to cost of living concerns when it comes to public “control” of utilities. He’s so far communicated this very well as a direct link to all voters across his coalition. Smart politics.
Smart politics, and terrible policy.
SWR has become a shitshow since nationalisation and Water would be worse too.
In fact, I'd go the other way: I'm increasingly in favour of privatising our major trunk roads and motorways.
People talk about how good, clean and smooth the main roads are in France, and that's because of PPP.
SWR was a shitshow from the moment they took over from SWT who ran a better service. SWR lied to get the bid
Burnham seems to have a very popular idea that speaks to cost of living concerns when it comes to public “control” of utilities. He’s so far communicated this very well as a direct link to all voters across his coalition. Smart politics.
He and Streeting are very smart politicians and excellent communicators.
Starmer, and others like sunak will always come from the angle of what they can't do ..
The Burham and Streeting political and communication style is to outline what they want to do, plan to do, will do if they can do... Even if ultimately they can't do it, in the eyes of the public it's a far more interesting and enthusiastic message
Starmer has delivered the biggest defence increase in a generation but is being hammered for it not being enough
It will never be enough for some, but what he has done has been lost in God awful Comms
Guarantee Burham Streeting would have done it much better.
Yes, probably they will. More surprising is places like Jamaica which seem to have had political unanimity on the question for decades but still haven't gotten round to it.
It doesn't take long to do even where referendums are required so not sure what the hold up is.
Canada will be last, due to generally being unconcerned.
Or, it could go the other way. And support could firm up.
Or the question being asked was not about racism but about who should be PM.
Yes. I cannot really see that Reform have done especially badly, given that their entire schtick in recent months has been 'Get Starmer Out', but every voter in the by-election knew that the quickest way to do that was to elect Burnham.
That's the Richard Tice and Chris Mason line. But it rather begs the question, then - why did Reform go into the by-election with such high hopes of victory?
'Come on, chaps, we can manage a good second' isn't very motivating?
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
I think it is Burnham's willingness to take strategic monopolies such as Thames Water into public ownership. Starmer is very reluctant because it looks too left wing, even though it is very popular with electors.
If that's all I'm left wing too, especially if Thames Water's value is £0 and its debts don't fall on the tax payer. Otherwise, it can't be done because the government's bank balance is minus £3 trillion.
A Burnham quote:
Let me say this really clearly. I support the fiscal rules. There needs to be a plan to get debt down,”
There was also an extremely nasty incident in Edinburgh last night, involving someone allegedly mowing down delivery cyclists and running about with a big knife.
Baffled as to why it’s not got into the news yet (other than our local press). I suspect there would be a different reaction if the ethnicities were reversed, and I’ll be keeping a close eye on how the Crown Office approach it.
Just checked the EEN website, bloody hell, I used to live on Duke Street. Even though that part of Leith was less than gentrified then, it was super safe at any time of the day or night.
There’s lots of conjecture and rumour that I won’t trouble PB with, but just to point out that there were a number of incidents across the city, apparently linked according to the police, not just in Leith.
Though tbh while I’ve been living in Edinburgh there have a been a fair few murders and serious assaults at the Foot of the Walk - Spey Lounge etc etc. It’s rapidly gentrifying but the 80s/90s vibe lingers.
Starmer has three important international Summit meetings coming up.
NATO on 8th July in Ankara
EU on 22nd July in Brussels
G20 on 15th Dec in Miami.
I suspect that Burnham will agree to Starmer remaining PM to attend the first two, but will want to introduce himself on the world stage at the G20 in December.
Well that would be very annoying. Some of us still have positions on Starmer to go in 2027!
I'd rather Burnham goes to Brussels... Throws some methanol in the engine and speeds uk closer faster integration
Ken Clarke's record across three leadership elections was hardly any better.
He was lazy, slightly arrogant and very pro Euro. That did for him.
Against that he was intelligent, had a mind of his own, a personality and didn't give a toss what anyone thought of him, which you have to sort of admire.
Reform has a problem with candidate selection and that much is obvious. Is it not possible for them to find somebody who doesn’t have a history of making at best weird and dodgy comments?
They are struggling to connect with women. And I am afraid without sorting this out Burnham has a trump card because let’s be honest he’s a good looking chap.
Starmer has three important international Summit meetings coming up.
NATO on 8th July in Ankara
EU on 22nd July in Brussels
G20 on 15th Dec in Miami.
I suspect that Burnham will agree to Starmer remaining PM to attend the first two, but will want to introduce himself on the world stage at the G20 in December.
To be honest what is the point in him attending anything if he is defacto no longer PM, especially NATO with his defence review in tatters
Good point. Same with EU summit if Burnham is going to remove the red lines.
The fact there has been virtually no change in Makerfield between 2024 and now suggests that it isn’t Labour that’s the problem, it’s Keir Starmer.
The underlying problem is the country wants changes that are 1) too expensive for our budget and/or 2) implausible. So any candidate representing the status quo is going to lose to a change candidate for the next decade at least. Policies, values etc are not that important, if we had a Conservative or Reform govt they would be extremely unpopular too.
Burnham has gone too early - he should have taken over in 2027 and portrayed himself as a change candidate in 2028. It will be very difficult to portray himself as a change candidate when he has been there for a couple of years.
There was also an extremely nasty incident in Edinburgh last night, involving someone allegedly mowing down delivery cyclists and running about with a big knife.
Baffled as to why it’s not got into the news yet (other than our local press). I suspect there would be a different reaction if the ethnicities were reversed, and I’ll be keeping a close eye on how the Crown Office approach it.
Just checked the EEN website, bloody hell, I used to live on Duke Street. Even though that part of Leith was less than gentrified then, it was super safe at any time of the day or night.
The Edinburgh attacks were on the news. I thought about linking to it here but there was a lot on already, what with trains and football and crocodiles. Same with the airport bomb scare, now you mention it.
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
I think it is Burnham's willingness to take strategic monopolies such as Thames Water into public ownership. Starmer is very reluctant because it looks too left wing, even though it is very popular with electors.
If that's all I'm left wing too, especially if Thames Water's value is £0 and its debts don't fall on the tax payer. Otherwise, it can't be done because the government's bank balance is minus £3 trillion.
I am pretty pragmatic when it comes to public ownership but in my view if something has obviously failed in the private sector who can’t we just accept it and move on. It’s this weird idea that it can only be temporary that is terrible for long term planning.
I do wonder if Burnham really knows what he wants to do with the job when he actually gets it.
Yes, he is not Starmer. That seems to be his main calling card right now.
He hasn't articulated a vision or a coherent set of new policies that will stand up to scrutiny.
And in this regard, he is very much Starmer v2.0 but without any form of mandate for any change he may wish to bring forward. Or, indeed, any money for it.
He needs to ditch much of the current direction of travel particularly the authoritarian measures that Starmer seems to love (when he needs to try to reset his premiership - which then fails to happen) and the Miliband zealotry. Net Zero as viewed by Miliband has to go.
But Burnham will need a GE if he wants to really achieve anything. And that is a risk he may not be willing to take. Look what happened to Theresa.
And as for Starmer, it needs to happen quickly now. Dragging this on will help no one
We need Starmer, Reeves, Hermer and many others out of government now.
The idea that Starmer can fight on and win is laughable. He can walk now with dignity and the promise of a nice job where he can do no harm. Or have to be dragged out after being the first sitting PM to lose a leadership election whilst being in No 10.
Others have been removed by internal coups but I cannot think of a PM in modern political history who has fought and lost a leadership vote.
There was also an extremely nasty incident in Edinburgh last night, involving someone allegedly mowing down delivery cyclists and running about with a big knife.
Baffled as to why it’s not got into the news yet (other than our local press). I suspect there would be a different reaction if the ethnicities were reversed, and I’ll be keeping a close eye on how the Crown Office approach it.
Just checked the EEN website, bloody hell, I used to live on Duke Street. Even though that part of Leith was less than gentrified then, it was super safe at any time of the day or night.
The Edinburgh attacks were on the news. I thought about linking to it here but there was a lot on already, what with trains and football and crocodiles. Same with the airport bomb scare, now you mention it.
Burnham seems to have a very popular idea that speaks to cost of living concerns when it comes to public “control” of utilities. He’s so far communicated this very well as a direct link to all voters across his coalition. Smart politics.
He and Streeting are very smart politicians and excellent communicators.
Starmer, and others like sunak will always come from the angle of what they can't do ..
The Burham and Streeting political and communication style is to outline what they want to do, plan to do, will do if they can do... Even if ultimately they can't do it, in the eyes of the public it's a far more interesting and enthusiastic message
Starmer has delivered the biggest defence increase in a generation but is being hammered for it not being enough
It will never be enough for some, but what he has done has been lost in God awful Comms
Guarantee Burham Streeting would have done it much better.
It's been obvious since July 2024 that neither SKS or Reeves know how to present things - if they did Labour wouldn't be in the mess they are in..
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
I'll measure him on one dynamic
If Rebecca Long Bailey gets any sort of junior post then he's a cnut and will forever be a cnut.
The fact there has been virtually no change in Makerfield between 2024 and now suggests that it isn’t Labour that’s the problem, it’s Keir Starmer.
The underlying problem is the country wants changes that are 1) too expensive for our budget and/or 2) implausible. So any candidate representing the status quo is going to lose to a change candidate for the next decade at least. Policies, values etc are not that important, if we had a Conservative or Reform govt they would be extremely unpopular too.
Burnham has gone too early - he should have taken over in 2027 and portrayed himself as a change candidate in 2028. It will be very difficult to portray himself as a change candidate when he has been there for a couple of years.
