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.
One reason why water was privatised was because a large amount of expensive work was required that couldn't be justified / placed on government borrowing.
Given that Thames Water has been going bankrupt now for 2 years hopefully we have a plan where bond holders who have bought debt designed to pay Thames Water's owners dividends are left holding the can.
And yes that does mean there are some teachers in Canada about to lose a tiny bit of their pensions.
“Given that Thames Water has been going bankrupt now for 2 years hopefully we have a plan..”
It’s been going bankrupt for longer than that.
Plus there’s a tiny flaw in your sentence. “Hopefully we have a plan”.
About a third of Thames Water's income goes to paying interest on its debt. Incredible. Remove the debt (because it's bankrupt) and suddenly it's profitable and cash generating. Its investors will argue that makes it a valuable company and they should receive massive compensation. £100b has been mentioned!
But because the company's debts far exceed its assets, existing shareholders cannot "walk away" from the debt while keeping the underlying value of the pipes and treatment plants.
If Thames Water goes bankrupt and enters the government's Special Administration Regime (SAR), its existing equity is legally wiped out and treated as completely worthless.
So there is the plan. Do SAR and its cash generation can finance better environmental protection, mend leaks, perhaps a reservoir, and hopefully a reduction in consumer prices.
Just ignore the special pleading from the Private Equity vultures which Starmer seems unwilling to do.
It’s not so much the “hedge funds” as things like the Foreigner Office getting upset on behalf of Canadian Pension funds etc.
Most of the debt went to people looking for long term, safe investment.
Where it went wrong was in the company management and the advisors to the outside investors. Both management and the advisors were on return+ - that is, if they delivered the expected returns they got ok money. If they delivered above that, big money.
The Canadian pension fund bought Thames Water off a private equity firm that had saddled it with more debt than it could afford.
Their failure to do proper due diligence when buying an investment is not our responsibility or problem.
She's doing well, but I have no idea if she really can take the bull by the horns and pre-announce the heavy revision to the state that is long overdue. I hope she can.
Kemi's big problem, apart from having the charisma of a burst pile, is that she won't square up to the Fukkers and dare not criticise them as most tories actually prefer Fukker/Restrasserite policies to their own. She keeps picking fights with Labour which is very much the tory comfort zone but not where she needs to go to move her polling from their current eschatonic levels.
It worth remembering that while the tories on here grovel at Kemi's feet as if she were Ayesha of Kor, the reality is that the tories poll 20% on a good day. Abject.
You have to start somewhere.
Are you really telling me that you don't see glimmers of progress?
To really increase her popularity, she needs to find a way to make Donald Trump attack her.
She's way too argumentative and never wrong
Her colleagues openly say that
A little contrition and humility goes a long way.
It could help her to learn that.
The aggressive tone leads her to shoot from the hip, good on occasions but kit on every topic.
That leads to the constant u turns, then denial of what she said, even when it's played to her time after time.
A glint of calmness would be start
Top advice there. Whilst you're dispensing these precious pearls, you might want to consider sparing some for your party, who scored 17% in the recent locals, are about to lose their leader, and have zero credible plans or policies for the country.
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.
One reason why water was privatised was because a large amount of expensive work was required that couldn't be justified / placed on government borrowing.
Given that Thames Water has been going bankrupt now for 2 years hopefully we have a plan where bond holders who have bought debt designed to pay Thames Water's owners dividends are left holding the can.
And yes that does mean there are some teachers in Canada about to lose a tiny bit of their pensions.
“Given that Thames Water has been going bankrupt now for 2 years hopefully we have a plan..”
It’s been going bankrupt for longer than that.
Plus there’s a tiny flaw in your sentence. “Hopefully we have a plan”.
About a third of Thames Water's income goes to paying interest on its debt. Incredible. Remove the debt (because it's bankrupt) and suddenly it's profitable and cash generating. Its investors will argue that makes it a valuable company and they should receive massive compensation. £100b has been mentioned!
But because the company's debts far exceed its assets, existing shareholders cannot "walk away" from the debt while keeping the underlying value of the pipes and treatment plants.
If Thames Water goes bankrupt and enters the government's Special Administration Regime (SAR), its existing equity is legally wiped out and treated as completely worthless.
So there is the plan. Do SAR and its cash generation can finance better environmental protection, mend leaks, perhaps a reservoir, and hopefully a reduction in consumer prices.
Just ignore the special pleading from the Private Equity vultures which Starmer seems unwilling to do.
It’s not so much the “hedge funds” as things like the Foreigner Office getting upset on behalf of Canadian Pension funds etc.
Most of the debt went to people looking for long term, safe investment.
Where it went wrong was in the company management and the advisors to the outside investors. Both management and the advisors were on return+ - that is, if they delivered the expected returns they got ok money. If they delivered above that, big money.
