Skip to content

Who will be Andy Burnham’s Chancellor? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,213
edited 7:11AM in General
Who will be Andy Burnham’s Chancellor? – politicalbetting.com

The Times are reporting that Andy Burnham has shortlisted his Chancellor down to three names, I can see why Wes Streeting is the favourite but I do think the value might be with Shabana Mahmood.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,175
    Me first?
  • BatteryCorrectHorse
  • I have it on good authority that it will be Streeting.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,175

    Me first?

    Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,726

    I have it on good authority that it will be Streeting.

    *Piles on Miliband*
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,821
    Ed Miliband probably makes our gilt rates jump (again) instantly, so unless he's really stupid it won't he him. I suspect he thinks Wes Streeting is untrustworthy.

    So, yes, Mahmood (if this is shortlist is accurate, which it very well might not be)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,175

    BatteryCorrectHorse

    A poster who truly knows themself.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,951
    I wonder how many of the list think that they're going to be chancellor. Burnham seems to have a lot of hangers on that I suspect have been promised roles.

    BBC Today giving him a rough time this morning - deservedly so.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,726

    BatteryCorrectHorse

    A poster who truly knows themself.
    Lots of positivity.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,791
    I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,071
    I see the hindsighters are chiming in with their hindsight.

    In an all my years covering politics I have never met anyone so lacking in interest in the skills a leader needs - the ability to tell a story; to listen to colleagues; to woo, persuade & chivvy. Keir Starmer isn’t just uninterested in these requirements of the job. He is dismissive & contemptuous of them. @AndrewMarr9 sums this up in the @NewStatesman rather more memorably than I could …

    https://x.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/2069114432379068770?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,776
    edited 7:20AM

    BatteryCorrectHorse

    Is that you Ed Balls?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,255
    FPT…
    Sandpit said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Andy_JS said:

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2069169730976354643

    NEW: Andy Burnham is choosing between Ed Miliband, Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmood to become his Chancellor

    [@thetimes]

    Shabana Mahmood would be the best choice imo.
    I'd think Streeting for chancellor (despite my dislike of him), then beef up the portfolios of both existing roles for Ed and Shabana. Both are (to my pov) doing their jobs well - but I could see a bit of an overall portfolio re-arrangement rather than a strict name <-> job title shuffle hitting the mark.
    He should create a new Department for AI. For the avoidance of doubt that is artificial intelligence, rather than for Al Carns.
    That’s not a bad idea, but I’d make it a little broader and make it the department of technology.

    There’s a lot of new technology on the way, and government needs to be well placed to take advantage of it. See for example what’s going on in space and in defence, as well as AI.

    Government could save hundreds of billions over a Parliament by being smart with new technology.
    We have https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology already.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,164

    Seriously, Mahmood looks like a good option but if you've got a Home Secretary who is perceived to be doing well don't change that, you're unlikley to find another one.

    I think she has said she wants to remain Home Secretary.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,437
    Can't be Miliband as he will already have a job as PM, don't you know.

    Have Cooper at 16's from a mental aberration some time ago.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,190
    edited 7:26AM
    Its a really important decision because it will do so much to shape his government. He also needs a Chancellor who can survive the buffeting that is coming from both the markets and from inside the party as so many have to learn yet again that austerity was not a choice but a necessity.

    I would be very concerned if it was Ed Miliband. He has some relevant experience but the policies he has promoted in Environment through both net zero and in the North Sea have been hugely damaging and anti-growth.

    Louise Haigh, in my opinion, has neither the skills or experience for it but its not unusual for the person who has run a successful campaign for the leader to get it. I suspect she is undervalued.

    Streeting has shown he is quick and robust in the way he has faced down the most powerful unions in the country at Health. His problem, and the reason he is not a candidate, is that he has very little of a following in the party (like Reeves in that respect) so he doesn't add any great strength to the ticket. He's probably rightly favourite though and I suspect the markets would like it.

    I don't think that Yvette Cooper has the stamina for it given her health problems.

    Mahmood would be a possibility, especially if Burnham wanted another woman in the role.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,613
    Barnesian said:

    Seriously, Mahmood looks like a good option but if you've got a Home Secretary who is perceived to be doing well don't change that, you're unlikley to find another one.

    I think she has said she wants to remain Home Secretary.
    Keep Mahmood in place. Keep up the good work.

    Unless Burnham intends to cave in to the handwringers when it comes to immigration and law & order.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,689

    I have it on good authority that it will be Streeting.

    I have it on good authority it won’t be Reeves
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,613
    FF43 said:

    I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

    A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.

    The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,453
    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,163
    DavidL said:

    Its a really important decision because it will do so much to shape his government. He also needs a Chancellor who can survive the buffeting that is coming from both the markets and from inside the party as so many have to learn yet again that austerity was not a choice but a necessity.