I think Starmer would have worked as a change candidate were it not for winter fuel. Everything that came after was downhill but that was the initial destructive act. I supported the policy but it was utterly toxic against the new Labour coalition as to be fair many Labour MPs said at the time.
Mandelson would have been easily survivable by somebody with more popularity.
From a party POV, he should have made benefit reform a confidence issue and then quit then if it hadn’t passed. Letting that go just gave the PLP the magic money tree. Burnham will have to grapple with that too but he will start with goodwill.
Burnham seems to have a very popular idea that speaks to cost of living concerns when it comes to public “control” of utilities. He’s so far communicated this very well as a direct link to all voters across his coalition. Smart politics.
He and Streeting are very smart politicians and excellent communicators.
Starmer, and others like sunak will always come from the angle of what they can't do ..
The Burham and Streeting political and communication style is to outline what they want to do, plan to do, will do if they can do... Even if ultimately they can't do it, in the eyes of the public it's a far more interesting and enthusiastic message
Starmer has delivered the biggest defence increase in a generation but is being hammered for it not being enough
It will never be enough for some, but what he has done has been lost in God awful Comms
Guarantee Burham Streeting would have done it much better.
It's been obvious since July 2024 that neither SKS or Reeves know how to present things - if they did Labour wouldn't be in the mess they are in..
I do wonder if Burnham really knows what he wants to do with the job when he actually gets it.
Yes, he is not Starmer. That seems to be his main calling card right now.
He hasn't articulated a vision or a coherent set of new policies that will stand up to scrutiny.
And in this regard, he is very much Starmer v2.0 but without any form of mandate for any change he may wish to bring forward. Or, indeed, any money for it.
He needs to ditch much of the current direction of travel particularly the authoritarian measures that Starmer seems to love (when he needs to try to reset his premiership - which then fails to happen) and the Miliband zealotry. Net Zero as viewed by Miliband has to go.
But Burnham will need a GE if he wants to really achieve anything. And that is a risk he may not be willing to take. Look what happened to Theresa.
And as for Starmer, it needs to happen quickly now. Dragging this on will help no one
We need Starmer, Reeves, Hermer and many others out of government now.
The idea that Starmer can fight on and win is laughable. He can walk now with dignity and the promise of a nice job where he can do no harm. Or have to be dragged out after being the first sitting PM to lose a leadership election whilst being in No 10.
Others have been removed by internal coups but I cannot think of a PM in modern political history who has fought and lost a leadership vote.
Starmer cannot think he can continue. Unless he’s really as thick as I have sometimes thought.
What intrigues me is what the point in it all is. Even his foreign policy card has gone. He’s for nothing.
The fact there has been virtually no change in Makerfield between 2024 and now suggests that it isn’t Labour that’s the problem, it’s Keir Starmer.
The underlying problem is the country wants changes that are 1) too expensive for our budget and/or 2) implausible. So any candidate representing the status quo is going to lose to a change candidate for the next decade at least. Policies, values etc are not that important, if we had a Conservative or Reform govt they would be extremely unpopular too.
Burnham has gone too early - he should have taken over in 2027 and portrayed himself as a change candidate in 2028. It will be very difficult to portray himself as a change candidate when he has been there for a couple of years.
I'd like to think that he's keen to change things round for the country, in which case the sooner the better.
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
I think it is Burnham's willingness to take strategic monopolies such as Thames Water into public ownership. Starmer is very reluctant because it looks too left wing, even though it is very popular with electors.
If that's all I'm left wing too, especially if Thames Water's value is £0 and its debts don't fall on the tax payer. Otherwise, it can't be done because the government's bank balance is minus £3 trillion.
I am pretty pragmatic when it comes to public ownership but in my view if something has obviously failed in the private sector who can’t we just accept it and move on. It’s this weird idea that it can only be temporary that is terrible for long term planning.
There is nothing left or right about natural and essential monopolies being outside the private sector. The essence of private enterprise is free and open competition. With water this cannot happen, so you have to invent a regulator who (not very well) governs activity and profits. That is more like rentierdom.
If water were in the public sector now it would not occur to right or left to privatise it any more than they plan to privatise the M1.
Yes, probably they will. More surprising is places like Jamaica which seem to have had political unanimity on the question for decades but still haven't gotten round to it.
It doesn't take long to do even where referendums are required so not sure what the hold up is.
Canada will be last, due to generally being unconcerned.
Or, it could go the other way. And support could firm up.
History does not only march in one direction.
Yes, there's a lot of erroneous straight-line analysis.
But there are sometimes changes which only happen in one direction. No-one is suggesting that any Commonwealth Republic will discard their President and readopt the monarchy.
And you are one of the most strident posters in insisting that Brexit is irrevocable, and that future British membership of the EU is unthinkable.
Burnham seems to have a very popular idea that speaks to cost of living concerns when it comes to public “control” of utilities. He’s so far communicated this very well as a direct link to all voters across his coalition. Smart politics.
He and Streeting are very smart politicians and excellent communicators.
Starmer, and others like sunak will always come from the angle of what they can't do ..
The Burham and Streeting political and communication style is to outline what they want to do, plan to do, will do if they can do... Even if ultimately they can't do it, in the eyes of the public it's a far more interesting and enthusiastic message
Starmer has delivered the biggest defence increase in a generation but is being hammered for it not being enough
It will never be enough for some, but what he has done has been lost in God awful Comms
Guarantee Burham Streeting would have done it much better.
It's been obvious since July 2024 that neither SKS or Reeves know how to present things - if they did Labour wouldn't be in the mess they are in..
Precisely.
It’s an issue of leadership.
All policies that are meaningful are opposed. Government is a pile of huge organisations. All large organisations have inertia - they, collectively, want to do what they were doing yesterday.
Then add in outside interests - more of the same.
It’s not a “Blob”. It’s a collection of blobs. And they differ according to issue.
When Starmer bleated that he was being opposed by the machinery of government, he revealed that he wasn’t up to the job.
The fact there has been virtually no change in Makerfield between 2024 and now suggests that it isn’t Labour that’s the problem, it’s Keir Starmer.
The underlying problem is the country wants changes that are 1) too expensive for our budget and/or 2) implausible. So any candidate representing the status quo is going to lose to a change candidate for the next decade at least. Policies, values etc are not that important, if we had a Conservative or Reform govt they would be extremely unpopular too.
Burnham has gone too early - he should have taken over in 2027 and portrayed himself as a change candidate in 2028. It will be very difficult to portray himself as a change candidate when he has been there for a couple of years.
I'd like to think that he's keen to change things round for the country, in which case the sooner the better.
We are all keen to change the country. We are all less keen to pay extra taxes to fund those changes. And voter blocs are ruthless if any current spending areas are cut, so MPs rebel.
If Burnham can genuinely square this circle I will be very impressed and also surprised. I expect continued inertia, but this time with some decent comms.
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
Yeah, absolutely nothing grubby about the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha currently degrading the country with their loathsome presence.
In any normal country this kind of shit would get the tumbrils rolling, but here it'll be 'they deserve it!', just like sending their sprog to £60k a year Eton.
It's Trump with an RP accent.
Nina @ShakeLS · 18 Jun The British Royal family using a fleet of very expensive cars to move around from Ascot to Windsor. You keep paying for them and all their gifter associates hahahaha 😂 😜
He lost to the Jezaster because Labour was still navel gazing
Every leadership election poses a choice between the candidate closest to your views and the candidate most likely to succeed electorally. Comment tends to favour the latter overwhelmingly, but there are limits, and voting on the leader is the only chance that most members get in choosing the direction of the party. There is no point in picking someone who might be electable if you don't agree with them at all. Arguably choosing Corbyn turned out to be almost right the first time (close to members' views and close to victory in the subsequent election) and seriously wrong the second. The appeal of Burnham is that he's quite open to some left-wing members' views and also quite popular in the wider electorate. Almost nobody's terribly excited by those two "quites" but they seem better than any alternative on offer, and he's an agreeable chap so most of us are up for giving him a chance.
I do wonder if Burnham really knows what he wants to do with the job when he actually gets it.
Yes, he is not Starmer. That seems to be his main calling card right now.
He hasn't articulated a vision or a coherent set of new policies that will stand up to scrutiny.
And in this regard, he is very much Starmer v2.0 but without any form of mandate for any change he may wish to bring forward. Or, indeed, any money for it.
He needs to ditch much of the current direction of travel particularly the authoritarian measures that Starmer seems to love (when he needs to try to reset his premiership - which then fails to happen) and the Miliband zealotry. Net Zero as viewed by Miliband has to go.
But Burnham will need a GE if he wants to really achieve anything. And that is a risk he may not be willing to take. Look what happened to Theresa.
And as for Starmer, it needs to happen quickly now. Dragging this on will help no one
We need Starmer, Reeves, Hermer and many others out of government now.
The idea that Starmer can fight on and win is laughable. He can walk now with dignity and the promise of a nice job where he can do no harm. Or have to be dragged out after being the first sitting PM to lose a leadership election whilst being in No 10.
Others have been removed by internal coups but I cannot think of a PM in modern political history who has fought and lost a leadership vote.
Starmer cannot think he can continue. Unless he’s really as thick as I have sometimes thought.
What intrigues me is what the point in it all is. Even his foreign policy card has gone. He’s for nothing.
He probably thinks he is better at running the country than Burnham would be. He may well be right too, apart from the key role of making people understand government and feel better about it, where he is terrible.
Tuesday is the tenth anniversary of the United Kingdom voting to put economic sanctions on itself and I had planned to do several threads on Brexit but now I'll be doing lots of threads on Starmer being ousted/the Labour leadership contest instead.
There was also an extremely nasty incident in Edinburgh last night, involving someone allegedly mowing down delivery cyclists and running about with a big knife.