The Canadian pension fund bought Thames Water off a private equity firm that had saddled it with more debt than it could afford.
Their failure to do proper due diligence when buying an investment is not our responsibility or problem.
I couldn't agree more. But I know that representatives of those funds have met Rachel Reeves. And I wonder if the refusal to let it go bust is because somehow Canada has got some reciprocal hold over the UK financially. It could also just be that our Governing and Administrative class want to help every nation but this one.
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.
Update: now being (rightly) investigated as a terrorist attack. Chat online (so pinch of salt) is racial/religious motive.
I think the United (Opposed To Everything) Kingdom is apt .
Nothing gets done because politicians are too frightened to tell some home truths . Put taxes up to pay for defence opposed, try and build anything opposed , try and deal with social care opposed etc .
The public just aren’t interested in anyone telling them the reality so just want to continue down the path into la la land .
I think this is wrong.
Politicians have bought into the focus group bullshit to the point they don’t want to upset anyone.
This leads to upsetting everyone.
See the driving test farce.
Yes - but you have to decide your priorities. People will normally accept governments pursuing one or two unpopular policies if they seem part of a generally acceptable whole - they tend to accept that unwelcome decisions may be needed if the general picture is right. For example, I don't favour monarchy, but I wouldn't advise any party to make abolition of the monarchy a key objective - people would rightly feel that the government wasn't attending primarily to improving their lives.
For me, the key Labour policy should be improving the situation of the poorer half of society, ideally through measures such as improved education which pay an economic benefit in the long run as well. If that means that comfortably-off people (like me) are paying more tax, that's OK.
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.
Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.
I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.
Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.
£1.5 is a four bed, terraced house in parts of London.
If you bought 40 years ago, you’d have paid a tiny fraction of that.
The pension pot for a decent retirement would be of that order. Remember, the state pension is effectively at £240k asset.
I think the United (Opposed To Everything) Kingdom is apt .
Nothing gets done because politicians are too frightened to tell some home truths . Put taxes up to pay for defence opposed, try and build anything opposed , try and deal with social care opposed etc .
The public just aren’t interested in anyone telling them the reality so just want to continue down the path into la la land .
I think this is wrong.
Politicians have bought into the focus group bullshit to the point they don’t want to upset anyone.
This leads to upsetting everyone.
See the driving test farce.
Yes - but you have to decide your priorities. People will normally accept governments pursuing one or two unpopular policies if they seem part of a generally acceptable whole - they tend to accept that unwelcome decisions may be needed if the general picture is right. For example, I don't favour monarchy, but I wouldn't advise any party to make abolition of the monarchy a key objective - people would rightly feel that the government wasn't attending primarily to improving their lives.
For me, the key Labour policy should be improving the situation of the poorer half of society, ideally through measures such as improved education which pay an economic benefit in the long run as well. If that means that comfortably-off people (like me) are paying more tax, that's OK.
Can we start, whoever replaces Starmer, with the removal of Phillipson? She's utterly mad, and comes across as a rather nasty piece of work to boot.
I can't imagine, to take only the obvious examples, why she thinks extending Gove's policies on academies, defunding proper teacher training programmes to extend the lunacy that is Teach First and crippling an already buckling SEND system is going to do anything to improve children's education.
But really she should just be sacked for that truly ghastly video with Gemma Collins.
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.
One reason why water was privatised was because a large amount of expensive work was required that couldn't be justified / placed on government borrowing.
Given that Thames Water has been going bankrupt now for 2 years hopefully we have a plan where bond holders who have bought debt designed to pay Thames Water's owners dividends are left holding the can.
And yes that does mean there are some teachers in Canada about to lose a tiny bit of their pensions.
“Given that Thames Water has been going bankrupt now for 2 years hopefully we have a plan..”
It’s been going bankrupt for longer than that.
Plus there’s a tiny flaw in your sentence. “Hopefully we have a plan”.
About a third of Thames Water's income goes to paying interest on its debt. Incredible. Remove the debt (because it's bankrupt) and suddenly it's profitable and cash generating. Its investors will argue that makes it a valuable company and they should receive massive compensation. £100b has been mentioned!
But because the company's debts far exceed its assets, existing shareholders cannot "walk away" from the debt while keeping the underlying value of the pipes and treatment plants.
If Thames Water goes bankrupt and enters the government's Special Administration Regime (SAR), its existing equity is legally wiped out and treated as completely worthless.
So there is the plan. Do SAR and its cash generation can finance better environmental protection, mend leaks, perhaps a reservoir, and hopefully a reduction in consumer prices.
Just ignore the special pleading from the Private Equity vultures which Starmer seems unwilling to do.
It’s not so much the “hedge funds” as things like the Foreigner Office getting upset on behalf of Canadian Pension funds etc.