    I would be very concerned if it was Ed Miliband. He has some relevant experience but the policies he has promoted in Environment through both net zero and in the North Sea have been hugely damaging and anti-growth.

    Louise Haigh, in my opinion, has neither the skills or experience for it but its not unusual for the person who has run a successful campaign for the leader to get it. I suspect she is undervalued.

    Streeting has shown he is quick and robust in the way he has faced down the most powerful unions in the country at Health. His problem, and the reason he is not a candidate, is that he has very little of a following in the party (like Reeves in that respect) so he doesn't add any great strength to the ticket. He's probably rightly favourite though and I suspect the markets would like it.

    I don't think that Yvette Cooper has the stamina for it given her health problems.

    Mahmood would be a possibility, especially if Burnham wanted another woman in the role.

    The Foreign Secretary has health problems? Given the amount of travel involved I think the Treasury would be easier. And then she would be the first woman to have all 3 big offices (albeit in just over 2 years so it's not a great look).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,150
    ydoethur said:

    I have it on good authority that it will be Streeting.

    *Piles on Miliband*
    He should get that treated.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,563

    I see the hindsighters are chiming in with their hindsight.

    In an all my years covering politics I have never met anyone so lacking in interest in the skills a leader needs - the ability to tell a story; to listen to colleagues; to woo, persuade & chivvy. Keir Starmer isn’t just uninterested in these requirements of the job. He is dismissive & contemptuous of them. @AndrewMarr9 sums this up in the @NewStatesman rather more memorably than I could …

    https://x.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/2069114432379068770?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    All evaluation of the past - like how the PMship of Starmer is to be assessed - is hindsight. There is nothing wrong with it. Robinson and Marr are, sadly, right.

    As an example of Starmer's regime, is it possible to identify a single genuine courageous hard choice he has made and stuck with WRT the electorate and/or his MPs?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,791
    DavidL said:

    Its a really important decision because it will do so much to shape his government. He also needs a Chancellor who can survive the buffeting that is coming from both the markets and from inside the party as so many have to learn yet again that austerity was not a choice but a necessity.

    I would be very concerned if it was Ed Miliband. He has some relevant experience but the policies he has promoted in Environment through both net zero and in the North Sea have been hugely damaging and anti-growth.

    Louise Haigh, in my opinion, has neither the skills or experience for it but its not unusual for the person who has run a successful campaign for the leader to get it. I suspect she is undervalued.

    Streeting has shown he is quick and robust in the way he has faced down the most powerful unions in the country at Health. His problem, and the reason he is not a candidate, is that he has very little of a following in the party (like Reeves in that respect) so he doesn't add any great strength to the ticket. He's probably rightly favourite though and I suspect the markets would like it.

    I don't think that Yvette Cooper has the stamina for it given her health problems.

    Mahmood would be a possibility, especially if Burnham wanted another woman in the role.

    I expect quite strongly that Burnham will continue current net zero policies, just as Miliband continued previous Conservative government policies under Starmer.

    I do expect the rhetoric to change though from moral necessity for the planet to these are the future industries and energy security. I also expect Burnham to be much more engaged than Starmer who handed everything off to Miliband.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 8,173
    DavidL said:

    Its a really important decision because it will do so much to shape his government. He also needs a Chancellor who can survive the buffeting that is coming from both the markets and from inside the party as so many have to learn yet again that austerity was not a choice but a necessity.

    I would be very concerned if it was Ed Miliband. He has some relevant experience but the policies he has promoted in Environment through both net zero and in the North Sea have been hugely damaging and anti-growth.

    Louise Haigh, in my opinion, has neither the skills or experience for it but its not unusual for the person who has run a successful campaign for the leader to get it. I suspect she is undervalued.

    Streeting has shown he is quick and robust in the way he has faced down the most powerful unions in the country at Health. His problem, and the reason he is not a candidate, is that he has very little of a following in the party (like Reeves in that respect) so he doesn't add any great strength to the ticket. He's probably rightly favourite though and I suspect the markets would like it.

    I don't think that Yvette Cooper has the stamina for it given her health problems.

    Mahmood would be a possibility, especially if Burnham wanted another woman in the role.

    It needs to be someone who will stand up for the interests of the country against the dead hand of the Treasury, and finally start to undo Osborne’s damage,
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 7,573
    edited 7:39AM
    I suspect Burnham’s biggest change or reversion to mean will be making decisions. By all accounts, Starmer tried to delegate this away from himself constantly.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,489
    Ed needs to stay at Energy where he is doing a great job.

    Wes as Chancellor

    Mahmood is the best Home Secretary in over a decade has to stay

    The GOLDEN BULLET

    Burnham promises EU Ref 2 in 2031 exactly 15 years after first vote on details to be scoped and set by next GE

    Gen Z are overwhelmingly in favour.