Baffled as to why it’s not got into the news yet (other than our local press). I suspect there would be a different reaction if the ethnicities were reversed, and I’ll be keeping a close eye on how the Crown Office approach it.
Just checked the EEN website, bloody hell, I used to live on Duke Street. Even though that part of Leith was less than gentrified then, it was super safe at any time of the day or night.
There’s lots of conjecture and rumour that I won’t trouble PB with, but just to point out that there were a number of incidents across the city, apparently linked according to the police, not just in Leith.
Though tbh while I’ve been living in Edinburgh there have a been a fair few murders and serious assaults at the Foot of the Walk - Spey Lounge etc etc. It’s rapidly gentrifying but the 80s/90s vibe lingers.
I was on Easter Road and Duke St for 5/6 years early to mid 00s, and the most edgy it got was Hibs fans who'd been drinking all day getting lost on their way home.
Although I do remember being told of an incident where a bloke chopped off part of his 'person' in the chippy next to the Spey Lounge by my colleague who lived by the Cats Protection.
The fact there has been virtually no change in Makerfield between 2024 and now suggests that it isn’t Labour that’s the problem, it’s Keir Starmer.
The underlying problem is the country wants changes that are 1) too expensive for our budget and/or 2) implausible. So any candidate representing the status quo is going to lose to a change candidate for the next decade at least. Policies, values etc are not that important, if we had a Conservative or Reform govt they would be extremely unpopular too.
Burnham has gone too early - he should have taken over in 2027 and portrayed himself as a change candidate in 2028. It will be very difficult to portray himself as a change candidate when he has been there for a couple of years.
I think Starmer would have worked as a change candidate were it not for winter fuel. Everything that came after was downhill but that was the initial destructive act. I supported the policy but it was utterly toxic against the new Labour coalition as to be fair many Labour MPs said at the time.
Mandelson would have been easily survivable by somebody with more popularity.
From a party POV, he should have made benefit reform a confidence issue and then quit then if it hadn’t passed. Letting that go just gave the PLP the magic money tree. Burnham will have to grapple with that too but he will start with goodwill.
Surely the point of the Labour Party is to attempt to solve national problems with policies that match the culture of the Labour Party?
The WFA cut seemed like an attempt of cod-Thatcherism. No Labour MP went into politics to cheer cutting benefits.
You want to reduce the welfare bill, but are a Labour PM? What do Labour MPs like? Benefits targeted to the poorest, perhaps?
So announce all the old age extras are going in a blender. The result will be means tests/taxed, so as to target the poorest pensioners.
Then you sell that to the MPs as a reform that makes the poor better off, while being fiscally prudent.
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
I think it is Burnham's willingness to take strategic monopolies such as Thames Water into public ownership. Starmer is very reluctant because it looks too left wing, even though it is very popular with electors.
If that's all I'm left wing too, especially if Thames Water's value is £0 and its debts don't fall on the tax payer. Otherwise, it can't be done because the government's bank balance is minus £3 trillion.
I am pretty pragmatic when it comes to public ownership but in my view if something has obviously failed in the private sector who can’t we just accept it and move on. It’s this weird idea that it can only be temporary that is terrible for long term planning.
There is nothing left or right about natural and essential monopolies being outside the private sector. The essence of private enterprise is free and open competition. With water this cannot happen, so you have to invent a regulator who (not very well) governs activity and profits. That is more like rentierdom.
If water were in the public sector now it would not occur to right or left to privatise it any more than they plan to privatise the M1.
Reform has a problem with candidate selection and that much is obvious. Is it not possible for them to find somebody who doesn’t have a history of making at best weird and dodgy comments?
They are struggling to connect with women. And I am afraid without sorting this out Burnham has a trump card because let’s be honest he’s a good looking chap.
All parties tend to have a problem with candidate selection.
Labour, with some notable exeptions, tends to pick candidates and MPs who ignore the question of how to make the country rich enough to afford nice things.
The Conservatives, with some notable exeptions, are aways at risk of picking selfmade men who worship their creator.
Lib Dems... oh, I dunno, overkeen on sandals.
Basically it's the "pets who look like their owners" trope applied to political parties.
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
Yeah, absolutely nothing grubby about the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha currently degrading the country with their loathsome presence.
In any normal country this kind of shit would get the tumbrils rolling, but here it'll be 'they deserve it!', just like sending their sprog to £60k a year Eton.
It's Trump with an RP accent.
Nina @ShakeLS · 18 Jun The British Royal family using a fleet of very expensive cars to move around from Ascot to Windsor. You keep paying for them and all their gifter associates hahahaha 😂 😜
Reflecting on the Makerfield byelection result, I think (as I said) that Burnham was the favourite going in, and never really looked troubled.
Reform would always have struggled, but I think could have performed better if they had developed an effective counternarrative against Burnham, beyond their charge that he was using Makerfield as a stepping stone. That was clearly believed by a lot of people, but it couldn't really go anywhere. I felt where Burnham was weakest was at the point of WASPI - it was an embarrassing f U-turn in real time. But for whatever reason it didn't seem that this was capitalised on.
They also had a problem with the plumber, who I don't think was a terrible candidate, but was undoubtedly damaged, particularly by the Vorderman letter to the women of Makerfield. The letter was an utterly cynical piece of confected outrage, and I think in response I would have issued an utterly cynical confected apology, and gone the 'bad boy forgiven' route. I also might have been tempted to put Kenyon up for an interrogation with someone like Kuensberg so the public could see him sweat it out. High risk, but I think many women might have seen it and ended up with some sneaking sympathy. His line would have been - 'sorry, regret my comments, however do we want a society where the only people who are allowed to hold office are people who have never said anything regrettable on social media?'.
Even with all that, I think Reform's best result would have been to be 'robbed' by Restore. That would have fit their narrative nicely. Sadly they just missed out.
On your last point - I appreciate the short term benefit of that (consolidate the hard-right vote) - but isn’t that an extremely limited strategy?
Having a big argument with Lowe about split votes and precisely how many pogroms to conduct isn’t going to put Farage into No 10. At least this time they aren’t blaming “family voting”, which suggests they’ve learnt the lesson from last time.
Marina Hyde analyses it rather better than does Lucky.
Nobody fetishises plain speaking like Farage, so we owe it to him to honour that and observe that Reform really shat the bed. Makerfield is among the party’s top 10 target seats for a general election, and Reform strategists’ decision to field yet another inadequate liability, whose past social media activity they simply couldn’t be arsed checking, seems to have proved something of a turn-off – for example for women, who strangely didn’t feel minded to vote for someone who had said: “I’m sexist, sorry but I am.” Rob Kenyon will no doubt be back on his plumbing rounds next week. So, Makerfield ladies, make sure your husband’s home to be consulted as to whether you really want your sink unblocked. It’ll honestly be cheaper to replace it.
Meanwhile it would take a heart of stone not to cackle at the fact that Reform is now losing votes to an insurgent party to its right. The thing to remember about Restore is that it is a party that genuinely only exists because Nigel couldn’t handle some light strategic criticism from Rupert Lowe. Why? Because Nigel is, and always has been, a diva who has huge fallouts with colleagues and allies...
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
Yeah, absolutely nothing grubby about the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha currently degrading the country with their loathsome presence.
In any normal country this kind of shit would get the tumbrils rolling, but here it'll be 'they deserve it!', just like sending their sprog to £60k a year Eton.
It's Trump with an RP accent.
Nina @ShakeLS · 18 Jun The British Royal family using a fleet of very expensive cars to move around from Ascot to Windsor. You keep paying for them and all their gifter associates hahahaha 😂 😜
So what? Profits of the Crown Estate and duchies fund the royals not taxpayers beyond security. They also need secure cars to protect them wherever they travel. Ever seen the taxpayer funded motorcade of expensive cars for the US or even French presidents and heads of state? Far bigger than that for the royals
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
Yeah, absolutely nothing grubby about the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha currently degrading the country with their loathsome presence.
In any normal country this kind of shit would get the tumbrils rolling, but here it'll be 'they deserve it!', just like sending their sprog to £60k a year Eton.
It's Trump with an RP accent.
Nina @ShakeLS · 18 Jun The British Royal family using a fleet of very expensive cars to move around from Ascot to Windsor. You keep paying for them and all their gifter associates hahahaha 😂 😜
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
I think it is Burnham's willingness to take strategic monopolies such as Thames Water into public ownership. Starmer is very reluctant because it looks too left wing, even though it is very popular with electors.
If that's all I'm left wing too, especially if Thames Water's value is £0 and its debts don't fall on the tax payer. Otherwise, it can't be done because the government's bank balance is minus £3 trillion.
I am pretty pragmatic when it comes to public ownership but in my view if something has obviously failed in the private sector who can’t we just accept it and move on. It’s this weird idea that it can only be temporary that is terrible for long term planning.
There is nothing left or right about natural and essential monopolies being outside the private sector. The essence of private enterprise is free and open competition. With water this cannot happen, so you have to invent a regulator who (not very well) governs activity and profits. That is more like rentierdom.
If water were in the public sector now it would not occur to right or left to privatise it any more than they plan to privatise the M1.
Well my point. We tried it and it has failed. Just accept some things are better nor in private ownership and call it a day. Why does the UK always decide to operate outside of every other country in Europe?
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
Yeah, absolutely nothing grubby about the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha currently degrading the country with their loathsome presence.
In any normal country this kind of shit would get the tumbrils rolling, but here it'll be 'they deserve it!', just like sending their sprog to £60k a year Eton.
It's Trump with an RP accent.