Most of the debt went to people looking for long term, safe investment.
Where it went wrong was in the company management and the advisors to the outside investors. Both management and the advisors were on return+ - that is, if they delivered the expected returns they got ok money. If they delivered above that, big money.
The Canadian pension fund bought Thames Water off a private equity firm that had saddled it with more debt than it could afford.
Their failure to do proper due diligence when buying an investment is not our responsibility or problem.
I believe that Canadian pension in funds have already written their investment in Thames Water to zero
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.
Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.
I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.
Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.
£1.5 is a four bed, terraced house in parts of London.
If you bought 40 years ago, you’d have paid a tiny fraction of that.
The pension pot for a decent retirement would be of that order. Remember, the state pension is effectively at £240k asset.
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.
Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.
I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.
Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.
Have you seen the price of houses these days?
In the Kinnocks Wales?
We have several homes by us in the 1 million region with one seafront home within 400 yards being fully restored and going on the market for 3 million
From *2011* and it wasn't even a home.
Abersoch home to UK's most expensive mobile home at £550K
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.
Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.
I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.
Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.
£1.5 is a four bed, terraced house in parts of London.
If you bought 40 years ago, you’d have paid a tiny fraction of that.
The pension pot for a decent retirement would be of that order. Remember, the state pension is effectively at £240k asset.
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.
Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.
I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.
Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.
Have you seen the price of houses these days?
In the Kinnocks Wales?
We have several homes by us in the 1 million region with one seafront home within 400 yards being fully restored and going on the market for 3 million
From *2011* and it wasn't even a home.
Abersoch home to UK's most expensive mobile home at £550K
My bro-in-law (and his wife) had a caravan in Abersoch for a while. We borrowed it one autumn; very pleasant. However one evening I walked down to the pub and commented to the chap behind the bar, the only other person in, how dark the streets seemed, no lights in any houses. He commented that they were all holiday lets, and the season was over.
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.
So you feel upper class tedious Posho Marina Hyde doesn't have the finger on the pulse of upper class tedious Posho Nigel Farage's failed attempt to gain a working class area like Makerfield for the fascists ?
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.
So you feel upper class tedious Posho Marina Hyde doesn't have the finger on the pulse of upper class tedious Posho Nigel Farage's failed attempt to gain a working class area like Makerfield for the fascists ?
I’m sure she’ll file copy and make a wage from it and her army of online sycophants will keep stroking her ego.
I was unfair. Marina Hyde has the advantage over Farage in a sense of humour. The tediousness doesn't compare.
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.
Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.
I have always wondered how James Callaghan was able to buy a 130 acre farm in East Sussex.
Probably passed that farm today to see the plaque to Thomas Paine in Lewes. Callaghan was likely a fan of the "Rights of Man" and its influence on the US Constitution. Didn't have time to pick up a copy in one of the local bookshops but did get a copy of the Joy of Weeds which is of more use at the moment.
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.
Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.
I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.
Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.
£1.5 is a four bed, terraced house in parts of London.
If you bought 40 years ago, you’d have paid a tiny fraction of that.
The pension pot for a decent retirement would be of that order. Remember, the state pension is effectively at £240k asset.
Trump has gifted Iran leverage over the global economy, which clearly they are going to use and re-use. What an epic fiasco Trump has led the US (and, sadly, the rest of us) into.
Trump has gifted Iran leverage over the global economy, which clearly they are going to use and re-use. What an epic fiasco Trump has led the US (and, sadly, the rest of us) into.
They have always had that leverage. Trump and Israel's attack has proven its worth though.
We are entering a very interesting foreign policy phase with the current froideur between the US and Israel.
"(A)gents carried out an act of sabotage in Taganrog, damaging an electrical substation that supplied power to the "Atlant-Aero" defense plant," the Atesh group claimed.
"The enterprise is involved in the full production cycle of "Molniya" strike-reconnaissance (unmanned aerial vehicles) UAVs, the production of components for heavy "Orion" systems, and the creation of control systems for mass (first-person view) FPV drones.
This plant has been hit by Ukrainian long-range drones a few times.
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.
Update: now being (rightly) investigated as a terrorist attack. Chat online (so pinch of salt) is racial/religious motive.
Both the author and the publisher point towards the precise opposite likely being the more sensible course.
Clearly you haven't bothered to read it. As he sensibly points out parties who anoint their leaders midterm without even a full leadership campaign tend to not be rewarded by voters. See Brown and Sunak, Home and arguably May
Both the author and the publisher point towards the precise opposite likely being the more sensible course.
Clearly you haven't bothered to read it. As he sensibly points out parties who anoint their leaders midterm without even a full leadership campaign tend to not be rewarded by voters. See Brown and Sunak, Home and arguably May
Home, IIRC, did significantly better than he was expected t do.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
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.
