These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.
I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.
I would say desperate, rather than reckless.
Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.
And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."
The reason this has happened is
a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.
b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing
c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.
* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
1, Remove red lines on CU and SM 2. Go for PR 3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing 4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership
All popular, big, and easy to describe.
He has said no PR this side of a GE.
How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?
At what point do we stop underwriting Thames Water profligacy? The water rate payers of South East England have been royally shafted for 35 years. Is there a reasonable solution?
These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.
I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.
I would say desperate, rather than reckless.
Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.
And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."
The reason this has happened is
a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.
b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing
c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.
* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
1, Remove red lines on CU and SM 2. Go for PR 3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing 4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership
All popular, big, and easy to describe.
He has said no PR this side of a GE.
How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?
Maternity scandals are the rule rather than the exception in the UK.
I understand that the annual cost of litigation over maternity exceeds the annual cost of all maternity units. In part this is because of the lifetime cost of disability, but even so an astonishing figure.
Not unique to the UK, indeed the US figures are pretty appalling too, so to a degree Obstetrics is intrinsically high risk.
But there is an underlying issue between midwives and obstetricians in the UK over responsibility that goes back further than Wendy Savage in the Eighties. I think there is fault on both sides but a fundamental difference in culture.
There also has been neglect of services because there are few government targets apart from pressure to reduce section rates.
The first opinion polls with Burnham as PM will be interesting. I think he could register quite a big lead for Labour because voters will be so happy the uncertainty is over for a while.
The first opinion polls with Burnham as PM will be interesting. I think he could register quite a big lead for Labour because voters will be so happy the uncertainty is over for a while.
No it will take a while, if at all.
The anger is at Labour's perceived failure to control legal and small boat immigration. Burnham can't change that because the figures suggest an improvement was seen under Starmer and credit was in short supply.
Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.
He lasted longer than Rishi...
Not exactly a hard thing to have done considering Rishi was at the end of a terrible period of Johnsonism, Trussism, Covid, Ukraine and had a limited time due to a looming GE.
It’s even more embarrassing for Starmer that he had a ridiculous majority, an improving economy, changes in immigration laws passed by the last government and has still managed to fail completely.
Starmer had by far the worst economic inheritance of any new PM since 1945.
Sunak’s inheritance was far worse than Starmer’s. Sunak and Hunt had started steadying the ship. Sunak inherited the Truss clusterfuck on top of Covid and Ukraine.
These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.
I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.
I would say desperate, rather than reckless.
Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.
And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."
The reason this has happened is
a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.
b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing
c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.
* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
1, Remove red lines on CU and SM 2. Go for PR 3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing 4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership
All popular, big, and easy to describe.
He has said no PR this side of a GE.
How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?
Maternity scandals are the rule rather than the exception in the UK.
I understand that the annual cost of litigation over maternity exceeds the annual cost of all maternity units. In part this is because of the lifetime cost of disability, but even so an astonishing figure.
Not unique to the UK, indeed the US figures are pretty appalling too, so to a degree Obstetrics is intrinsically high risk.
But there is an underlying issue between midwives and obstetricians in the UK over responsibility that goes back further than Wendy Savage in the Eighties. I think there is fault on both sides but a fundamental difference in culture.
There also has been neglect of services because there are few government targets apart from pressure to reduce section rates.
I find it shocking that something so fundamentally important as the start of new life is treated so neglectfully.
I really don't get why Labour see him as some sort of Messiah. The problem seems to me to be as much with Labour MPs who seem wholly unwilling to think intelligently about what needs doing or make any hard choices and who have indulged themselves with a lot of stupid nonsense. Labour is not a serious party anymore. None of them are, frankly.
Of course they're not, because the chances of a serious party, one that was honest about the state of the nation and the choices we face, would get nowhere near winning an election.
It's why a coronation could backfire for Lab in the same way May's quasi-coronation did.
As per my recent header, Lab's best shot is to hope Burnham gets a short term boost and then use that to go for an early election
These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.
I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.
I would say desperate, rather than reckless.
Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.
And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."
The reason this has happened is
a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.
b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing
c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.
* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
1, Remove red lines on CU and SM 2. Go for PR 3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing 4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership
All popular, big, and easy to describe.
He has said no PR this side of a GE.
How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?
Maternity scandals are the rule rather than the exception in the UK.
I understand that the annual cost of litigation over maternity exceeds the annual cost of all maternity units. In part this is because of the lifetime cost of disability, but even so an astonishing figure.
Not unique to the UK, indeed the US figures are pretty appalling too, so to a degree Obstetrics is intrinsically high risk.
But there is an underlying issue between midwives and obstetricians in the UK over responsibility that goes back further than Wendy Savage in the Eighties. I think there is fault on both sides but a fundamental difference in culture.