    5 years time more Leavers dead of old age, it would destroy Reform and split what's left of the Tory Party.

    The Second GOLDEN BULLET

    Announce an Independent Commission in to PR options for all National and Local Elections to report back before next GE and have a clear Manifesto commitment to implement after next GE.

    United the centre left on 2 massive issues and destroy the Right
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,425

    FF43 said:

    I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

    A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.

    The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
    Good morning

    Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position

    He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,595
    So if Mahmood is doing a good job as Home Secretary why move her ?

    Just because someone does well in one job doesn't mean that they will do well in a different job.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,563
    edited 7:40AM
    An update on the Rajiv Menon KC case, in which a senior silk is being proceeded against for allegedly defying a the ruling of a judge in the Palestine Action first trial. This could run for a long time, and will perhaps give guidance on the freedom of the bar to tell a jury that the judge and the law are wrong and that they can do what they think right.

    https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/contempt-case-can-continue?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=203149304&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,992
    Surely Ed Balls?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 10,176
    FF43 said:

    I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

    Streeting for me. Sane enough not to spook the markets. EdM might spoil the markets and I'd keep him at energy where he seems to have a genuine interest and passion and doing some of the right things. I think a chancellor who can also explain things well and come across as positive would be a good thing: Streeting. Plus keep your enemies close etc... I don't seem EdM as a serious future leadership contender, nor Mahmood for FF43's reasons, above.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,150
    DavidL said:

    Its a really important decision because it will do so much to shape his government. He also needs a Chancellor who can survive the buffeting that is coming from both the markets and from inside the party as so many have to learn yet again that austerity was not a choice but a necessity.

    I would be very concerned if it was Ed Miliband. He has some relevant experience but the policies he has promoted in Environment through both net zero and in the North Sea have been hugely damaging and anti-growth.

    Louise Haigh, in my opinion, has neither the skills or experience for it but its not unusual for the person who has run a successful campaign for the leader to get it. I suspect she is undervalued.

    Streeting has shown he is quick and robust in the way he has faced down the most powerful unions in the country at Health. His problem, and the reason he is not a candidate, is that he has very little of a following in the party (like Reeves in that respect) so he doesn't add any great strength to the ticket. He's probably rightly favourite though and I suspect the markets would like it.

    I don't think that Yvette Cooper has the stamina for it given her health problems.

    Mahmood would be a possibility, especially if Burnham wanted another woman in the role.

    Is having a following in the party necessary to be a good Chancellor ?
    There are decent examples who didn't.

    There's something to be said for having a Chancellor who is dependent on the PM's patronage.
    Conversely, giving Milliband the post would be a declaration of weakness, and give him way too much say in determining government policy
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,489
    Alexander should stay at Transport

    Haigh should be in a more internal Labour Party facing role

    I'd demote

    Lammy
    Kyle
    Turley


    Move J Reynolds so Haigh could have Chief Whip options or Turkey role

    Powell in for Kyle.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 8,173
    AnneJGP said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse

    May I enquire about this new tradition? I've been wondering whether it's your butler announcing you've joined the thread.
    My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen. Pray silence for the entry of BatteryCorrectHorse!
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,541
    algarkirk said:

    I see the hindsighters are chiming in with their hindsight.

    In an all my years covering politics I have never met anyone so lacking in interest in the skills a leader needs - the ability to tell a story; to listen to colleagues; to woo, persuade & chivvy. Keir Starmer isn’t just uninterested in these requirements of the job. He is dismissive & contemptuous of them. @AndrewMarr9 sums this up in the @NewStatesman rather more memorably than I could …

    https://x.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/2069114432379068770?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    All evaluation of the past - like how the PMship of Starmer is to be assessed - is hindsight. There is nothing wrong with it. Robinson and Marr are, sadly, right.

    As an example of Starmer's regime, is it possible to identify a single genuine courageous hard choice he has made and stuck with WRT the electorate and/or his MPs?
    Defending his desk from things that ought to have crossed it?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 23,148
    They got rid of Starmer because he was a shit. The Labour Party have always at its centre had a heart. Starmer didn't and after two years those who could see him in close up realised it.

    I just read Viewcode's article from the New Statesmen and if the letters are anything to go by he was loathed. Not one was prepared to say 'You did your best'. Opportunist was as good as it got

    Rent-a-gobs like Crick now come in and excite a few Tories with 'Burnham will be worse' which may be true but to base it on a single interview......and with his recent judgements?

    On that same New Statesman page I was taken to this. Difficult to listen to which is presumably why the two hosts were banned from coming to the UK for a debate at the Oxford Union. Warning. An Israeli General killed in action

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxGf5OFFK0U
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 10,176
    edited 7:44AM
    Taz said:

    I have it on good authority that it will be Streeting.