Update: now being (rightly) investigated as a terrorist attack. Chat online (so pinch of salt) is racial/religious motive.
Please be sure to keep us all updated
Will do, just imagine the consternation if this was inverted.
Both the author and the publisher point towards the precise opposite likely being the more sensible course.
Clearly you haven't bothered to read it. As he sensibly points out parties who anoint their leaders midterm without even a full leadership campaign tend to not be rewarded by voters. See Brown and Sunak, Home and arguably May
Home wasn't really a coronation. Much arm-twisting was involved.
Against those examples, I give you Macmillan.
And on the other side, we could note Callaghan and Truss.
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.
Update: now being (rightly) investigated as a terrorist attack. Chat online (so pinch of salt) is racial/religious motive.
Please be sure to keep us all updated
Will do, just imagine the consternation if this was inverted.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
The Telegraph want a contest as it will provide a summer of news and a whole set of opportunities to comment / write articles on whatever Burnham offers people to get votes.
If Burnham is PM next month and starts presenting things well they won't be so easily getting their readers into a rage.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
Both the author and the publisher point towards the precise opposite likely being the more sensible course.
Clearly you haven't bothered to read it. As he sensibly points out parties who anoint their leaders midterm without even a full leadership campaign tend to not be rewarded by voters. See Brown and Sunak, Home and arguably May
So Brown had the 2008 financial crisis with banks going belly up May screwed up the election by trying to fix Social Care during the campaign Rishi didn't have a pray after Truss had finished but did a very good job getting things back to normal.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
The main dispute is about competence not policy, they'd all agree with one another if they agreed on who would lead.
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.
Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.
I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.
Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.
£1.5 is a four bed, terraced house in parts of London.
If you bought 40 years ago, you’d have paid a tiny fraction of that.
The pension pot for a decent retirement would be of that order. Remember, the state pension is effectively at £240k asset.
Charles Moore has, throughout his career, had the best interests of the Labour Party at heart
Yes, great appetite outside Labour for a Labour leadership contest. The Times editorial very keen on it. Plenty of "ideas need to be scrutinised and tested" prose on show.
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.
Update: now being (rightly) investigated as a terrorist attack. Chat online (so pinch of salt) is racial/religious motive.
Please be sure to keep us all updated
Will do, just imagine the consternation if this was inverted.
I wouldn’t know but thankfully we’ve got you to point it out
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.
Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.
I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.
Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.
£1.5 is a four bed, terraced house in parts of London.
If you bought 40 years ago, you’d have paid a tiny fraction of that.
The pension pot for a decent retirement would be of that order. Remember, the state pension is effectively at £240k asset.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
We are supposed to be a democracy. Having a coronation rather than letting the (s)electorate choose between candidates for leadership of a major national political party seems a strange choice. Doesn't the Labour Party believe in democracy?
Burnham has shown he can win a by-election, and elections to be a Mayor, not a General Election. He still needs to present reasons why he will be better than Starmer, and policies which will be better than the current (lack of) policies.
No reason why the country should be paralysed in the meantime. We can go back to the idea that the PM is a primus inter pares and all the Government ministers can carry on governing the country and implementing Government policy. It will soon be the summer recess anyway, when government goes on tickover
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
But that's a tiny, totally unrepresentative electorate. Labour members.
Why aren't you calling for a GE if you're worried about lack of scrutiny and mandate?
Both the author and the publisher point towards the precise opposite likely being the more sensible course.
Clearly you haven't bothered to read it. As he sensibly points out parties who anoint their leaders midterm without even a full leadership campaign tend to not be rewarded by voters. See Brown and Sunak, Home and arguably May
So Brown had the 2008 financial crisis with banks going belly up May screwed up the election by trying to fix Social Care during the campaign Rishi didn't have a pray after Truss had finished but did a very good job getting things back to normal.
Most of the time parties change leader because they're in trouble, so it's not surprising that they then struggle at the next election. If they had been popular with the voters they wouldn't have changed leader.
There are a couple of very notable examples of changing leader turning fortunes around - Major and Johnson. In both those examples there was a clear policy reason for the change of leader - binning the poll tax and sorting Brexit - and so that would seem to be a guide as to whether changing leader will rescue the next election.
In the case of Starmer/Burnham it's not obvious what the major change of policy will be, but perhaps that reflects the vacuum at the heart of the Starmer government, and if Burnham can provide a sense of direction that might be enough.
But can Burnham provide a sense of direction? And if Burnham chooses a direction, will he stick to it in the face of opposition?
I have my doubts, but there is at least an opportunity there, if Burnham is capable of grasping it.
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.
Update: now being (rightly) investigated as a terrorist attack. Chat online (so pinch of salt) is racial/religious motive.