There also has been neglect of services because there are few government targets apart from pressure to reduce section rates.
I find it shocking that something so fundamentally important as the start of new life is treated so neglectfully.
It is in large part because of a fundamental clash between high tech interventionist medicine and female centrered "natural childbirth" philosophies held by many midwives and mothers. Being a philosophical, almost theological conflict, it tips into war very quickly.
There is no easy answer to these issues and a lot of departments have very poor teamworking as a result. In particular there is an tension between unnessecary caesarian sections, and the obstetrician only being called in when the baby is in dire straits.
This has been the case for decades and is one reason that I am not an obstetrician. I couldn't work in that sort of environment.
Burnham has the potential to be the most visually iconic PM since Thatcher. In years to come, people will only need to draw the hair and the glasses and everyone will immediately think 'Andy Burnham'.
Oh dear. A comparison that says far more abut your state of mind than it does about Farage. I mean I don't want him anywhere near power but that is because he is bloody useless. But Hitler comparisons are very childish.
Oh and Germany did have a written constitution. Indeed it was because they had a written constitution that Hitler was able to gain power. He was able to exploit the German Constitution to make sure he could say, quite truthfully, that he had taken power legitimately,
Even if Starmer goes I hope Streeting at least gets the nominations to challenge him. Burnham has no mandate from the manifesto Starmer won the 2024 general election on for his tax and spend and nationalisation plans. If Labour MPs do give Burnham a coronation Kemi will rightly take them to task for backing Burnham socialism without even a proper debate and contest
Oh dear. A comparison that says far more abut your state of mind than it does about Farage. I mean I don't want him anywhere near power but that is because he is bloody useless. But Hitler comparisons are very childish.
The clue is in the title. Very few saw it coming, even as late as 1932.
Burnham will at least have authority in the way Starmer didn’t seem to ever have despite the election win
Will he though?
How well does he actually know the current Labour MPs?
How credible will his Cabinet be? If he is seriously considering appoint Haigh to a senior post, that is not a good look.
Will he have the courage to get rid of the dead wood currently in office?
Unlike most politicians, he has put his career and reputation on the line and won. He has shown how to beat Reform. For Labour MPs he is in effect the final roll of the dice to keep their jobs for longer than 2 years. I think that will command authority.
These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.
I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.
I would say desperate, rather than reckless.
Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.
And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."
The reason this has happened is
a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.
b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing
c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.
* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
1, Remove red lines on CU and SM 2. Go for PR 3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing 4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership
All popular, big, and easy to describe.
He has said no PR this side of a GE.
How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?
Maternity scandals are the rule rather than the exception in the UK.
I understand that the annual cost of litigation over maternity exceeds the annual cost of all maternity units. In part this is because of the lifetime cost of disability, but even so an astonishing figure.
Not unique to the UK, indeed the US figures are pretty appalling too, so to a degree Obstetrics is intrinsically high risk.
But there is an underlying issue between midwives and obstetricians in the UK over responsibility that goes back further than Wendy Savage in the Eighties. I think there is fault on both sides but a fundamental difference in culture.
There also has been neglect of services because there are few government targets apart from pressure to reduce section rates.
I find it shocking that something so fundamentally important as the start of new life is treated so neglectfully.
One of our children is in a special school. I think about 20% of the pupils are there because of accidents at birth or very preterm deliveries. If half of these could be avoided then that would save 10% of the special education budget. But it doesn't stop there. Lack of early diagnosis and treatment is another major problem. Like many children our child was diagnosed with "autism" which is no more useful than when they used to diagnose children as "spastic" or "morons". Today we got a proper diagnosis privately .He has a treatable condition but it is probably too late. The treatment cost is a few thousand pounds. If we had got that four years ago then that would have saved the taxpayer £5 million in lost tax revenue and care fees.
Oh dear. A comparison that says far more abut your state of mind than it does about Farage. I mean I don't want him anywhere near power but that is because he is bloody useless. But Hitler comparisons are very childish.
The clue is in the title. Very few saw it coming, even as late as 1932.
Like I said, Very childish. If I were to compare Burnham to Stalin that would be equally stupid. However I clearly have far more common sense than you do and don't go for these simplistic, pointless comparisons.
It is troubling that Cameron was the last PM to survive for any period of time, but then again he was aided by complex coalition politics which helped keep him safe. Brown’s ministry was obviously brief, so do we have to go back to c. 2004/5 Blair to find a stable PM?
Met Office is saying 39 here next week. I wonder if there’s a chance we break the 40 degree record of 2022
The record for June is 35.6 C, which seems set to be knocked out of the park. The highest temperatures of all tend to be late July/early August.