Nina @ShakeLS · 18 Jun The British Royal family using a fleet of very expensive cars to move around from Ascot to Windsor. You keep paying for them and all their gifter associates hahahaha 😂 😜
So what? Profits of the Crown Estate and duchies fund the royals not taxpayers beyond security. They also need secure cars to protect them wherever they travel
Is the protection needed to hold back the adoring HYUFD types?
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
People in Ireland are genuinely delighted with their new President and her ball-playing skills, and when you have a President with extremely limited constitutional power, as in Ireland, it isn't really that contentious.
I find it odd to elect a head of state if they have very limited powers - why bother then? - but clearly it does work.
I'm happy to stick with constitutional monarchy as i think it too works.
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
Yeah, absolutely nothing grubby about the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha currently degrading the country with their loathsome presence.
It's House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, thank you very much.
Thank Allah he's disfigured or Trump might fancy him.
New York Post @nypost Iran's disfigured, 'probably gay,' supreme leader agrees to direct talks with US, could start this weekend https://trib.al/WWEBOG6
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
Yeah, absolutely nothing grubby about the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha currently degrading the country with their loathsome presence.
In any normal country this kind of shit would get the tumbrils rolling, but here it'll be 'they deserve it!', just like sending their sprog to £60k a year Eton.
It's Trump with an RP accent.
Nina @ShakeLS · 18 Jun The British Royal family using a fleet of very expensive cars to move around from Ascot to Windsor. You keep paying for them and all their gifter associates hahahaha 😂 😜
So what? Profits of the Crown Estate and duchies fund the royals not taxpayers beyond security. They also need secure cars to protect them wherever they travel
Is the protection needed to hold back the adoring HYUFD types?
No terrorists and now a few scumbag republican oiks like your pals
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
I think it is Burnham's willingness to take strategic monopolies such as Thames Water into public ownership. Starmer is very reluctant because it looks too left wing, even though it is very popular with electors.
If that's all I'm left wing too, especially if Thames Water's value is £0 and its debts don't fall on the tax payer. Otherwise, it can't be done because the government's bank balance is minus £3 trillion.
I am pretty pragmatic when it comes to public ownership but in my view if something has obviously failed in the private sector who can’t we just accept it and move on. It’s this weird idea that it can only be temporary that is terrible for long term planning.
There is nothing left or right about natural and essential monopolies being outside the private sector. The essence of private enterprise is free and open competition. With water this cannot happen, so you have to invent a regulator who (not very well) governs activity and profits. That is more like rentierdom.
If water were in the public sector now it would not occur to right or left to privatise it any more than they plan to privatise the M1.
Well my point. We tried it and it has failed. Just accept some things are better nor in private ownership and call it a day. Why does the UK always decide to operate outside of every other country in Europe?
Water industry is nationalised in China, mostly privately owned now in France
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
Yeah, absolutely nothing grubby about the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha currently degrading the country with their loathsome presence.
In any normal country this kind of shit would get the tumbrils rolling, but here it'll be 'they deserve it!', just like sending their sprog to £60k a year Eton.
It's Trump with an RP accent.
Nina @ShakeLS · 18 Jun The British Royal family using a fleet of very expensive cars to move around from Ascot to Windsor. You keep paying for them and all their gifter associates hahahaha 😂 😜
So what? Profits of the Crown Estate and duchies fund the royals not taxpayers beyond security. They also need secure cars to protect them wherever they travel. Ever seen the taxpayer funded motorcade of expensive cars for the US or even French presidents and heads of state? Far bigger than that for the royals
There are plenty of good arguments for a republic, merit and equality, democracy, all that good stuff. That Georgy is going to Eton isn't one of them since Charles at least has personal wealth we'd presumably not take from him if the monarchy were abolished.
I often find supporters of a position sometimes pick worse arguments than all that are available. Certainly monarchists and republicans often do.
PR is another one. I support it, but dome supporters act like PR system would magically solve all issues of political culture, which seems unlikely and over sells it.
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
People in Ireland are genuinely delighted with their new President and her ball-playing skills, and when you have a President with extremely limited constitutional power, as in Ireland, it isn't really that contentious.
I find it odd to elect a head of state if they have very limited powers - why bother then? - but clearly it does work.
I'm happy to stick with constitutional monarchy as i think it too works.
Isn't the common factor very limited powers? The advantage with an elected one is it's much cheaper and it doesn't sit at the heart of a hierarchy designed to reinforce a backward-looking, sclerotic class system
Yes, probably they will. More surprising is places like Jamaica which seem to have had political unanimity on the question for decades but still haven't gotten round to it.
It doesn't take long to do even where referendums are required so not sure what the hold up is.
Canada will be last, due to generally being unconcerned.
Or, it could go the other way. And support could firm up.
History does not only march in one direction.
Yes, there's a lot of erroneous straight-line analysis.
But there are sometimes changes which only happen in one direction. No-one is suggesting that any Commonwealth Republic will discard their President and readopt the monarchy.
And you are one of the most strident posters in insisting that Brexit is irrevocable, and that future British membership of the EU is unthinkable.
Some US Democrats would gladly swap Trump for King Charles III for the next few years
Reflecting on the Makerfield byelection result, I think (as I said) that Burnham was the favourite going in, and never really looked troubled.
Reform would always have struggled, but I think could have performed better if they had developed an effective counternarrative against Burnham, beyond their charge that he was using Makerfield as a stepping stone. That was clearly believed by a lot of people, but it couldn't really go anywhere. I felt where Burnham was weakest was at the point of WASPI - it was an embarrassing f U-turn in real time. But for whatever reason it didn't seem that this was capitalised on.
They also had a problem with the plumber, who I don't think was a terrible candidate, but was undoubtedly damaged, particularly by the Vorderman letter to the women of Makerfield. The letter was an utterly cynical piece of confected outrage, and I think in response I would have issued an utterly cynical confected apology, and gone the 'bad boy forgiven' route. I also might have been tempted to put Kenyon up for an interrogation with someone like Kuensberg so the public could see him sweat it out. High risk, but I think many women might have seen it and ended up with some sneaking sympathy. His line would have been - 'sorry, regret my comments, however do we want a society where the only people who are allowed to hold office are people who have never said anything regrettable on social media?'.
Even with all that, I think Reform's best result would have been to be 'robbed' by Restore. That would have fit their narrative nicely. Sadly they just missed out.
I agree on your second paragraph (notsomuch that the outrage was confected, more than people can change) but I wonder if the issue might have been that he hadn't really changed and Kuenssberg or someone similar would have found that out? We (or at least I) can't know that, but perhaps Reform themselves did and so avoided the spotlight strategy. They don't exactly have a track record of slick media performance, Farage aside.
Of course the outrage was confected.
She wasn’t outraged at the time and has shown no outrage to the doofus who made the original comment.
I do wonder if Burnham really knows what he wants to do with the job when he actually gets it.
Yes, he is not Starmer. That seems to be his main calling card right now.
He hasn't articulated a vision or a coherent set of new policies that will stand up to scrutiny.
And in this regard, he is very much Starmer v2.0 but without any form of mandate for any change he may wish to bring forward. Or, indeed, any money for it.
He needs to ditch much of the current direction of travel particularly the authoritarian measures that Starmer seems to love (when he needs to try to reset his premiership - which then fails to happen) and the Miliband zealotry. Net Zero as viewed by Miliband has to go.
But Burnham will need a GE if he wants to really achieve anything. And that is a risk he may not be willing to take. Look what happened to Theresa.
And as for Starmer, it needs to happen quickly now. Dragging this on will help no one
We need Starmer, Reeves, Hermer and many others out of government now.
The idea that Starmer can fight on and win is laughable. He can walk now with dignity and the promise of a nice job where he can do no harm. Or have to be dragged out after being the first sitting PM to lose a leadership election whilst being in No 10.
Others have been removed by internal coups but I cannot think of a PM in modern political history who has fought and lost a leadership vote.
Thatcher fought the first round in 1990 then withdrew. In Australia PMs like Abbott and Gillard fought and lost leadership contests
Thank Allah he's disfigured or Trump might fancy him.
New York Post @nypost Iran's disfigured, 'probably gay,' supreme leader agrees to direct talks with US, could start this weekend https://trib.al/WWEBOG6
And this organisation, as noted before, is anything but singular.
When was the last time we had a vaguely competent Cabinet?
I don't know how to judge the overall competence of ministers.
There's poor media performance of course, but they might be strong elsewhere. Sometimes the decisions taken might indicate, but not always if we don't hear about what alternatives there were, or we dislike the choice but it was executed effectively. Sluggish delivery might be a sign, but when is it their fault for not wrangling Whitehall and when is it reasonable? Is the failure the fault of the Treasury, the classic ruiner, or should a competent minister deliver despite that?
We mostly go by vibes.
Bridget Phillipson is Michael Gove with extra smugness and much worse manners.
Ed Miliband has several of the right ideas although he is a bit hit and miss on others.
Mahmood is just a muppet.
I think I agree with your post there less and less the longer it goes on.
Reflecting on the Makerfield byelection result, I think (as I said) that Burnham was the favourite going in, and never really looked troubled.
Reform would always have struggled, but I think could have performed better if they had developed an effective counternarrative against Burnham, beyond their charge that he was using Makerfield as a stepping stone. That was clearly believed by a lot of people, but it couldn't really go anywhere. I felt where Burnham was weakest was at the point of WASPI - it was an embarrassing f U-turn in real time. But for whatever reason it didn't seem that this was capitalised on.