Please be sure to keep us all updated
Will do, just imagine the consternation if this was inverted.
It does feel like two-tier reporting. Only some victims get a sympathetic "this is terrible" treatment.
Both the author and the publisher point towards the precise opposite likely being the more sensible course.
Clearly you haven't bothered to read it. As he sensibly points out parties who anoint their leaders midterm without even a full leadership campaign tend to not be rewarded by voters. See Brown and Sunak, Home and arguably May
Home wasn't really a coronation. Much arm-twisting was involved.
Against those examples, I give you Macmillan.
And on the other side, we could note Callaghan and Truss.
MacMillan wasn’t proposing much different from Eden beyond Suez. Callaghan was better for facing Foot and Jenkins before he got the PM job and even Truss was forced by Rishi to flesh out her policies.
The only PMs who took over midterm in the last 50 years and won a majority at the next general election, Major and Johnson, both faced full leadership contests to get the job
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
Streeting doesn't have the numbers. How many times do I have to say this?
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
We are supposed to be a democracy. Having a coronation rather than letting the (s)electorate choose between candidates for leadership of a major national political party seems a strange choice. Doesn't the Labour Party believe in democracy?
Until pretty recently not even party members used to pick leaders. They expect it now, but opponents moan that is not democratic either as it is a group of 50k to 300k only, so opening it doesn't prevent the claim.
And in democracy if only one candidate stands they automatically win anyway.
I'd love a contest too, and parties are hypocritcal about such things, but it's not undemocratic. People are very silly in these moments.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
But that's a tiny, totally unrepresentative electorate. Labour members.
Why aren't you calling for a GE if you're worried about lack of scrutiny and mandate?
Labour MPs too who nominate the candidates. Starmer would also contest as incumbent.
The winner can face the voters still at the next general election as well
Both the author and the publisher point towards the precise opposite likely being the more sensible course.
Clearly you haven't bothered to read it. As he sensibly points out parties who anoint their leaders midterm without even a full leadership campaign tend to not be rewarded by voters. See Brown and Sunak, Home and arguably May
Home wasn't really a coronation. Much arm-twisting was involved.
Against those examples, I give you Macmillan.
And on the other side, we could note Callaghan and Truss.
MacMillan wasn’t proposing much different from Eden beyond Suez. Callaghan was better for facing Foot and Jenkins before he got the PM job and even Truss was forced by Rishi to flesh out her policies.
The only PMs who took over midterm in the last 50 years and won a majority at the next general election, Major and Johnson, both faced full leadership contests to get the job
Leaders need to learn sucking up to him does not work as he expects ongoing obeisance and won't remember past praise. And letting him make up stories to boost his ego goes the same way, he won't reward you for letting him do it unchallenged.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
The main dispute is about competence not policy, they'd all agree with one another if they agreed on who would lead.
No it is also about policy, Burnham is proposing significantly higher taxes and more spending than Starmer and nationalisations and Streeting is proposing to rejoin the EU
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
The main dispute is about competence not policy, they'd all agree with one another if they agreed on who would lead.
No it is also about policy, Burnham is proposing significantly higher taxes and more spending than Starmer and nationalisations and Streeting is proposing to rejoin the EU
Yes, but they'll do whatever the new leader says is my point, so the difference is not very important.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
The main dispute is about competence not policy, they'd all agree with one another if they agreed on who would lead.
No it is also about policy, Burnham is proposing significantly higher taxes and more spending than Starmer and nationalisations and Streeting is proposing to rejoin the EU
Yes, but they'll do whatever the new leader says is my point, so the difference is not very important.
No they won’t, if Burnham wins Streeting will start plotting against him from day one
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
But that's a tiny, totally unrepresentative electorate. Labour members.
Why aren't you calling for a GE if you're worried about lack of scrutiny and mandate?
Labour MPs too who nominate the candidates. Starmer would also contest as incumbent.
The winner can face the voters still at the next general election as well
Ok. But if it's a coronation that will effectively be the clear and settled will of Labour MPs. They'll have pressured Starmer to stand down and not supplied 81+ nominations to anyone bar AB as a replacement.
Both the author and the publisher point towards the precise opposite likely being the more sensible course.
Clearly you haven't bothered to read it. As he sensibly points out parties who anoint their leaders midterm without even a full leadership campaign tend to not be rewarded by voters. See Brown and Sunak, Home and arguably May
Home wasn't really a coronation. Much arm-twisting was involved.
Against those examples, I give you Macmillan.
And on the other side, we could note Callaghan and Truss.
MacMillan wasn’t proposing much different from Eden beyond Suez. Callaghan was better for facing Foot and Jenkins before he got the PM job and even Truss was forced by Rishi to flesh out her policies.