If they are forecasting 38 or 39 I'd say there is a very good chance of it being over 40 somewhere. Look at what is going to happen in France, not so far away.
Business Secretary Peter Kyle MP Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride MP Former Cabinet Secretary Simon Case Former Downing Street Director of Political Strategy Paul Ovenden Labour Peer John Hutton
Please find attached an article about...well, you'll see when you read it. I would be grateful if you could publish it if/when Starmer announces his resignation and/or the start of the leadership battle (eg Burnham/Streeting announcing their candidature with enough MPs).
These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.
I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.
I would say desperate, rather than reckless.
Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.
And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."
The reason this has happened is
a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.
b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing
c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.
* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
1, Remove red lines on CU and SM 2. Go for PR 3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing 4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership
All popular, big, and easy to describe.
He has said no PR this side of a GE.
How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?
At what point do we stop underwriting Thames Water profligacy? The water rate payers of South East England have been royally shafted for 35 years. Is there a reasonable solution?
Shouldn't the solution be investigatory rigour. Set an empowered regulator on them with escalating fines for every infraction. A few months and they'll be insolvent and unlikely to get a further bond holder bailout.
These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.
I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.
I would say desperate, rather than reckless.
Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.
And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."
The reason this has happened is
a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.
b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing
c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.
* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
1, Remove red lines on CU and SM 2. Go for PR 3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing 4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership
All popular, big, and easy to describe.
He has said no PR this side of a GE.
How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?
At what point do we stop underwriting Thames Water profligacy? The water rate payers of South East England have been royally shafted for 35 years. Is there a reasonable solution?
Shouldn't the solution be investigatory rigour. Set an empowered regulator on them with escalating fines for every infraction. A few months and they'll be insolvent and unlikely to get a further bond holder bailout.
No. Let them go bankrupt. Purchase the assets for pennies on the dollar. Then nationalise it totally. The privatised industry with a regulator model has been tested to destruction and doesn't work for strategic industries.
Met Office is saying 39 here next week. I wonder if there’s a chance we break the 40 degree record of 2022
Met saying 38 and 37 here on Tuesday and Wednesday, but Beeb saying 34 and 35 for the same days.
Matthew Todd 🌏🔥 @MrMatthewTodd · 54m This would obliterate the UK temperature record for the month of June which currently stands at 35.6C set in 1976.
Met Office is saying 39 here next week. I wonder if there’s a chance we break the 40 degree record of 2022
Met saying 38 and 37 here on Tuesday and Wednesday, but Beeb saying 34 and 35 for the same days.
Matthew Todd 🌏🔥 @MrMatthewTodd · 54m This would obliterate the UK temperature record for the month of June which currently stands at 35.6C set in 1976.
Burnham has the potential to be the most visually iconic PM since Thatcher. In years to come, people will only need to draw the hair and the glasses and everyone will immediately think 'Andy Burnham'.
I think this is very astute. Burnham fully understands image matters. A great many people are writing him off. Most of them didn't think he'd find a seat. Didn't think he'd win it if he did. Refused to countenance the possibility that he had a high level of local popularity. Despite being repeatedly told by a number of NW posters of many political stripes. Believed he'd fall apart under the scrutiny of a by election campaign. Thought he'd just squeak it maybe. Yet pronounce with great confidence on the inevitable certainty of failure in what comes next.
Burnham has the potential to be the most visually iconic PM since Thatcher. In years to come, people will only need to draw the hair and the glasses and everyone will immediately think 'Andy Burnham'.
I think this is very astute. Burnham fully understands image matters. A great many people are writing him off. Most of them didn't think he'd find a seat. Didn't think he'd win it if he did. Refused to countenance the possibility that he had a high level of local popularity. Believed he'd fall apart under the scrutiny of a by election campaign. Thought he'd just squeak it maybe. Yet pronounce with great confidence on the inevitable certainty of failure in what comes next.
I have to say I never thought he’d get a seat to run in but as soon as he did it was obvious he was going to be the next PM
Nearly every nation has a written constitution and many of them are dictatorships.
Things like codification or PR etc may be good ideas, people will vary on that, but they don't prevent terrible outcomes by themselves.
The point is that the absence of a written constitution makes a democratic nation especially vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship through a constitutional route, because the checks and balances that would make that more difficult are by definition largely absent. Written constitutions can also be overcome, of course.
Met Office is saying 39 here next week. I wonder if there’s a chance we break the 40 degree record of 2022
Met saying 38 and 37 here on Tuesday and Wednesday, but Beeb saying 34 and 35 for the same days.
Matthew Todd 🌏🔥 @MrMatthewTodd · 54m This would obliterate the UK temperature record for the month of June which currently stands at 35.6C set in 1976.
These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.
I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.