They also had a problem with the plumber, who I don't think was a terrible candidate, but was undoubtedly damaged, particularly by the Vorderman letter to the women of Makerfield. The letter was an utterly cynical piece of confected outrage, and I think in response I would have issued an utterly cynical confected apology, and gone the 'bad boy forgiven' route. I also might have been tempted to put Kenyon up for an interrogation with someone like Kuensberg so the public could see him sweat it out. High risk, but I think many women might have seen it and ended up with some sneaking sympathy. His line would have been - 'sorry, regret my comments, however do we want a society where the only people who are allowed to hold office are people who have never said anything regrettable on social media?'.
Even with all that, I think Reform's best result would have been to be 'robbed' by Restore. That would have fit their narrative nicely. Sadly they just missed out.
On your last point - I appreciate the short term benefit of that (consolidate the hard-right vote) - but isn’t that an extremely limited strategy?
Having a big argument with Lowe about split votes and precisely how many pogroms to conduct isn’t going to put Farage into No 10. At least this time they aren’t blaming “family voting”, which suggests they’ve learnt the lesson from last time.
Marina Hyde analyses it rather better than does Lucky.
Nobody fetishises plain speaking like Farage, so we owe it to him to honour that and observe that Reform really shat the bed. Makerfield is among the party’s top 10 target seats for a general election, and Reform strategists’ decision to field yet another inadequate liability, whose past social media activity they simply couldn’t be arsed checking, seems to have proved something of a turn-off – for example for women, who strangely didn’t feel minded to vote for someone who had said: “I’m sexist, sorry but I am.” Rob Kenyon will no doubt be back on his plumbing rounds next week. So, Makerfield ladies, make sure your husband’s home to be consulted as to whether you really want your sink unblocked. It’ll honestly be cheaper to replace it.
Meanwhile it would take a heart of stone not to cackle at the fact that Reform is now losing votes to an insurgent party to its right. The thing to remember about Restore is that it is a party that genuinely only exists because Nigel couldn’t handle some light strategic criticism from Rupert Lowe. Why? Because Nigel is, and always has been, a diva who has huge fallouts with colleagues and allies...
Yes, if anyone is ever going to get their finger on the pulse of Reform and working class areas like Makerfield it’s Guardian writing upper class tedious Posho, Marina Hyde.
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
Burnham’s camp has said he will restore the 50% additional rate of income tax, introduce a land tax, a social care levy etc. It is not just he will renationalise utilities
The fact there has been virtually no change in Makerfield between 2024 and now suggests that it isn’t Labour that’s the problem, it’s Keir Starmer.
The underlying problem is the country wants changes that are 1) too expensive for our budget and/or 2) implausible. So any candidate representing the status quo is going to lose to a change candidate for the next decade at least. Policies, values etc are not that important, if we had a Conservative or Reform govt they would be extremely unpopular too.
Burnham has gone too early - he should have taken over in 2027 and portrayed himself as a change candidate in 2028. It will be very difficult to portray himself as a change candidate when he has been there for a couple of years.
I think Starmer would have worked as a change candidate were it not for winter fuel. Everything that came after was downhill but that was the initial destructive act. I supported the policy but it was utterly toxic against the new Labour coalition as to be fair many Labour MPs said at the time.
Mandelson would have been easily survivable by somebody with more popularity.
From a party POV, he should have made benefit reform a confidence issue and then quit then if it hadn’t passed. Letting that go just gave the PLP the magic money tree. Burnham will have to grapple with that too but he will start with goodwill.
Surely the point of the Labour Party is to attempt to solve national problems with policies that match the culture of the Labour Party?
The WFA cut seemed like an attempt of cod-Thatcherism. No Labour MP went into politics to cheer cutting benefits.
You want to reduce the welfare bill, but are a Labour PM? What do Labour MPs like? Benefits targeted to the poorest, perhaps?
So announce all the old age extras are going in a blender. The result will be means tests/taxed, so as to target the poorest pensioners.
Then you sell that to the MPs as a reform that makes the poor better off, while being fiscally prudent.
No labour MP went into parliament wanting to make a difficult decision. They want to open fetes, garden centres, shops, and do lots of feel good social work while not upsetting anyone.
I do wonder if Burnham really knows what he wants to do with the job when he actually gets it.
Yes, he is not Starmer. That seems to be his main calling card right now.
He hasn't articulated a vision or a coherent set of new policies that will stand up to scrutiny.
And in this regard, he is very much Starmer v2.0 but without any form of mandate for any change he may wish to bring forward. Or, indeed, any money for it.
He needs to ditch much of the current direction of travel particularly the authoritarian measures that Starmer seems to love (when he needs to try to reset his premiership - which then fails to happen) and the Miliband zealotry. Net Zero as viewed by Miliband has to go.
But Burnham will need a GE if he wants to really achieve anything. And that is a risk he may not be willing to take. Look what happened to Theresa.
And as for Starmer, it needs to happen quickly now. Dragging this on will help no one
We need Starmer, Reeves, Hermer and many others out of government now.
The idea that Starmer can fight on and win is laughable. He can walk now with dignity and the promise of a nice job where he can do no harm. Or have to be dragged out after being the first sitting PM to lose a leadership election whilst being in No 10.
Others have been removed by internal coups but I cannot think of a PM in modern political history who has fought and lost a leadership vote.
Thatcher fought the first round in 1990 then withdrew. In Australia PMs like Abbott and Gillard fought and lost leadership contests
There's nothing on telly today so here's the BBC's dramatisation of Mrs Thatcher's fall from power:-
Drama charting Margaret Thatcher's astonishing fall from power, one of the most extraordinary stories of political assassination the world has seen. It took only 11 days for Thatcher to go from being the most powerful woman in the world to the tearful figure in the back of the car - a major tragedy in the true Shakespearean sense. We watch a woman lose the one thing she really cares about - power - changing from leader to victim before our eyes.
12 November 1990: As Thatcher prepares for her speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet at the Guildhall, Geoffrey Howe, her quietly spoken former foreign secretary and chancellor, pens the resignation speech that will stun the country and seal her fate. The next day, Howe makes his lethal speech in the Houses of Parliament, and the final ten days of Margaret Thatcher's reign begin. Less https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hy18h/margaret
Yes, probably they will. More surprising is places like Jamaica which seem to have had political unanimity on the question for decades but still haven't gotten round to it.
It doesn't take long to do even where referendums are required so not sure what the hold up is.
Canada will be last, due to generally being unconcerned.
I don't think the monarchist bootlickers will be too arsed about Jamaica (too not white) or New Zealand (too unimportant). It's Australia and/or Canada that will sting.
Both the governing Liberals and opposition Conservatives back keeping the monarchy in Canada so it ain’t happening there. Only the minor party NDP and BQ and Trumpite Maxime Bernier back a republic.
In Australia both the Coalition and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation back keeping the monarchy. Labor and the Greens back a republic but Albanese is not pushing the issue given he lost the Voice referendum and Australians voted to keep the monarchy in 1999 anyway in a referendum
Tuesday is the tenth anniversary of the United Kingdom voting to put economic sanctions on itself and I had planned to do several threads on Brexit but now I'll be doing lots of threads on Starmer being ousted/the Labour leadership contest instead.
Didn't we recently have a very well written series of guest headers explaining how well Brexit has gone? So I believe therefore, Brexit has probably been more than covered.
Those headers probably need to be countered BBC style with something that represents the wide consensus across economists that it hasn’t, actually, been a brilliant success.
It’s moot though for a betting site. Public opinion continues to move firmly against it, which is what matters in this context. The contrast with SINDY is really interesting, where we are in stasis.
I don’t recall that as the thrust of the argument. It was more that those who claimed it was a disaster were overstating their case, and used data to show this. If you want to show the opposite I’d love to read it.
It started like that (and was convincing - I don’t really believe it’s cost the economy as much as that particular study suggested), but when you start suggesting zero or even positive impact you’re in an very small and eccentric group of analysts.
I feel no need whatsoever to show the opposite, in the same way I don’t feel the need to demonstrate that the planet is getting hotter.
If you say it is zero or even positive impact then you match the real world data, not the hypothetical assumptions that are divorced from real world data.
Any "models" showing that the UK has performed poorly start by assuming the UK will have performed better without Brexit and work backwards from there. Any good economist knows not to make such assumptions, when you assume it make an ass out of u and me.
Or the question being asked was not about racism but about who should be PM.
Yes. I cannot really see that Reform have done especially badly, given that their entire schtick in recent months has been 'Get Starmer Out', but every voter in the by-election knew that the quickest way to do that was to elect Burnham.
What do you think a good result for Reform would be in the Greater Manchester Mayoral election? What would be lacklustre?
It's easy for people to rationalise poor results after the event, so it might be more instructive to set a yardstick beforehand.
I said beforehand that Burnham was the favourite, and that has been my consistent position.
You on the other hand are claiming that a byelection won on the express understanding that the Labour Prime Minister would be ousted is somehow a victory for Labour. Perhaps that is what passes for a victory these days, but somehow I can't quite see if Ben Houchen had won a parliamentary byelection by promising to unseat Badenoch, that you'd be telling us what a great night it was for the Tories.
As for Greater Manchester, I wouldn't attempt even a casual prediction (which is all it would ever be) until all the candidates are known.
The fact there has been virtually no change in Makerfield between 2024 and now suggests that it isn’t Labour that’s the problem, it’s Keir Starmer.
To an extent but most national polls with a hypothetical Burnham led Labour have Labour gaining but still neck and neck with or only narrowly ahead of Reform. Burnham as in Makerfield mainly squeezes the LD and Green votes, Reform and Conservative voters are less keen on him
I do wonder if Burnham really knows what he wants to do with the job when he actually gets it.
Yes, he is not Starmer. That seems to be his main calling card right now.
He hasn't articulated a vision or a coherent set of new policies that will stand up to scrutiny.
And in this regard, he is very much Starmer v2.0 but without any form of mandate for any change he may wish to bring forward. Or, indeed, any money for it.