The only PMs who took over midterm in the last 50 years and won a majority at the next general election, Major and Johnson, both faced full leadership contests to get the job
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
Forcing Burnham and/or anyone else to actually articulate a vision for what they want from the job, rather than just getting the job itself, probably isn't the worst thing in the world.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
Streeting doesn't have the numbers. How many times do I have to say this?
A Burnham v Starmer contest would at least provide the joy of seeing the Mail, Telegraph, Express and Times perform some mental contortions as to why Sir Keir is the only right and proper choice.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
Streeting doesn't have the numbers. How many times do I have to say this?
A contest for the sake of a contest isn’t worth it. Why are you so invested in the success of a government you want to fail anyway? And don’t insult my intelligence with some “for the good of the country” bollocks.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
It would be nice to see if a Burnham-led Labour Party can retain the Manchester Mayoralty. Lose that and MPs will be wondering what it was all about.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
Streeting doesn't have the numbers. How many times do I have to say this?
A contest for the sake of a contest isn’t worth it. Why are you so invested in the success of a government you want to fail anyway? And don’t insult my intelligence with some “for the good of the country” bollocks.
Well Streeting clearly thinks it is and says he has the 80 MPs to nominate him to stand. Starmer also thinks it is and says he will contest any Burnham leadership challenge and as incumbent Labour leader would automatically be on the ballot sent to Labour members
I’ve become quite obsessed by cooking fish sous vide since the revelation of sous vide monkfish in Nantes
I’ve cooked monkfish (twice; once for my mum’s birthday dinner last week, when it went down very well), cod, haddock, sea bass and salmon (twice; I love how the salmon still looks carrot coloured once it’s properly cooked)
Tonight I’m going to have hake, with a Nantaise sauce, green vegetables and fries
Let the Tories ponce around with all the 1922 crap.
Thats delivered utter shite.
The only conversation I want Burnham and Streeting to have is about how they work together, how they gey things working better and if he wants it Streeting his old job back and a bit of leeway on pay settlements
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
The main dispute is about competence not policy, they'd all agree with one another if they agreed on who would lead.
No it is also about policy, Burnham is proposing significantly higher taxes and more spending than Starmer and nationalisations and Streeting is proposing to rejoin the EU
Yes, but they'll do whatever the new leader says is my point, so the difference is not very important.
No they won’t, if Burnham wins Streeting will start plotting against him from day one
Good afternoon
I doubt it especially if he gets COE but your suggestion if everything that is wrong in politics
The country is desperate for stability- there has been far too much plotting
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
We are supposed to be a democracy. Having a coronation rather than letting the (s)electorate choose between candidates for leadership of a major national political party seems a strange choice. Doesn't the Labour Party believe in democracy?
Burnham has shown he can win a by-election, and elections to be a Mayor, not a General Election. He still needs to present reasons why he will be better than Starmer, and policies which will be better than the current (lack of) policies.
No reason why the country should be paralysed in the meantime. We can go back to the idea that the PM is a primus inter pares and all the Government ministers can carry on governing the country and implementing Government policy. It will soon be the summer recess anyway, when government goes on tickover
By democracy you seem to think that a small (by general election standards) set of supporters of a single political party should be able mid Parliament change the policies of the Government - that is not how our democracy has been designed.
We elect an MP who represents us in Parliament usually be voting for the representative of the party we hate least at the moment.
It should be up to those MPs we elect to decide who they want in charge of them as has been the case for x00 years.
Let the Tories ponce around with all the 1922 crap.
Thats delivered utter shite.
The only conversation I want Burnham and Streeting to have is about how they work together, how they gey things working better and if he wants it Streeting his old job back and a bit of leeway on pay settlements
JFDI
Streeting is right of Burnham on economics and more pro rejoining the EU, they have ideological differences not just personal ones
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
It would be nice to see if a Burnham-led Labour Party can retain the Manchester Mayoralty. Lose that and MPs will be wondering what it was all about.
Labour have a far better chance if Starmer has announced his resignation
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
It would be nice to see if a Burnham-led Labour Party can retain the Manchester Mayoralty. Lose that and MPs will be wondering what it was all about.
SKS could suggest that the handover would be based on Labour retaining the Mayoralty otherwise it will be a competition.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
Streeting doesn't have the numbers. How many times do I have to say this?
A contest for the sake of a contest isn’t worth it. Why are you so invested in the success of a government you want to fail anyway? And don’t insult my intelligence with some “for the good of the country” bollocks.
Well Streeting clearly thinks it is and says he has the 80 MPs to nominate him to stand. Starmer also thinks it is and says he will contest any Burnham leadership challenge and as incumbent Labour leader would automatically be on the ballot sent to Labour members
Leaders always say they won't quit. If we never doubt their own words i guess we imagined all the leaders who have quit over the years.
Let the Tories ponce around with all the 1922 crap.