I would say desperate, rather than reckless.
Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.
And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."
The reason this has happened is
a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.
b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing
c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.
* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
1, Remove red lines on CU and SM 2. Go for PR 3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing 4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership
All popular, big, and easy to describe.
He has said no PR this side of a GE.
How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?
At what point do we stop underwriting Thames Water profligacy? The water rate payers of South East England have been royally shafted for 35 years. Is there a reasonable solution?
Shouldn't the solution be investigatory rigour. Set an empowered regulator on them with escalating fines for every infraction. A few months and they'll be insolvent and unlikely to get a further bond holder bailout.
No. Let them go bankrupt. Purchase the assets for pennies on the dollar. Then nationalise it totally. The privatised industry with a regulator model has been tested to destruction and doesn't work for strategic industries.
I want to expedite their insolvency and this seems a reasonable way to get there. Plus a good wedge of fines might cheapen the cost of nationalisation,
These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.
I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.
I would say desperate, rather than reckless.
Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.
And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."
The reason this has happened is
a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.
b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing
c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.
* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
1, Remove red lines on CU and SM 2. Go for PR 3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing 4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership
All popular, big, and easy to describe.
He has said no PR this side of a GE.
How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?
At what point do we stop underwriting Thames Water profligacy? The water rate payers of South East England have been royally shafted for 35 years. Is there a reasonable solution?
Shouldn't the solution be investigatory rigour. Set an empowered regulator on them with escalating fines for every infraction. A few months and they'll be insolvent and unlikely to get a further bond holder bailout.
No. Let them go bankrupt. Purchase the assets for pennies on the dollar. Then nationalise it totally. The privatised industry with a regulator model has been tested to destruction and doesn't work for strategic industries.
I want to expedite their insolvency and this seems a reasonable way to get there. Plus a good wedge of fines might cheapen the cost of nationalisation,
Nearly every nation has a written constitution and many of them are dictatorships.
Things like codification or PR etc may be good ideas, people will vary on that, but they don't prevent terrible outcomes by themselves.
The point is that the absence of a written constitution makes a democratic nation especially vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship through a constitutional route, because the checks and balances that would make that more difficult are by definition largely absent. Written constitutions can also be overcome, of course.
Except the example you gave was clearly false because Germany did have a written constitution. Indeed, for a country without a written constiitution we have done remarkably well at avoiding dictatorships or revolutions compared to most other countries.
1848, commonly known by historians as 'The Year of Revolutions' and in Britain the Chartists had a large picnic on Kensington Common.
Well, there goes the pound. If it sinks to £1=$1.20 I can sell my dollar reserve at a profit. Everybody else will be buggered but I'll make about a hundred quid. So there's...that? Yay me.
Nearly every nation has a written constitution and many of them are dictatorships.
Things like codification or PR etc may be good ideas, people will vary on that, but they don't prevent terrible outcomes by themselves.
The point is that the absence of a written constitution makes a democratic nation especially vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship through a constitutional route, because the checks and balances that would make that more difficult are by definition largely absent. Written constitutions can also be overcome, of course.
Except the example you gave was clearly false because Germany did have a written constitution. Indeed, for a country without a written constiitution we have done remarkably well at avoiding dictatorships or revolutions compared to most other countries.
1848, commonly known by historians as 'The Year of Revolutions' and in Britain the Chartists had a large picnic on Kensington Common.
I think the way to solve this argument is for a list of countries which have unwritten constitutions which have had dictatorships v countries with written constitutions who have.
I have a feeling i know which side has had the fewer dictatorships…
Some people on Twitter seem to be genuinely upset that Starmer might be about to step down in favour of Burnham. They must be True Believers in the type of bureaucratic proceduralism that Starmer represents.
Met Office is saying 39 here next week. I wonder if there’s a chance we break the 40 degree record of 2022
Met saying 38 and 37 here on Tuesday and Wednesday, but Beeb saying 34 and 35 for the same days.
Matthew Todd 🌏🔥 @MrMatthewTodd · 54m This would obliterate the UK temperature record for the month of June which currently stands at 35.6C set in 1976.
No, they aren't. For their official forecasts they use a combination of various models including the Met Office and ECMWF.
Their app on the other hand might well be automated from the GFS model and therefore a bit rubbish. The BBC app has always been rubbish whether Met Office or not.
Met Office is saying 39 here next week. I wonder if there’s a chance we break the 40 degree record of 2022
Met saying 38 and 37 here on Tuesday and Wednesday, but Beeb saying 34 and 35 for the same days.
Matthew Todd 🌏🔥 @MrMatthewTodd · 54m This would obliterate the UK temperature record for the month of June which currently stands at 35.6C set in 1976.
No, they aren't. For their official forecasts they use a combination of various models including the Met Office and ECMWF.