He needs to ditch much of the current direction of travel particularly the authoritarian measures that Starmer seems to love (when he needs to try to reset his premiership - which then fails to happen) and the Miliband zealotry. Net Zero as viewed by Miliband has to go.
But Burnham will need a GE if he wants to really achieve anything. And that is a risk he may not be willing to take. Look what happened to Theresa.
And as for Starmer, it needs to happen quickly now. Dragging this on will help no one
We need Starmer, Reeves, Hermer and many others out of government now.
The idea that Starmer can fight on and win is laughable. He can walk now with dignity and the promise of a nice job where he can do no harm. Or have to be dragged out after being the first sitting PM to lose a leadership election whilst being in No 10.
Others have been removed by internal coups but I cannot think of a PM in modern political history who has fought and lost a leadership vote.
Thatcher fought the first round in 1990 then withdrew. In Australia PMs like Abbott and Gillard fought and lost leadership contests
There's nothing on telly today so here's the BBC's dramatisation of Mrs Thatcher's fall from power:-
Drama charting Margaret Thatcher's astonishing fall from power, one of the most extraordinary stories of political assassination the world has seen. It took only 11 days for Thatcher to go from being the most powerful woman in the world to the tearful figure in the back of the car - a major tragedy in the true Shakespearean sense. We watch a woman lose the one thing she really cares about - power - changing from leader to victim before our eyes.
12 November 1990: As Thatcher prepares for her speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet at the Guildhall, Geoffrey Howe, her quietly spoken former foreign secretary and chancellor, pens the resignation speech that will stun the country and seal her fate. The next day, Howe makes his lethal speech in the Houses of Parliament, and the final ten days of Margaret Thatcher's reign begin. Less https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hy18h/margaret
Tuesday is the tenth anniversary of the United Kingdom voting to put economic sanctions on itself and I had planned to do several threads on Brexit but now I'll be doing lots of threads on Starmer being ousted/the Labour leadership contest instead.
Didn't we recently have a very well written series of guest headers explaining how well Brexit has gone? So I believe therefore, Brexit has probably been more than covered.
Those headers probably need to be countered BBC style with something that represents the wide consensus across economists that it hasn’t, actually, been a brilliant success.
It’s moot though for a betting site. Public opinion continues to move firmly against it, which is what matters in this context. The contrast with SINDY is really interesting, where we are in stasis.
I don’t recall that as the thrust of the argument. It was more that those who claimed it was a disaster were overstating their case, and used data to show this. If you want to show the opposite I’d love to read it.
It started like that (and was convincing - I don’t really believe it’s cost the economy as much as that particular study suggested), but when you start suggesting zero or even positive impact you’re in an very small and eccentric group of analysts.
I feel no need whatsoever to show the opposite, in the same way I don’t feel the need to demonstrate that the planet is getting hotter.
As they point out, the negative effects on the regions are substantially worse than those on London and its close hinterland (which goes some way to explain the ease of denial) - which is further evidenced by the outperformance of N Ireland, with its special deal arrangements.
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
I think it is Burnham's willingness to take strategic monopolies such as Thames Water into public ownership. Starmer is very reluctant because it looks too left wing, even though it is very popular with electors.
If that's all I'm left wing too, especially if Thames Water's value is £0 and its debts don't fall on the tax payer. Otherwise, it can't be done because the government's bank balance is minus £3 trillion.
I am pretty pragmatic when it comes to public ownership but in my view if something has obviously failed in the private sector who can’t we just accept it and move on. It’s this weird idea that it can only be temporary that is terrible for long term planning.
There is nothing left or right about natural and essential monopolies being outside the private sector. The essence of private enterprise is free and open competition. With water this cannot happen, so you have to invent a regulator who (not very well) governs activity and profits. That is more like rentierdom.
If water were in the public sector now it would not occur to right or left to privatise it any more than they plan to privatise the M1.
Well my point. We tried it and it has failed. Just accept some things are better nor in private ownership and call it a day. Why does the UK always decide to operate outside of every other country in Europe?
Water industry is nationalised in China, mostly privately owned now in France
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
People in Ireland are genuinely delighted with their new President and her ball-playing skills, and when you have a President with extremely limited constitutional power, as in Ireland, it isn't really that contentious.
I find it odd to elect a head of state if they have very limited powers - why bother then? - but clearly it does work.
I'm happy to stick with constitutional monarchy as i think it too works.
Isn't the common factor very limited powers? The advantage with an elected one is it's much cheaper and it doesn't sit at the heart of a hierarchy designed to reinforce a backward-looking, sclerotic class system
Yes aren’t US Presidents and Presidential elections very cheap, definitely not billions spent there, oh no. Isn’t the US republic also remarkably equal with its billionaire President its lack of universal healthcare, barely any welfare state and a minimum wage far lower than the UK. While those awfully class ridden unequal constitutional monarchies like Sweden, Canada, the UK, Spain, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Japan are dreadful places to live…oh wait
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
I think it is Burnham's willingness to take strategic monopolies such as Thames Water into public ownership. Starmer is very reluctant because it looks too left wing, even though it is very popular with electors.
If that's all I'm left wing too, especially if Thames Water's value is £0 and its debts don't fall on the tax payer. Otherwise, it can't be done because the government's bank balance is minus £3 trillion.
I am pretty pragmatic when it comes to public ownership but in my view if something has obviously failed in the private sector who can’t we just accept it and move on. It’s this weird idea that it can only be temporary that is terrible for long term planning.
There is nothing left or right about natural and essential monopolies being outside the private sector. The essence of private enterprise is free and open competition. With water this cannot happen, so you have to invent a regulator who (not very well) governs activity and profits. That is more like rentierdom.
If water were in the public sector now it would not occur to right or left to privatise it any more than they plan to privatise the M1.
Well my point. We tried it and it has failed. Just accept some things are better nor in private ownership and call it a day. Why does the UK always decide to operate outside of every other country in Europe?
Water industry is nationalised in China, mostly privately owned now in France
The water industry in the United States is predominantly in public ownership. Publicly owned municipal water utilities serve 87% of customers in the US. It's not just China.
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
Burnham’s camp has said he will restore the 50% additional rate of income tax, introduce a land tax, a social care levy etc. It is not just he will renationalise utilities
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
Yeah, absolutely nothing grubby about the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha currently degrading the country with their loathsome presence.
In any normal country this kind of shit would get the tumbrils rolling, but here it'll be 'they deserve it!', just like sending their sprog to £60k a year Eton.
It's Trump with an RP accent.
Nina @ShakeLS · 18 Jun The British Royal family using a fleet of very expensive cars to move around from Ascot to Windsor. You keep paying for them and all their gifter associates hahahaha 😂 😜
So what? Profits of the Crown Estate and duchies fund the royals not taxpayers beyond security. They also need secure cars to protect them wherever they travel
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
People in Ireland are genuinely delighted with their new President and her ball-playing skills, and when you have a President with extremely limited constitutional power, as in Ireland, it isn't really that contentious.
I find it odd to elect a head of state if they have very limited powers - why bother then? - but clearly it does work.
I'm happy to stick with constitutional monarchy as i think it too works.
Isn't the common factor very limited powers? The advantage with an elected one is it's much cheaper and it doesn't sit at the heart of a hierarchy designed to reinforce a backward-looking, sclerotic class system
Yes aren’t US Presidents and Presidential elections very cheap, definitely not billions spent there, oh no. Isn’t the US republic also remarkably equal with its billionaire President its lack of universal healthcare, barely any welfare state and a minimum wage far lower than the UK. While those awfully class ridden unequal constitutional monarchies like Sweden, Canada, the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Japan are dreadful places to live…oh wait
Your deranged royalism has not for the first time addled your powers of comprehension. The original comparison was between British and Irish heads of state.
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
Burnham’s camp has said he will restore the 50% additional rate of income tax, introduce a land tax, a social care levy etc. It is not just he will renationalise utilities
Policies for which there is no mandate.
Perhaps he needs a man date with Mandelson.
And then again, perhaps not.
Truthfully some of those policies could be both popular and successful if carried out correctly. Along with a major reform of the whole tax system, the social care system and the nuking of water company debt where it has been illegally accrued.
Now, hands up who thinks he will do those as well?
Or the question being asked was not about racism but about who should be PM.
Yes. I cannot really see that Reform have done especially badly, given that their entire schtick in recent months has been 'Get Starmer Out', but every voter in the by-election knew that the quickest way to do that was to elect Burnham.
What do you think a good result for Reform would be in the Greater Manchester Mayoral election? What would be lacklustre?
It's easy for people to rationalise poor results after the event, so it might be more instructive to set a yardstick beforehand.
I said beforehand that Burnham was the favourite, and that has been my consistent position.
You on the other hand are claiming that a byelection won on the express understanding that the Labour Prime Minister would be ousted is somehow a victory for Labour. Perhaps that is what passes for a victory these days, but somehow I can't quite see if Ben Houchen had won a parliamentary byelection by promising to unseat Badenoch, that you'd be telling us what a great night it was for the Tories.
As for Greater Manchester, I wouldn't attempt even a casual prediction (which is all it would ever be) until all the candidates are known.
Oh, so we’re doing this are we? Here goes.
It was a good night for Labour as the victory by a Starmer endorsed candidate suggests the 2024 coalition is holding and they can expect a similar landslide in 2028/29.
Yes - that’s a shit take, but no worse than yours.
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
People in Ireland are genuinely delighted with their new President and her ball-playing skills, and when you have a President with extremely limited constitutional power, as in Ireland, it isn't really that contentious.
I find it odd to elect a head of state if they have very limited powers - why bother then? - but clearly it does work.