Thats delivered utter shite.
The only conversation I want Burnham and Streeting to have is about how they work together, how they gey things working better and if he wants it Streeting his old job back and a bit of leeway on pay settlements
JFDI
Streeting is right of Burnham on economics and more pro rejoining the EU, they have ideological differences not just personal ones
I'm fully aware of their policy differences but the broader the church the bigger the capacity.
I see no reason why they can't work together and form a formidable team
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
Streeting doesn't have the numbers. How many times do I have to say this?
A contest for the sake of a contest isn’t worth it. Why are you so invested in the success of a government you want to fail anyway? And don’t insult my intelligence with some “for the good of the country” bollocks.
Well Streeting clearly thinks it is and says he has the 80 MPs to nominate him to stand. Starmer also thinks it is and says he will contest any Burnham leadership challenge and as incumbent Labour leader would automatically be on the ballot sent to Labour members
Leaders always say they won't quit. If we never doubt their own words i guess we imagined all the leaders who have quit over the years.
Unlike Tory leadership contests though where MPs alone can remove a leader, only Labour members can remove a Labour leader
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
Streeting doesn't have the numbers. How many times do I have to say this?
A contest for the sake of a contest isn’t worth it. Why are you so invested in the success of a government you want to fail anyway? And don’t insult my intelligence with some “for the good of the country” bollocks.
Well Streeting clearly thinks it is and says he has the 80 MPs to nominate him to stand. Starmer also thinks it is and says he will contest any Burnham leadership challenge and as incumbent Labour leader would automatically be on the ballot sent to Labour members
Leaders always say they won't quit. If we never doubt their own words i guess we imagined all the leaders who have quit over the years.
And leadership wannabes often say they have more supporters signed up than they do. That's when they don't hold some back to create the illusion of a bandwaggon.
Heck, MPs sometimes even promise their loyalty to multiple leadership hopefuls.
Shocking how much these politicians say things that aren't true.
The only thing that's more shocking is how credulous many of our top political hacks are.
A coronation is clearly in the best interests of the country and the party.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
He isn't running to just be Labour leader but PM and running the UK and representing us on the world stage. He is also proposing policies left of what Starmer was elected to deliver, he should be tested by Starmer and Streeting in a full leadership contest before he enters Downing Street
Streeting doesn't have the numbers. How many times do I have to say this?
A contest for the sake of a contest isn’t worth it. Why are you so invested in the success of a government you want to fail anyway? And don’t insult my intelligence with some “for the good of the country” bollocks.
Well Streeting clearly thinks it is and says he has the 80 MPs to nominate him to stand. Starmer also thinks it is and says he will contest any Burnham leadership challenge and as incumbent Labour leader would automatically be on the ballot sent to Labour members
Leaders always say they won't quit. If we never doubt their own words i guess we imagined all the leaders who have quit over the years.
Unlike Tory leadership contests though where MPs alone can remove a leader, only Labour members can remove a Labour leader
That is not true
100 Labour mps want Starmer out so they can take his legislation down or they can decide on a coronation
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.
Taz, and make plenty of cash, expenses, second houses. A lucrative business for useless donkeys.
I saw recently that Glenys Kinnock's estate was valued at about £1.5million. Now she was an MEP for 15 years rather than an MP. But given that she was a teacher before entering politics, it is hard to see how she could have amassed such a fortune.
Politics is clearly about money for the politicians.
Have you seen the price of houses these days?
In the Kinnocks Wales?
Where I live yes, but in Kinnock's Bedwelty or Steve Kinnock's Aberavon no. Anyway I thought the Kinnocks lived in North West London.
Comments
Their failure to do proper due diligence when buying an investment is not our responsibility or problem.
For me, the key Labour policy should be improving the situation of the poorer half of society, ideally through measures such as improved education which pay an economic benefit in the long run as well. If that means that comfortably-off people (like me) are paying more tax, that's OK.
"A Burnham coup would be disastrous for Labour – and the country" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/19/burnham-coup-would-be-disastrous-for-labour-and-country/
I can't imagine, to take only the obvious examples, why she thinks extending Gove's policies on academies, defunding proper teacher training programmes to extend the lunacy that is Teach First and crippling an already buckling SEND system is going to do anything to improve children's education.
But really she should just be sacked for that truly ghastly video with Gemma Collins.
Abersoch home to UK's most expensive mobile home at £550K
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/northwestwales/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9358000/9358303.stm
Iran closes Strait of Hormuz and accuses US and Israel of violating ceasefire deal
That's a truly epic level of stupidity from the Trumpster fire.
So it'll probably work out fine.
Not that I'd dream of ever using them to describe a candidate.