    I have it on good authority it won’t be Reeves
    She just looks a bit ridiculous apparently trying to jump on the Burnham bandwagon. Surely she'll be in the wilderness.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,071
    algarkirk said:

    I see the hindsighters are chiming in with their hindsight.

    In an all my years covering politics I have never met anyone so lacking in interest in the skills a leader needs - the ability to tell a story; to listen to colleagues; to woo, persuade & chivvy. Keir Starmer isn’t just uninterested in these requirements of the job. He is dismissive & contemptuous of them. @AndrewMarr9 sums this up in the @NewStatesman rather more memorably than I could …

    https://x.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/2069114432379068770?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    All evaluation of the past - like how the PMship of Starmer is to be assessed - is hindsight. There is nothing wrong with it. Robinson and Marr are, sadly, right.

    As an example of Starmer's regime, is it possible to identify a single genuine courageous hard choice he has made and stuck with WRT the electorate and/or his MPs?
    Yeah, but I have more respect for those who were highlighting the cowardice and fickleness live as it happened rather than those who were deferring to the office of pm in hushed tones. Some of the latter were even applauding the appointment of Mandelson and fawning over Trump as master strokes.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,105
    Morning all,

    I think Wes will be CoE, personally.

    BTW massive thunderstorms and lightning over part of southern England last night. Map of strikes here:

    https://www.lightningmaps.org/?lang=gb#google_vignette;z=7;t=3;y=50.0383;x=-0.5651;d=2;dl=2;dc=0;ts24=1;m=oss;s=0;o=0;b=0.00;ts=0;
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,150
    algarkirk said:

    I see the hindsighters are chiming in with their hindsight.

    In an all my years covering politics I have never met anyone so lacking in interest in the skills a leader needs - the ability to tell a story; to listen to colleagues; to woo, persuade & chivvy. Keir Starmer isn’t just uninterested in these requirements of the job. He is dismissive & contemptuous of them. @AndrewMarr9 sums this up in the @NewStatesman rather more memorably than I could …

    https://x.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/2069114432379068770?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    All evaluation of the past - like how the PMship of Starmer is to be assessed - is hindsight. There is nothing wrong with it. Robinson and Marr are, sadly, right.

    As an example of Starmer's regime, is it possible to identify a single genuine courageous hard choice he has made and stuck with WRT the electorate and/or his MPs?
    Robinson's opinion is clearly genuine.
    He derives little benefit from being quite so honest - and if you look at the comments below, attracts a great deal of flack for expressing it.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 10,176
    AnneJGP said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse

    May I enquire about this new tradition? I've been wondering whether it's your butler announcing you've joined the thread.
    First time I saw it, I thought it was going to be like Ed Balls Day. But we can't celebrate horse every day!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,339
    So once again Labour wont have a female leader.

    The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,689
    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,689
    edited 7:54AM

    So once again Labour wont have a female leader.

    The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.

    ‘Another failure for Kemi’ incoming
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,626

    So once again Labour wont have a female leader.

    The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.

    The only woman in the frame was pale and white - and so gobby she would have scared the horses.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,105

    So once again Labour wont have a female leader.

    The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.

    Pale white bloke (presumably!) complains about the pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes electing another pale white bloke.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,339

    So once again Labour wont have a female leader.

    The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.

    The only woman in the frame was pale and white - and so gobby she would have scared the horses.
    Are you sure ? It could have been one of those women with a penis.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 10,176

    FF43 said:

    I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

    A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.

    The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
    Good morning

    Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position

    He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
    Country before party doesn't necessarily mean doing what the country wants, but doing what you think it needs - indeed, doing what it needs but does not want is bad for party, often, so putting country first. Doing what the country wants would mean frequently doing six impossible things before breakfast!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,791

    So once again Labour wont have a female leader.

    The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.

    FWIW Scottish Labour has had three female leaders and is currently led by an Asian heritage man. They haven't been noticeably more successful than their white male counterparts however.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 10,176

    So once again Labour wont have a female leader.

    The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.

    Lord give me a female Labour PM. But not yet!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,339
    Selebian said:

    So once again Labour wont have a female leader.

    The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.

    Lord give me a female Labour PM. But not yet!
    Just not another effing CoE.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,056
    edited 7:54AM
    There's always a Tweet.

    I have never taken part in a coup against any Leader of the Labour Party and I am not going to start now. 2/3

    https://x.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/747036912641318912
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,339
    FF43 said:

    So once again Labour wont have a female leader.

    The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.

    FWIW Scottish Labour has had three female leaders and is currently led by an Asian heritage man. They haven't been noticeably more successful than their white male counterparts however.
    Of course not. You should choose on ability not virtue signalling
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,726
    DavidL said:

    Its a really important decision because it will do so much to shape his government. He also needs a Chancellor who can survive the buffeting that is coming from both the markets and from inside the party as so many have to learn yet again that austerity was not a choice but a necessity.