Their app on the other hand might well be automated from the GFS model and therefore a bit rubbish. The BBC app has always been rubbish whether Met Office or not.
I think the way to solve this argument is for a list of countries which have unwritten constitutions which have had dictatorships v countries with written constitutions who have.
I have a feeling i know which side has had the fewer dictatorships…
But we do have a written constitution. I assume you mean codified. This is pedantic betting at the end of the day.
I think the way to solve this argument is for a list of countries which have unwritten constitutions which have had dictatorships v countries with written constitutions who have.
I have a feeling i know which side has had the fewer dictatorships…
But we do have a written constitution. I assume you mean codified. This is pedantic betting at the end of the day.
If i understand correctly, technically we *don't* have a singlke written constitution, it's more spread over thirty-odd documents. But although that might be true in theory, I don't think it works like that in practice, and the old saw that "the British Constitution is what happens" holds sway.
I’m interested by the near absence of reply to my incessant sous vide posts
Has no one else here cooked fish sous vide before?
Am I the first?
Who will be next to douse their fish in really quite warm water?
I suspect the absence of @Leon_VotedForStarmer has meant your post did not get turned into the entire thread. Pretty sure he would have had the world's finest 'sous vide' etc etc
Leon was a fan of Masterchef so would be familiar with sous vide. Here's the answer. Yes, fish can be cooked sous vide. Here's the other answer – instructions for everything are on YouTube. So buy yourself proper sous vide and vacuum bag machines and head over to YouTube before Keir Starmer bans it.
Met Office is saying 39 here next week. I wonder if there’s a chance we break the 40 degree record of 2022
Met saying 38 and 37 here on Tuesday and Wednesday, but Beeb saying 34 and 35 for the same days.
Matthew Todd 🌏🔥 @MrMatthewTodd · 54m This would obliterate the UK temperature record for the month of June which currently stands at 35.6C set in 1976.
No, they aren't. For their official forecasts they use a combination of various models including the Met Office and ECMWF.
Their app on the other hand might well be automated from the GFS model and therefore a bit rubbish. The BBC app has always been rubbish whether Met Office or not.
Most models are now going for 38C+ in the south for Tues-Thurs, and some truly horrible nights with Cornwall registering a 29C overnight minimum on one run.
I expect the weather warning will be upgraded to Red unless those forecasts change.
Remember, the June record is "only" 35.6C. The UK statistical max is in mid July.
The government is going to have to rethink its stance on air conditioning (and other adaptations) fast, as this has ceased to be funny and/or within any sort of expected deviation from the norm.
These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.
I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.
I would say desperate, rather than reckless.
Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.
And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."
The reason this has happened is
a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.
b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing
c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.
* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
1, Remove red lines on CU and SM 2. Go for PR 3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing 4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership
All popular, big, and easy to describe.
He has said no PR this side of a GE.
How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?
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.
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.
Nationalising Thames Water would be utterly moronic*.
They have borrowed too much money. Their owners therefore should be left with nothing, and, congratulations to their creditors, you now own a water company. This is standard practice for debt laden businesses going bump, there is nothing particularly special about this one.
The only reason for the government to get involved in the long term would be if the core business can't wash its face, even absent the debt.
There might be a role for government to play in ensuring suppliers get paid on time through the restructuring (and thus don't have the potential to cause water supplies to be interrupted), but that's about all that is necessary.
Capitalism works, boys and girls. All that is required is usually to keep the government out of the way of it, and this case is no different.
* Labour being the party for morons, they'll therefore probably rush off and do it.
Some people on Twitter seem to be genuinely upset that Starmer might be about to step down in favour of Burnham. They must be True Believers in the type of bureaucratic proceduralism that Starmer represents.
It's possible, and indeed pretty reasonable, to think that Starmer is a scummy idiot (no shortage of evidence for that!), and also think that Burnham is very likely to be a downgrade (most of the available evidence suggests this too).
I think Burnham is probably a less objectionable person than Starmer (I periodically read people on here who don't understand why the country hates Starmer - he's a smarmy hypocrite who'd sell his own grandma for an extra week in No10, and almost everyone has seen straight through him by now), but I've seen zero indication that Burnham has ever taken on a difficult flight and not folded immediately. He also seems gloriously naive.
Given that everything the country needs doing is pretty much diametrically opposed to what the PLP want to do, and given the above, I think Burnham will just keep folding to the PLP until either he loses the leadership/next election, or he does something so stupid the bond markets completely lose their minds. That won't be good for the country.