I'm happy to stick with constitutional monarchy as i think it too works.
Isn't the common factor very limited powers? The advantage with an elected one is it's much cheaper and it doesn't sit at the heart of a hierarchy designed to reinforce a backward-looking, sclerotic class system
Yes aren’t US Presidents and Presidential elections very cheap, definitely not billions spent there, oh no. Isn’t the US republic also remarkably equal with its billionaire President its lack of universal healthcare, barely any welfare state and a minimum wage far lower than the UK. While those awfully class ridden unequal constitutional monarchies like Sweden, Canada, the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Japan are dreadful places to live…oh wait
Your deranged royalism has not for the first time addled your powers of comprehension. The original comparison was between British and Irish heads of state.
The Irish head of state is a leftist ex politician nonentity, virtually nobody has heard of outside Ireland and who over a third of Irish voters voted against. In any case in a current UK presidential election we might well elect President Farage
No she is proposing, Ardern is a leftist republican. Though even she says there are hurdles like the Crown treaty with the Maoris
"I do believe that [Republic] is where New Zealand will head in time. I believe its likely to occur in my lifetime but I don't see it as a short-term measure or anything that is on the agenda anytime soon," Ardern said. Reuters She hasn't proposed it, though she may favour it.
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
Yeah, absolutely nothing grubby about the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha currently degrading the country with their loathsome presence.
In any normal country this kind of shit would get the tumbrils rolling, but here it'll be 'they deserve it!', just like sending their sprog to £60k a year Eton.
It's Trump with an RP accent.
Nina @ShakeLS · 18 Jun The British Royal family using a fleet of very expensive cars to move around from Ascot to Windsor. You keep paying for them and all their gifter associates hahahaha 😂 😜
So what? Profits of the Crown Estate and duchies fund the royals not taxpayers beyond security. They also need secure cars to protect them wherever they travel
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
Burnham’s camp has said he will restore the 50% additional rate of income tax, introduce a land tax, a social care levy etc. It is not just he will renationalise utilities
Policies for which there is no mandate.
Mandates in manifestos don't matter in practice, except that the HOC can't oppose legislation that is in the manifesto.
However the House of Lords cannot block or amend taxation legislation. So a mandate is irrelevant for these measures.
"If Reform continues to falter – battling a talent deficit, Rupert Lowe, donation scandals, and a mysterious growing animosity among female voters – it’s not unthinkable that Burnham could beat them."
(My italics)
Mysterious? What's mysterious about it? They think Farage and co are a bunch of old skool sexists.
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
People in Ireland are genuinely delighted with their new President and her ball-playing skills, and when you have a President with extremely limited constitutional power, as in Ireland, it isn't really that contentious.
I find it odd to elect a head of state if they have very limited powers - why bother then? - but clearly it does work.
I'm happy to stick with constitutional monarchy as i think it too works.
Isn't the common factor very limited powers? The advantage with an elected one is it's much cheaper and it doesn't sit at the heart of a hierarchy designed to reinforce a backward-looking, sclerotic class system
Yes aren’t US Presidents and Presidential elections very cheap, definitely not billions spent there, oh no. Isn’t the US republic also remarkably equal with its billionaire President its lack of universal healthcare, barely any welfare state and a minimum wage far lower than the UK. While those awfully class ridden unequal constitutional monarchies like Sweden, Canada, the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Japan are dreadful places to live…oh wait
Your deranged royalism has not for the first time addled your powers of comprehension. The original comparison was between British and Irish heads of state.
The Irish head of state is a leftist ex politician nonentity, virtually nobody has heard of outside Ireland and who over a third of Irish voters voted against. In any case in a current UK presidential election we might well elect President Farage
She also interferes in politics which heads of state shouldn’t do, calling Israel a ‘genocidal state’
Why anyone would want a professional politician with all the grubbiness and politics that causes (look at burnham and his bothering of an electorate to gain personal power) over a constitutional monarch is beyond me
People in Ireland are genuinely delighted with their new President and her ball-playing skills, and when you have a President with extremely limited constitutional power, as in Ireland, it isn't really that contentious.
I find it odd to elect a head of state if they have very limited powers - why bother then? - but clearly it does work.
I'm happy to stick with constitutional monarchy as i think it too works.
Isn't the common factor very limited powers? The advantage with an elected one is it's much cheaper and it doesn't sit at the heart of a hierarchy designed to reinforce a backward-looking, sclerotic class system
Yes aren’t US Presidents and Presidential elections very cheap, definitely not billions spent there, oh no. Isn’t the US republic also remarkably equal with its billionaire President its lack of universal healthcare, barely any welfare state and a minimum wage far lower than the UK. While those awfully class ridden unequal constitutional monarchies like Sweden, Canada, the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Japan are dreadful places to live…oh wait
Your deranged royalism has not for the first time addled your powers of comprehension. The original comparison was between British and Irish heads of state.
The Irish head of state is a leftist ex politician nonentity, virtually nobody has heard of outside Ireland and who over a third of Irish voters voted against. In any case in a current UK presidential election we might well elect President Farage
Not if it is conducted under AV, which it would be. And as it is in ireland.
BREAKING: Iran rejects Axios new claim that FM Araghchi is traveling to Switzerland Saturday for negotiations, saying no meeting or negotiations will take place and no delegation will attend now or in the future unless Article 13 of the MOU is fully implemented first, per Tasnim.
"If Reform continues to falter – battling a talent deficit, Rupert Lowe, donation scandals, and a mysterious growing animosity among female voters – it’s not unthinkable that Burnham could beat them."
(My italics)
Mysterious? What's mysterious about it? They think Farage and co are a bunch of old skool sexists.
The party of bring back the 1950s sexist? Say it aint so!
"If Reform continues to falter – battling a talent deficit, Rupert Lowe, donation scandals, and a mysterious growing animosity among female voters – it’s not unthinkable that Burnham could beat them."
(My italics)
Mysterious? What's mysterious about it? They think Farage and co are a bunch of old skool sexists.
There's a strand of public opinion that thinks that old skool sexism is what The Laydezzz want. The correlation between thinking that and taking the Telegraph is probably pretty high.
Burnham is now clearly the leftwing candidate in any Labour leadership election against Starmer and New Labour Streeting. Whereas he wasn’t in 2015 with Corbyn taking that role nor in 2010 when Ed Miliband and Abbott were the leftist candidates and he was still relatively New Labour.
Burnham might take some encouragement from Ronald Reagan who was beaten by Nixon in the 1968 Republican primaries and narrowly by Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries. As we all remember though Reagan won the 1980 Republican primaries and then the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections. Biden also ran for the Democrats nomination in 1988 and 2008 losing to Dukakis and Obama before finally winning in 2020 the nomination and presidential election
In this particular context what would 'leftwing' mean? Does it mean significantly more than having a particular rhetoric about how you talk politics? How does it relate policy and practicewise to: private enterprise, debt to GDP ratios, deficit, benefits, growth, NATO, overall tax levels, interest rates, migration, student loans, and so on? Unless it means different from Starmer, Tories, LDs, etc in ways that can be articulated, how are we to evaluate?
Burnham’s camp has said he will restore the 50% additional rate of income tax, introduce a land tax, a social care levy etc. It is not just he will renationalise utilities
Policies for which there is no mandate.
Mandates in manifestos don't matter in practice, except that the HOC can't oppose legislation that is in the manifesto.
However the House of Lords cannot block or amend taxation legislation. So a mandate is irrelevant for these measures.
Which gives Kemi an opportunity, as Reform falters after these by election defeats Labour are about to elect a leader committed to tax rises and nationalisations and taking Labour left which it had no mandate for when it won the 2024 general election with Starmer
Comments
But it rather begs the question, then - why did Reform go into the by-election with such high hopes of victory?
It's in Scotland and the media seem to think news from there is not newsworthy !!!!!!!!!!!!
I feel no need whatsoever to show the opposite, in the same way I don’t feel the need to demonstrate that the planet is getting hotter.
The monarch is a unifying figure for a family of nations that have shared values in common that's needed in today's world now more than ever.
In the case of Canada, that's arguably been politically decisive.
It would dwarf the relatively limited forays into increasing National Insurance to fund the NHS (Brown and Johnson) that have previously been the furthest any government has gone in that direction since before Thatcher.
It's fair to label that as left-wing.
And your thought about 'confected outrage' is totally male centric. Just because people fantasise about women (men and women being men and women) doesn't allow people to display this to the entire planet about named individuals such as Vorderman, or the daughters of your friends.
SWR has become a shitshow since nationalisation and Water would be worse too.
In fact, I'd go the other way: I'm increasingly in favour of privatising our major trunk roads and motorways.
People talk about how good, clean and smooth the main roads are in France, and that's because of PPP.
Will Britain be Ready for Decimal Day?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvvqyZ_OeS4
So I would say that this was more a matter of keeping old traditions alive.
Starmer, and others like sunak will always come from the angle of what they can't do
..
The Burham and Streeting political and communication style is to outline what they want to do, plan to do, will do if they can do... Even if ultimately they can't do it, in the eyes of the public it's a far more interesting and enthusiastic message
Starmer has delivered the biggest defence increase in a generation but is being hammered for it not being enough
It will never be enough for some, but what he has done has been lost in God awful Comms
Guarantee Burham Streeting would have done it much better.
History does not only march in one direction.
A Burnham quote:
Let me say this really clearly. I support the fiscal rules. There needs to be a plan to get debt down,”
Though tbh while I’ve been living in Edinburgh there have a been a fair few murders and serious assaults at the Foot of the Walk - Spey Lounge etc etc. It’s rapidly gentrifying but the 80s/90s vibe lingers.