    I would be very concerned if it was Ed Miliband. He has some relevant experience but the policies he has promoted in Environment through both net zero and in the North Sea have been hugely damaging and anti-growth.

    Louise Haigh, in my opinion, has neither the skills or experience for it but its not unusual for the person who has run a successful campaign for the leader to get it. I suspect she is undervalued.

    Streeting has shown he is quick and robust in the way he has faced down the most powerful unions in the country at Health. His problem, and the reason he is not a candidate, is that he has very little of a following in the party (like Reeves in that respect) so he doesn't add any great strength to the ticket. He's probably rightly favourite though and I suspect the markets would like it.

    I don't think that Yvette Cooper has the stamina for it given her health problems.

    Mahmood would be a possibility, especially if Burnham wanted another woman in the role.

    You say he 'faced down the unions.' My understanding is that he tried to negotiate over their heads for redundancy packages for the restructuring he was trying to carry through, and when nobody was interested due to the bungling of the terms he and his equally inept SPADs put forward he managed to leave his department on the hook for a much bigger redundancy bill by mistake.

    A friend of mine who works for PHE in a senior role (and was hoping to get redundancy but wouldn't touch Streeting's offer with a bargepole) thought the reason he resigned was to ensure he dodged the bullet over a £5 billion bill caused by his incompetence and could blame his successor.

    Is that true? I don't know. It's an anecdote from one insider. But if even part of it is, we don't want him as Chancellor, even leaving aside the links to Mandelson and the fact he comes across as a slimy Tristram.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,689

    So once again Labour wont have a female leader.

    The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.

    The only woman in the frame was pale and white - and so gobby she would have scared the horses.
    To be fair she’d have been shit. Liz Truss level shit..
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,453
    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    This is just incoherent. Of course they would string the work out if they are forced to come in for 5 days a week.

    You’re not unique though - presenteeism is embedded and going to be very difficult to eradicate.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,437
    Selebian said:

    FF43 said:

    I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

    A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.

    The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
    Good morning

    Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position

    He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
    Country before party doesn't necessarily mean doing what the country wants, but doing what you think it needs - indeed, doing what it needs but does not want is bad for party, often, so putting country first. Doing what the country wants would mean frequently doing six impossible things before breakfast!
    Country wants to be outside the EU. Country needs to be inside the EU.

    Discuss .... but put away the loaded weapons.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,493

    So once again Labour wont have a female leader.

    The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.

    Slight problem with what you've written there: the majority of Labour MPs are now women.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,726
    edited 7:59AM
    FF43 said:

    So once again Labour wont have a female leader.

    The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.

    FWIW Scottish Labour has had three female leaders and is currently led by an Asian heritage man. They haven't been noticeably more successful than their white male counterparts however.
    Labour's first female leader in Wales led them to their first election defeat in the age of universal suffrage.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,493
    edited 7:57AM
    FF43 said:

    I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

    That's the perfect reason for choosing her. Someone whom the average voter might like, rather than Labour voters/members.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,689
    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    This is just incoherent. Of course they would string the work out if they are forced to come in for 5 days a week.

    You’re not unique though - presenteeism is embedded and going to be very difficult to eradicate.
    @malcolmg

    This public sector retard thinks public sector workers are ‘innovative’ and deserve a pay rise if they do four days at a normal workrate instead of stretching four days work out to five 🤣🤣
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,164
    algarkirk said:

    I see the hindsighters are chiming in with their hindsight.

    In an all my years covering politics I have never met anyone so lacking in interest in the skills a leader needs - the ability to tell a story; to listen to colleagues; to woo, persuade & chivvy. Keir Starmer isn’t just uninterested in these requirements of the job. He is dismissive & contemptuous of them. @AndrewMarr9 sums this up in the @NewStatesman rather more memorably than I could …

    https://x.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/2069114432379068770?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    All evaluation of the past - like how the PMship of Starmer is to be assessed - is hindsight. There is nothing wrong with it. Robinson and Marr are, sadly, right.

    As an example of Starmer's regime, is it possible to identify a single genuine courageous hard choice he has made and stuck with WRT the electorate and/or his MPs?
    I think Starmer saw himself as the conductor of an orchestra, but he didn't know the tune.
    He assumed the players did.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,689
    edited 8:03AM
    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    This is just incoherent. Of course they would string the work out if they are forced to come in for 5 days a week.

    You’re not unique though - presenteeism is embedded and going to be very difficult to eradicate.
    If they work five days give them enough for five days

    If they’ve only enough work for four days then work four get paid for four

    Condescending bitch

    You also seem to spend a fair bit of the working week on here. 🙄
  • RogerRoger Posts: 23,148

    Seriously, Mahmood looks like a good option but if you've got a Home Secretary who is perceived to be doing well don't change that, you're unlikley to find another one.