What are the grounds for believing that Burnham would be a better Prime Minister than Starmer has been? Labour MPs are obviously desperate for someone capable of being popular but Burnham's blandness (?), casual u-turns (?) and near silence (?) on how he would deal with the same set of problems that Starmer is grappling with do not provide much reassurance. He was an undistinguished (?) cabinet minister under Brown and was twice unsuccessful in Labour leadership elections."
Starmer spent more than 4 years as leader of the opposition, wins a huge majority, and then resigns after less than 2 years as PM. Mindboggling.
There are good reasons for that. (Narrator: he was crap at the job. Like, really, really crap.)
(continued. Imagine a huge steaming pile of crap on a chessboard. Then put two on the second square, four on the third square, and so on. Then when you get to the 64th square put a large flag on the top saying "THIS IS A HUGE STEAMING PILE OF CRAP" on the top. That's how crap he was)
Starmer spent more than 4 years as leader of the opposition, wins a huge majority, and then resigns after less than 2 years as PM. Mindboggling.
There are good reasons for that. (Narrator: he was crap at the job. Like, really, really crap.)
(continued. Imagine a huge steaming pile of crap on a chessboard. Then put two on the second square, four on the third square, and so on. Then when you get to the 64th square put a large flag on the top saying "THIS IS A HUGE STEAMING PILE OF CRAP" on the top. That's how crap he was)
If Starmer resigns tomorrow then what’s the point of hanging around . I don’t think it’s conceivable that he attends 3 important events when he’s effectively powerless . NATO , G20 and the UK EU summit should be attended by Burnham although the latter should really be postponed as he’ll have to decide on some key issues that have so far not found agreement like the youth mobility scheme and would need more time to decide on the way forward .
It’s still hard to believe that just two years into his premiership Starmer is going .
What are the grounds for believing that Burnham would be a better Prime Minister than Starmer has been? Labour MPs are obviously desperate for someone capable of being popular but Burnham's blandness (?), casual u-turns (?) and near silence (?) on how he would deal with the same set of problems that Starmer is grappling with do not provide much reassurance. He was an undistinguished (?) cabinet minister under Brown and was twice unsuccessful in Labour leadership elections."
What are the grounds for believing that Burnham would be a better Prime Minister than Starmer has been? Labour MPs are obviously desperate for someone capable of being popular but Burnham's blandness (?), casual u-turns (?) and near silence (?) on how he would deal with the same set of problems that Starmer is grappling with do not provide much reassurance. He was an undistinguished (?) cabinet minister under Brown and was twice unsuccessful in Labour leadership elections."
Oh and Germany did have a written constitution. Indeed it was because they had a written constitution that Hitler was able to gain power. He was able to exploit the German Constitution to make sure he could say, quite truthfully, that he had taken power legitimately,
Key to it was control of the judiciary, where they had a head start since many of the senior judges were already Nazi sympathetic. Once it became almost impossible to challenge the actions of the paramilitaries and other thugs in dragging elected mayors out of council meetings and beating them up in the street, and the like, taking control of the rest of the state became relatively easy.
Met Office is saying 39 here next week. I wonder if there’s a chance we break the 40 degree record of 2022
Met saying 38 and 37 here on Tuesday and Wednesday, but Beeb saying 34 and 35 for the same days.
Matthew Todd 🌏🔥 @MrMatthewTodd · 54m This would obliterate the UK temperature record for the month of June which currently stands at 35.6C set in 1976.
No, they aren't. For their official forecasts they use a combination of various models including the Met Office and ECMWF.
Their app on the other hand might well be automated from the GFS model and therefore a bit rubbish. The BBC app has always been rubbish whether Met Office or not.
Most models are now going for 38C+ in the south for Tues-Thurs, and some truly horrible nights with Cornwall registering a 29C overnight minimum on one run.
I expect the weather warning will be upgraded to Red unless those forecasts change.
Remember, the June record is "only" 35.6C. The UK statistical max is in mid July.
The government is going to have to rethink its stance on air conditioning (and other adaptations) fast, as this has ceased to be funny and/or within any sort of expected deviation from the norm.
Late July, I think? Specifically, for the South of England, between July 20-25
These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.
I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.
I would say desperate, rather than reckless.
Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.
And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
"These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."
The reason this has happened is
a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.
b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing
c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.
* Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
1, Remove red lines on CU and SM 2. Go for PR 3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing 4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership
All popular, big, and easy to describe.
He has said no PR this side of a GE.
How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?
Maternity scandals are the rule rather than the exception in the UK.
I understand that the annual cost of litigation over maternity exceeds the annual cost of all maternity units. In part this is because of the lifetime cost of disability, but even so an astonishing figure.
Not unique to the UK, indeed the US figures are pretty appalling too, so to a degree Obstetrics is intrinsically high risk.
But there is an underlying issue between midwives and obstetricians in the UK over responsibility that goes back further than Wendy Savage in the Eighties. I think there is fault on both sides but a fundamental difference in culture.