We are entering a very interesting foreign policy phase with the current froideur between the US and Israel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2988507
https://kyivindependent.com/pro-ukrainian-partisans-sabotage-electric-substation-powering-military-plant-in-southern-russia-atesh-group-claims/
"(A)gents carried out an act of sabotage in Taganrog, damaging an electrical substation that supplied power to the "Atlant-Aero" defense plant," the Atesh group claimed.
"The enterprise is involved in the full production cycle of "Molniya" strike-reconnaissance (unmanned aerial vehicles) UAVs, the production of components for heavy "Orion" systems, and the creation of control systems for mass (first-person view) FPV drones.
This plant has been hit by Ukrainian long-range drones a few times.
At this stage I think he's more likely to stop arms supplies to Israel than to invade Kharg Island.
This is a potential watershed in US-Israeli relations.
Especially as they mugged Trump off to start the conflict with promises they made which were not kept
Many of my friends at the time were disappointed.
Burnham has shown he can win an election and he is what MPs want. I don't understand what having a contest will achieve except paralysing the country, for Burnham to win anyway.
Against those examples, I give you Macmillan.
And on the other side, we could note Callaghan and Truss.
If Burnham is PM next month and starts presenting things well they won't be so easily getting their readers into a rage.
May screwed up the election by trying to fix Social Care during the campaign
Rishi didn't have a pray after Truss had finished but did a very good job getting things back to normal.
Burnham has shown he can win a by-election, and elections to be a Mayor, not a General Election. He still needs to present reasons why he will be better than Starmer, and policies which will be better than the current (lack of) policies.
No reason why the country should be paralysed in the meantime. We can go back to the idea that the PM is a primus inter pares and all the Government ministers can carry on governing the country and implementing Government policy. It will soon be the summer recess anyway, when government goes on tickover
Why aren't you calling for a GE if you're worried about lack of scrutiny and mandate?
There are a couple of very notable examples of changing leader turning fortunes around - Major and Johnson. In both those examples there was a clear policy reason for the change of leader - binning the poll tax and sorting Brexit - and so that would seem to be a guide as to whether changing leader will rescue the next election.
In the case of Starmer/Burnham it's not obvious what the major change of policy will be, but perhaps that reflects the vacuum at the heart of the Starmer government, and if Burnham can provide a sense of direction that might be enough.
But can Burnham provide a sense of direction? And if Burnham chooses a direction, will he stick to it in the face of opposition?
I have my doubts, but there is at least an opportunity there, if Burnham is capable of grasping it.
The only PMs who took over midterm in the last 50 years and won a majority at the next general election, Major and Johnson, both faced full leadership contests to get the job
How many times do I have to say this?
And in democracy if only one candidate stands they automatically win anyway.
I'd love a contest too, and parties are hypocritcal about such things, but it's not undemocratic. People are very silly in these moments.
The winner can face the voters still at the next general election as well
A contest for the sake of a contest isn’t worth it. Why are you so invested in the success of a government you want to fail anyway? And don’t insult my intelligence with some “for the good of the country” bollocks.
I’ve cooked monkfish (twice; once for my mum’s birthday dinner last week, when it went down very well), cod, haddock, sea bass and salmon (twice; I love how the salmon still looks carrot coloured once it’s properly cooked)
Tonight I’m going to have hake, with a Nantaise sauce, green vegetables and fries
Thats delivered utter shite.
The only conversation I want Burnham and Streeting to have is about how they work together, how they gey things working better and if he wants it Streeting his old job back and a bit of leeway on pay settlements
JFDI
I doubt it especially if he gets COE but your suggestion if everything that is wrong in politics
The country is desperate for stability- there has been far too much plotting
We elect an MP who represents us in Parliament usually be voting for the representative of the party we hate least at the moment.
It should be up to those MPs we elect to decide who they want in charge of them as has been the case for x00 years.
Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش
@citrinowicz
As I have argued repeatedly, the current situation in Lebanon is fundamentally incompatible with a sustainable U.S.-Iran agreement.
https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2068326244584681533
I see no reason why they can't work together and form a formidable team
Forget your useless soccer teams
This guy is a sporting legend
https://x.com/74frankfurt/status/2068227553274335242?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
Heck, MPs sometimes even promise their loyalty to multiple leadership hopefuls.
Shocking how much these politicians say things that aren't true.
The only thing that's more shocking is how credulous many of our top political hacks are.
Fuck Israel
They misled Trump into starting this
Now they want to jeopardise the global economy to keep Bibi out of stir and give Bart a boner
100 Labour mps want Starmer out so they can take his legislation down or they can decide on a coronation
Less than 4 years, but that's Italy for you (and us thesedays).
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
11m
If the incoming PM goes for Ed Miliband, his government is over before it has started.
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/2068358837397012827
https://x.com/standardnews/status/2068217437368025322?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
https://x.com/standardnews/status/2068217437368025322?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