    Mahmood is one of the reasons Starmer lost his job. If Labour wanted to become another version of Restore/Reform they might as well have chosen her as leader. They might even have picked up a few of the Alanbrooke voters who get excited having a woman in charge
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,689
    Barnesian said:

    algarkirk said:

    I see the hindsighters are chiming in with their hindsight.

    In an all my years covering politics I have never met anyone so lacking in interest in the skills a leader needs - the ability to tell a story; to listen to colleagues; to woo, persuade & chivvy. Keir Starmer isn’t just uninterested in these requirements of the job. He is dismissive & contemptuous of them. @AndrewMarr9 sums this up in the @NewStatesman rather more memorably than I could …

    https://x.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/2069114432379068770?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    All evaluation of the past - like how the PMship of Starmer is to be assessed - is hindsight. There is nothing wrong with it. Robinson and Marr are, sadly, right.

    As an example of Starmer's regime, is it possible to identify a single genuine courageous hard choice he has made and stuck with WRT the electorate and/or his MPs?
    I think Starmer saw himself as the conductor of an orchestra, but he didn't know the tune.
    He assumed the players did.
    Eric Morecambe meets Andre Previn
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 5,557
    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    This is just incoherent. Of course they would string the work out if they are forced to come in for 5 days a week.

    You’re not unique though - presenteeism is embedded and going to be very difficult to eradicate.
    If they work five days give them enough for five days

    If they’ve only enough work for four days then work four get paid for four

    Condescending bitch

    You also seem to spend a fair bit of the working week on here. 🙄
    It's not as easy as that...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,738

    FF43 said:

    I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

    A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.

    The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
    Good morning

    Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position

    He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
    No one is interested in Gaza. We aren't even concerned with Westhoughton.
    Brexit played no part either.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,541
    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,453
    edited 8:06AM
    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    This is just incoherent. Of course they would string the work out if they are forced to come in for 5 days a week.

    You’re not unique though - presenteeism is embedded and going to be very difficult to eradicate.
    malcolmg

    This public sector retard thinks public sector workers are ‘innovative’ and deserve a pay rise if they do four days at a normal workrate instead of stretching four days work out to five 🤣🤣
    You’re more interested in servitude than actually getting the job done. A good private sector firm doesn’t give two shits how long someone is in - if someone can automate their work then they are worth 5x their incapable boomer counterparts.

    Bit pathetic you require Malcolmg to back you up. The sort of coward who starts a fight in the playground and relies on others to finish it.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,689
    Roger said:

    Seriously, Mahmood looks like a good option but if you've got a Home Secretary who is perceived to be doing well don't change that, you're unlikley to find another one.

    Mahmood is one of the reasons Starmer lost his job. If Labour wanted to become another version of Restore/Reform they might as well have chosen her as leader. They might even have picked up a few of the Alanbrooke voters who get excited having a woman in charge
    How were her reforms unpopular or unfair ?

    She’s hardly far right. She’s managing migration fairly

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,791
    Andy_JS said:

    FF43 said:

    I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

    That's the perfect reason for choosing her. Someone whom the average voter might like, rather than Labour voters/members.
    Someone who is both incompetent and turns off people who might keep your government in power seems a strange "perfect reason" to select her.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 5,557
    edited 8:08AM
    dixiedean said:

    FF43 said:

    I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

    A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.

    The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
    Good morning

    Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position

    He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
    No one is interested in Gaza. We aren't even concerned with Westhoughton.
    Brexit played no part either.
    The only thing that affects the average voter is next weeks pay packet, whether Just eats are late, the colour of their next door neighbours, and how much beer is left. And they let them vote...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,170
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Its a really important decision because it will do so much to shape his government. He also needs a Chancellor who can survive the buffeting that is coming from both the markets and from inside the party as so many have to learn yet again that austerity was not a choice but a necessity.

    I would be very concerned if it was Ed Miliband. He has some relevant experience but the policies he has promoted in Environment through both net zero and in the North Sea have been hugely damaging and anti-growth.

    Louise Haigh, in my opinion, has neither the skills or experience for it but its not unusual for the person who has run a successful campaign for the leader to get it. I suspect she is undervalued.

    Streeting has shown he is quick and robust in the way he has faced down the most powerful unions in the country at Health. His problem, and the reason he is not a candidate, is that he has very little of a following in the party (like Reeves in that respect) so he doesn't add any great strength to the ticket. He's probably rightly favourite though and I suspect the markets would like it.

    I don't think that Yvette Cooper has the stamina for it given her health problems.

    Mahmood would be a possibility, especially if Burnham wanted another woman in the role.

    You say he 'faced down the unions.' My understanding is that he tried to negotiate over their heads for redundancy packages for the restructuring he was trying to carry through, and when nobody was interested due to the bungling of the terms he and his equally inept SPADs put forward he managed to leave his department on the hook for a much bigger redundancy bill by mistake.