There also has been neglect of services because there are few government targets apart from pressure to reduce section rates.
I find it shocking that something so fundamentally important as the start of new life is treated so neglectfully.
It is in large part because of a fundamental clash between high tech interventionist medicine and female centrered "natural childbirth" philosophies held by many midwives and mothers. Being a philosophical, almost theological conflict, it tips into war very quickly.
There is no easy answer to these issues and a lot of departments have very poor teamworking as a result. In particular there is an tension between unnessecary caesarian sections, and the obstetrician only being called in when the baby is in dire straits.
This has been the case for decades and is one reason that I am not an obstetrician. I couldn't work in that sort of environment.
Yes - really striking now I'm a parent how stark that divide is. An exacerbating factor I think is that women are having babies later (higher risk) and other risk factors like obesity are more common.
My wife almost ashamed to say she had a great maternity experience at hospital, very much not what you're supposed to say when meeting up with the NCT group.
Oh and Germany did have a written constitution. Indeed it was because they had a written constitution that Hitler was able to gain power. He was able to exploit the German Constitution to make sure he could say, quite truthfully, that he had taken power legitimately,
Key to it was control of the judiciary, where they had a head start since many of the senior judges were already Nazi sympathetic. Once it became almost impossible to challenge the actions of the paramilitaries and other thugs in dragging elected mayors out of council meetings and beating them up in the street, and the like, taking control of the rest of the state became relatively easy.
They also had direct control of the Prussian police force.
What are the grounds for believing that Burnham would be a better Prime Minister than Starmer has been? Labour MPs are obviously desperate for someone capable of being popular but Burnham's blandness (?), casual u-turns (?) and near silence (?) on how he would deal with the same set of problems that Starmer is grappling with do not provide much reassurance. He was an undistinguished (?) cabinet minister under Brown and was twice unsuccessful in Labour leadership elections."
Comments
I understand that the annual cost of litigation over maternity exceeds the annual cost of all maternity units. In part this is because of the lifetime cost of disability, but even so an astonishing figure.
Not unique to the UK, indeed the US figures are pretty appalling too, so to a degree Obstetrics is intrinsically high risk.
But there is an underlying issue between midwives and obstetricians in the UK over responsibility that goes back further than Wendy Savage in the Eighties. I think there is fault on both sides but a fundamental difference in culture.
There also has been neglect of services because there are few government targets apart from pressure to reduce section rates.
The anger is at Labour's perceived failure to control legal and small boat immigration. Burnham can't change that because the figures suggest an improvement was seen under Starmer and credit was in short supply.
In a polity without a written constitution, Reform only need to win once.
https://cmsm.co.uk/hitler-becomes-fuhrer-19-august-1934
@DPJHodges
·
14m
Multiple government sources now confirming Keir Starmer is going to resign.
@DPJHodges
·
14m
Multiple government sources now confirming Keir Starmer is going to resign.
As per my recent header, Lab's best shot is to hope Burnham gets a short term boost and then use that to go for an early election
DYOR
There is no easy answer to these issues and a lot of departments have very poor teamworking as a result. In particular there is an tension between unnessecary caesarian sections, and the obstetrician only being called in when the baby is in dire straits.
This has been the case for decades and is one reason that I am not an obstetrician. I couldn't work in that sort of environment.
How well does he actually know the current Labour MPs?
How credible will his Cabinet be? If he is seriously considering appoint Haigh to a senior post, that is not a good look.
Will he have the courage to get rid of the dead wood currently in office?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nazis:_A_Warning_from_History
Legally her conviction is spent but politically it will never be.
But it doesn't stop there. Lack of early diagnosis and treatment is another major problem. Like many children our child was diagnosed with "autism" which is no more useful than when they used to diagnose children as "spastic" or "morons".
Today we got a proper diagnosis privately .He has a treatable condition but it is probably too late. The treatment cost is a few thousand pounds. If we had got that four years ago then that would have saved the taxpayer £5 million in lost tax revenue and care fees.
If someone shows genuine remorse and commitment to mend their ways then they should be forgiven. There is no danger to the public purse.
Things like codification or PR etc may be good ideas, people will vary on that, but they don't prevent terrible outcomes by themselves.
@BBCPolitics
Joining #BBCLauraK
Business Secretary Peter Kyle MP
Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride MP
Former Cabinet Secretary Simon Case
Former Downing Street Director of Political Strategy Paul Ovenden
Labour Peer John Hutton
Sunday 9am
@BBCOne
@BBCiPlayer
===
Has there ever been less reason to get up early on a Sunday morning than tuning into this panel of middle ranks no one sane has ever heard of?
Meanwhile the BBC is in crisis and sacking thousands.