Against that he was intelligent, had a mind of his own, a personality and didn't give a toss what anyone thought of him, which you have to sort of admire.
How many plots against Blair, Brown, Corbyn etc?
Starmer has a non zero chance of survival as PM
They are struggling to connect with women. And I am afraid without sorting this out Burnham has a trump card because let’s be honest he’s a good looking chap.
Same with EU summit if Burnham is going to remove the red lines.
Burnham has gone too early - he should have taken over in 2027 and portrayed himself as a change candidate in 2028. It will be very difficult to portray himself as a change candidate when he has been there for a couple of years.
Yes, he is not Starmer. That seems to be his main calling card right now.
He hasn't articulated a vision or a coherent set of new policies that will stand up to scrutiny.
And in this regard, he is very much Starmer v2.0 but without any form of mandate for any change he may wish to bring forward. Or, indeed, any money for it.
He needs to ditch much of the current direction of travel particularly the authoritarian measures that Starmer seems to love (when he needs to try to reset his premiership - which then fails to happen) and the Miliband zealotry. Net Zero as viewed by Miliband has to go.
But Burnham will need a GE if he wants to really achieve anything. And that is a risk he may not be willing to take. Look what happened to Theresa.
And as for Starmer, it needs to happen quickly now. Dragging this on will help no one
We need Starmer, Reeves, Hermer and many others out of government now.
The idea that Starmer can fight on and win is laughable. He can walk now with dignity and the promise of a nice job where he can do no harm. Or have to be dragged out after being the first sitting PM to lose a leadership election whilst being in No 10.
Others have been removed by internal coups but I cannot think of a PM in modern political history who has fought and lost a leadership vote.
It's impossible to find a decent person when they are all racists mostly mysigonists and invariably if a low IQ
If Rebecca Long Bailey gets any sort of junior post then he's a cnut and will forever be a cnut.
Same if he let's any of the loony left back in
Mandelson would have been easily survivable by somebody with more popularity.
From a party POV, he should have made benefit reform a confidence issue and then quit then if it hadn’t passed. Letting that go just gave the PLP the magic money tree. Burnham will have to grapple with that too but he will start with goodwill.
What intrigues me is what the point in it all is. Even his foreign policy card has gone. He’s for nothing.
If water were in the public sector now it would not occur to right or left to privatise it any more than they plan to privatise the M1.
But there are sometimes changes which only happen in one direction. No-one is suggesting that any Commonwealth Republic will discard their President and readopt the monarchy.
And you are one of the most strident posters in insisting that Brexit is irrevocable, and that future British membership of the EU is unthinkable.
All policies that are meaningful are opposed. Government is a pile of huge organisations. All large organisations have inertia - they, collectively, want to do what they were doing yesterday.
Then add in outside interests - more of the same.
It’s not a “Blob”. It’s a collection of blobs. And they differ according to issue.
When Starmer bleated that he was being opposed by the machinery of government, he revealed that he wasn’t up to the job.
If Burnham can genuinely square this circle I will be very impressed and also surprised. I expect continued inertia, but this time with some decent comms.
It's Trump with an RP accent.
Nina
@ShakeLS
·
18 Jun
The British Royal family using a fleet of very expensive cars to move around from Ascot to Windsor. You keep paying for them and all their gifter associates hahahaha 😂 😜
https://x.com/ShakeLS/status/2067446704215867700?s=20
Although I do remember being told of an incident where a bloke chopped off part of his 'person' in the chippy next to the Spey Lounge by my colleague who lived by the Cats Protection.
The WFA cut seemed like an attempt of cod-Thatcherism. No Labour MP went into politics to cheer cutting benefits.
You want to reduce the welfare bill, but are a Labour PM? What do Labour MPs like? Benefits targeted to the poorest, perhaps?
So announce all the old age extras are going in a blender. The result will be means tests/taxed, so as to target the poorest pensioners.
Then you sell that to the MPs as a reform that makes the poor better off, while being fiscally prudent.
https://iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/denationalising-britain’s-roads-would-raise-more-£150bn-new-research-show/
Labour, with some notable exeptions, tends to pick candidates and MPs who ignore the question of how to make the country rich enough to afford nice things.
The Conservatives, with some notable exeptions, are aways at risk of picking selfmade men who worship their creator.
Lib Dems... oh, I dunno, overkeen on sandals.
Basically it's the "pets who look like their owners" trope applied to political parties.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/19/reform-candidates-nigel-farage-makerfield-prime-minister
..everything that went wrong for Reform here flowed directly from his personal character, and is going to keep happening in one way or another because people don’t change. Nigel’s gonna Nigel.
Nobody fetishises plain speaking like Farage, so we owe it to him to honour that and observe that Reform really shat the bed. Makerfield is among the party’s top 10 target seats for a general election, and Reform strategists’ decision to field yet another inadequate liability, whose past social media activity they simply couldn’t be arsed checking, seems to have proved something of a turn-off – for example for women, who strangely didn’t feel minded to vote for someone who had said: “I’m sexist, sorry but I am.” Rob Kenyon will no doubt be back on his plumbing rounds next week. So, Makerfield ladies, make sure your husband’s home to be consulted as to whether you really want your sink unblocked. It’ll honestly be cheaper to replace it.
Meanwhile it would take a heart of stone not to cackle at the fact that Reform is now losing votes to an insurgent party to its right. The thing to remember about Restore is that it is a party that genuinely only exists because Nigel couldn’t handle some light strategic criticism from Rupert Lowe. Why? Because Nigel is, and always has been, a diva who has huge fallouts with colleagues and allies...
I'm happy to stick with constitutional monarchy as i think it too works.
New York Post
@nypost
Iran's disfigured, 'probably gay,' supreme leader agrees to direct talks with US, could start this weekend https://trib.al/WWEBOG6
https://x.com/nypost/status/2067718151781978561?s=20
I often find supporters of a position sometimes pick worse arguments than all that are available. Certainly monarchists and republicans often do.
PR is another one. I support it, but dome supporters act like PR system would magically solve all issues of political culture, which seems unlikely and over sells it.
The advantage with an elected one is it's much cheaper and it doesn't sit at the heart of a hierarchy designed to reinforce a backward-looking, sclerotic class system
She wasn’t outraged at the time and has shown no outrage to the doofus who made the original comment.
Or rather they're all in it together.
Hugh Grant
@HackedOffHugh
·
18m
All still suckling at the teat.
https://x.com/HackedOffHugh/status/2068268700243820576?s=20
Drama charting Margaret Thatcher's astonishing fall from power, one of the most extraordinary stories of political assassination the world has seen. It took only 11 days for Thatcher to go from being the most powerful woman in the world to the tearful figure in the back of the car - a major tragedy in the true Shakespearean sense. We watch a woman lose the one thing she really cares about - power - changing from leader to victim before our eyes.
12 November 1990: As Thatcher prepares for her speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet at the Guildhall, Geoffrey Howe, her quietly spoken former foreign secretary and chancellor, pens the resignation speech that will stun the country and seal her fate. The next day, Howe makes his lethal speech in the Houses of Parliament, and the final ten days of Margaret Thatcher's reign begin.
Less
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hy18h/margaret
In Australia both the Coalition and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation back keeping the monarchy. Labor and the Greens back a republic but Albanese is not pushing the issue given he lost the Voice referendum and Australians voted to keep the monarchy in 1999 anyway in a referendum
Any "models" showing that the UK has performed poorly start by assuming the UK will have performed better without Brexit and work backwards from there. Any good economist knows not to make such assumptions, when you assume it make an ass out of u and me.
The real world data confounds the assumptions.
You on the other hand are claiming that a byelection won on the express understanding that the Labour Prime Minister would be ousted is somehow a victory for Labour. Perhaps that is what passes for a victory these days, but somehow I can't quite see if Ben Houchen had won a parliamentary byelection by promising to unseat Badenoch, that you'd be telling us what a great night it was for the Tories.
As for Greater Manchester, I wouldn't attempt even a casual prediction (which is all it would ever be) until all the candidates are known.
The rust is silence.
https://niesr.ac.uk/news/june-2026-cfm-niesr-survey-assessing-effects-brexit
Brexit and the UK Economy Ten Years On: Stocktake and Future Options
https://niesr.ac.uk/publications/brexit-and-uk-economy-ten-years-stocktake-and-future-options
As they point out, the negative effects on the regions are substantially worse than those on London and its close hinterland (which goes some way to explain the ease of denial) - which is further evidenced by the outperformance of N Ireland, with its special deal arrangements.
(Edit) or is slowly on the way to becoming so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall
On the latter point, other models are available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_monarchy
And then again, perhaps not.
Truthfully some of those policies could be both popular and successful if carried out correctly. Along with a major reform of the whole tax system, the social care system and the nuking of water company debt where it has been illegally accrued.
Now, hands up who thinks he will do those as well?
It was a good night for Labour as the victory by a Starmer endorsed candidate suggests the 2024 coalition is holding and they can expect a similar landslide in 2028/29.
Yes - that’s a shit take, but no worse than yours.
She hasn't proposed it, though she may favour it.
However the House of Lords cannot block or amend taxation legislation. So a mandate is irrelevant for these measures.
"If Reform continues to falter – battling a talent deficit, Rupert Lowe, donation scandals, and a mysterious growing animosity among female voters – it’s not unthinkable that Burnham could beat them."
(My italics)
Mysterious? What's mysterious about it? They think Farage and co are a bunch of old skool sexists.
@HormuzLetter
BREAKING: Iran rejects Axios new claim that FM Araghchi is traveling to Switzerland Saturday for negotiations, saying no meeting or negotiations will take place and no delegation will attend now or in the future unless Article 13 of the MOU is fully implemented first, per Tasnim.