    A friend of mine who works for PHE in a senior role (and was hoping to get redundancy but wouldn't touch Streeting's offer with a bargepole) thought the reason he resigned was to ensure he dodged the bullet over a £5 billion bill caused by his incompetence and could blame his successor.

    Is that true? I don't know. It's an anecdote from one insider. But if even part of it is, we don't want him as Chancellor, even leaving aside the links to Mandelson and the fact he comes across as a slimy Tristram.
    It is notable that with the BMA that the strikes were called off after negotiations on terms were re-opened by Streetings successor. Playing to the gallery is not usually the best approach to complex industrial relations negotiations.

    And yes, The PHE closure has turned into a fiasco for similar reasons: a desire for headlines about slashing "pen pushers" without really understanding what all those support staff do.

    It wouldn't bode well for Streeting as Chancellor, as he likes to make the news rather than think through policy.

  • TazTaz Posts: 28,689
    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    This is just incoherent. Of course they would string the work out if they are forced to come in for 5 days a week.

    You’re not unique though - presenteeism is embedded and going to be very difficult to eradicate.
    malcolmg

    This public sector retard thinks public sector workers are ‘innovative’ and deserve a pay rise if they do four days at a normal workrate instead of stretching four days work out to five 🤣🤣
    You’re more interested in servitude than actually getting the job done.

    Bit pathetic you require Malcolmg to back you up. The sort of coward who starts a fight in the playground and relies on others to finish it.
    No. Get the job done is fine. If you’ve enough work for four days do it in four days get paid for four days.

    I’ve never thrown a punch in anger at anyone since I left school.

    You’re an entitled public sector leech justifying the unjustifiable.

    My issue is not working four days it’s being paid five days to work four. Especially at the largesse of the taxpayer

    Hopefully AI will do away with loads of you.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,662
    I suspect I'm in a minority of one, but I think Reeves has been a rather good CoE, although I accept her presentational skills are weak.

    I would advise Burnham to keep her in place for a year or so, to provide some stability, and then make a decision next spring.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,721

    There's always a Tweet.

    I have never taken part in a coup against any Leader of the Labour Party and I am not going to start now. 2/3

    https://x.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/747036912641318912

    CCHQ will be trawling social and traditional media for every embarrassing Burnham utterance. What they need to do is not hand them to Kemi for PMQs because, well, the usual problem – the Tory record. Those they should slip into Nigel Farage's pocket (as HIGNFY takes a summer break). Policy u-turns can go into a full page press advert on Burnham's first day.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,563

    There's always a Tweet.

    I have never taken part in a coup against any Leader of the Labour Party and I am not going to start now. 2/3

    https://x.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/747036912641318912

    In defence of Burnham there is this to say. The body of people who both took against Starmer and had the power to do something about it between elections is 400 Labour MPs and no-one else. 100% of the attention needs to be on them. If Starmer had been half a good as voters expected he would by now be comfortably on his way to a second term at a time of his choosing. For some time it has not been possible to locate large numbers from the 400 who confidently believed they could win the next election and that Starmer could avert the disaster of Reform.

    A coup is not a situation where 81 MPs have to name a candidate, the other 320 MPs can all support the PM and beat the insurgent soundly. Don't look at Burnham, look at the 400 and at the way in which they would neither keep Starmer in power nor find a single one of their number to replace him.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,071
    Andy_JS said:

    FF43 said:

    I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

    That's the perfect reason for choosing her. Someone whom the average voter might like, rather than Labour voters/members.
    Yes, the average voter would never vote for Labour.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,689
    AnneJGP said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
    Yes it is. Certainly in my experience over 40 years.

    More work allocated so helping business grow more or more work allocated then headcount reduced

    In the public sector it’s not about enhancing productivity or effectiveness it’s about protecting inefficient people.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,791
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Its a really important decision because it will do so much to shape his government. He also needs a Chancellor who can survive the buffeting that is coming from both the markets and from inside the party as so many have to learn yet again that austerity was not a choice but a necessity.

    I would be very concerned if it was Ed Miliband. He has some relevant experience but the policies he has promoted in Environment through both net zero and in the North Sea have been hugely damaging and anti-growth.

    Louise Haigh, in my opinion, has neither the skills or experience for it but its not unusual for the person who has run a successful campaign for the leader to get it. I suspect she is undervalued.

    Streeting has shown he is quick and robust in the way he has faced down the most powerful unions in the country at Health. His problem, and the reason he is not a candidate, is that he has very little of a following in the party (like Reeves in that respect) so he doesn't add any great strength to the ticket. He's probably rightly favourite though and I suspect the markets would like it.

    I don't think that Yvette Cooper has the stamina for it given her health problems.

    Mahmood would be a possibility, especially if Burnham wanted another woman in the role.