Madness.
Now 35 and 34 on Tues/Weds.
Insane.
Please find attached an article about...well, you'll see when you read it. I would be grateful if you could publish it if/when Starmer announces his resignation and/or the start of the leadership battle (eg Burnham/Streeting announcing their candidature with enough MPs).
Please confirm receipt
@MatthewdAncona
Absolutely first-class piece by @patrickkmaguire on the role of the Catholic church in the formation of Andy Burnham"
https://x.com/MatthewdAncona/status/2068241471770144902
Matthew Todd 🌏🔥
@MrMatthewTodd
·
54m
This would obliterate the UK temperature record for the month of June which currently stands at 35.6C set in 1976.
https://x.com/MrMatthewTodd/status/2068452752527921441
Burnham fully understands image matters.
A great many people are writing him off. Most of them didn't think he'd find a seat. Didn't think he'd win it if he did. Refused to countenance the possibility that he had a high level of local popularity. Despite being repeatedly told by a number of NW posters of many political stripes. Believed he'd fall apart under the scrutiny of a by election campaign. Thought he'd just squeak it maybe.
Yet pronounce with great confidence on the inevitable certainty of failure in what comes next.
Arent they spending more time at Windsor due to redecorating at Buck Palace
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rachel-reeves-sacked-chancellor-andy-burnham-latest-0kgwrsn5s
1848, commonly known by historians as 'The Year of Revolutions' and in Britain the Chartists had a large picnic on Kensington Common.
1848, commonly known by historians as 'The Year of Revolutions' and in Britain the Chartists had a large picnic on Kensington Common.
I think the way to solve this argument is for a list of countries which have unwritten constitutions which have had dictatorships v countries with written constitutions who have.
I have a feeling i know which side has had the fewer dictatorships…
Their app on the other hand might well be automated from the GFS model and therefore a bit rubbish. The BBC app has always been rubbish whether Met Office or not.
Anyway, UKV (Met Office) has 41C for Swindon on Thursday...
https://x.com/Met4CastUK/status/2068400539675566273/photo/1
That is truly alarming.
Most models are now going for 38C+ in the south for Tues-Thurs, and some truly horrible nights with Cornwall registering a 29C overnight minimum on one run.
I expect the weather warning will be upgraded to Red unless those forecasts change.
Remember, the June record is "only" 35.6C. The UK statistical max is in mid July.
The government is going to have to rethink its stance on air conditioning (and other adaptations) fast, as this has ceased to be funny and/or within any sort of expected deviation from the norm.
They have borrowed too much money. Their owners therefore should be left with nothing, and, congratulations to their creditors, you now own a water company. This is standard practice for debt laden businesses going bump, there is nothing particularly special about this one.
The only reason for the government to get involved in the long term would be if the core business can't wash its face, even absent the debt.
There might be a role for government to play in ensuring suppliers get paid on time through the restructuring (and thus don't have the potential to cause water supplies to be interrupted), but that's about all that is necessary.
Capitalism works, boys and girls. All that is required is usually to keep the government out of the way of it, and this case is no different.
* Labour being the party for morons, they'll therefore probably rush off and do it.
I think Burnham is probably a less objectionable person than Starmer (I periodically read people on here who don't understand why the country hates Starmer - he's a smarmy hypocrite who'd sell his own grandma for an extra week in No10, and almost everyone has seen straight through him by now), but I've seen zero indication that Burnham has ever taken on a difficult flight and not folded immediately. He also seems gloriously naive.
Given that everything the country needs doing is pretty much diametrically opposed to what the PLP want to do, and given the above, I think Burnham will just keep folding to the PLP until either he loses the leadership/next election, or he does something so stupid the bond markets completely lose their minds.
That won't be good for the country.
"@MatthewStadlen
What are the grounds for believing that Burnham would be a better Prime Minister than Starmer has been? Labour MPs are obviously desperate for someone capable of being popular but Burnham's blandness (?), casual u-turns (?) and near silence (?) on how he would deal with the same set of problems that Starmer is grappling with do not provide much reassurance. He was an undistinguished (?) cabinet minister under Brown and was twice unsuccessful in Labour leadership elections."
https://x.com/MatthewStadlen/status/2068393598777700696
It’s still hard to believe that just two years into his premiership Starmer is going .
Some might say that Burnham has a Ming vase approach...
My wife almost ashamed to say she had a great maternity experience at hospital, very much not what you're supposed to say when meeting up with the NCT group.
Foreign policy good with the exception of his failure to hammer Israel hard
I'm convinced he'll be quite shit, but not as shit as Starmer.
Very interesting and it correctly makes the point one thing Burnham has in his favour is likeability, which SKS doesn’t.
Won’t get him very far and the Derbyshire interview was damning