    You say he 'faced down the unions.' My understanding is that he tried to negotiate over their heads for redundancy packages for the restructuring he was trying to carry through, and when nobody was interested due to the bungling of the terms he and his equally inept SPADs put forward he managed to leave his department on the hook for a much bigger redundancy bill by mistake.

    A friend of mine who works for PHE in a senior role (and was hoping to get redundancy but wouldn't touch Streeting's offer with a bargepole) thought the reason he resigned was to ensure he dodged the bullet over a £5 billion bill caused by his incompetence and could blame his successor.

    Is that true? I don't know. It's an anecdote from one insider. But if even part of it is, we don't want him as Chancellor, even leaving aside the links to Mandelson and the fact he comes across as a slimy Tristram.
    Yes. Streeting's record at NHS England is "mixed". The only genuinely effective minister of the three is Miliband, despite the demented "danger to the country" coverage he gets here. Not a slam dunk for the CoE role though. Streeting is better at politics and CoE is a highly political role as Rachel Reeves has found to her cost.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 5,557
    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    This is just incoherent. Of course they would string the work out if they are forced to come in for 5 days a week.

    You’re not unique though - presenteeism is embedded and going to be very difficult to eradicate.
    malcolmg

    This public sector retard thinks public sector workers are ‘innovative’ and deserve a pay rise if they do four days at a normal workrate instead of stretching four days work out to five 🤣🤣
    You’re more interested in servitude than actually getting the job done.

    Bit pathetic you require Malcolmg to back you up. The sort of coward who starts a fight in the playground and relies on others to finish it.
    No. Get the job done is fine. If you’ve enough work for four days do it in four days get paid for four days.

    I’ve never thrown a punch in anger at anyone since I left school.

    You’re an entitled public sector leech justifying the unjustifiable.

    My issue is not working four days it’s being paid five days to work four. Especially at the largesse of the taxpayer

    Hopefully AI will do away with loads of you.
    I'm surprised any council hasn't realised that anyone who can do their job in 4 days will end up getting 4 days pay by some reorganisation etc. sadly I've always worked in jobs that need attendance and work done 5 days a week, like teaching and school admin exams officer.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,721
    edited 8:15AM

    Me first?

    Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
    It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,453
    edited 8:16AM
    A
    AnneJGP said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
    That’s why no one innovates, unless you can dangle a big financial incentive. Perhaps councils need to introduce fat bonuses?
  • eekeek Posts: 34,163
    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    This is just incoherent. Of course they would string the work out if they are forced to come in for 5 days a week.

    You’re not unique though - presenteeism is embedded and going to be very difficult to eradicate.
    If they work five days give them enough for five days

    If they’ve only enough work for four days then work four get paid for four

    Condescending bitch

    You also seem to spend a fair bit of the working week on here. 🙄
    Make me come into an office and that’s a working day.

    Insist I’m at the end of a phone even if you never ring me that’s a working day
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,563

    I suspect I'm in a minority of one, but I think Reeves has been a rather good CoE, although I accept her presentational skills are weak.

    I would advise Burnham to keep her in place for a year or so, to provide some stability, and then make a decision next spring.

    It is not easy for anyone to be a good CoE unless the large majority of your party's MPs understand debt, deficits, trade balance, interest rates, markets, tax and incentives and also care about the fiscal world their grandchildren will inhabit. It also doesn't help if your manifesto commits you to running the fiscal state with both hands tied behind your back. It also doesn't help if most MPs are slightly dim wanabee career politicians who therefore have to keep their voters drunk with cash and promises in order to win next time.

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,099
    AnneJGP said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
    Partly, it depends what the work is like.

    Rough analogy incoming. A top sprinter can run 100 m in 10 s or less. That speed corresponds to running a marathon in just over an hour. Obviously that's silly, because what humans can do for short periods of time isn't the same as what they can do sustainably for longer times.

    The more hours worked, the more useful work done, sure. But diminishing returns set in at some point, and there's no particular reason to think that doesn't apply here. It may be galling to be told that 4 efficient days generate more output than 5 inefficient days. It may be even more galling to be told that 5 efficient days don't work in the long run, because minds and bodies don't work like that. But it's not necessarily untrue.

    (Consider all those top businessmen whose work includes schmoozing with other top businessmen at all the events on the social calendar. Or science monkeys drinking tea because there is only so much creative juice a brain will generate per week.)

    And in the case of the South Cambridgeshire experiment, there's another practical problem. Given the rival attractions of biotech firms, the cost of living and so on, they couldn't recruit staff on standard local government Ts and Cs. So you end up with agency staff who cost way more and deliver less. Not because they're bad people, but because they're transient. The 4 day model gave a recruitment lever that the council was able to pull. People, like things, cost what they cost.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,509

    FF43 said:

    I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.

    A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.

    The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
    Good morning

    Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position

    He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
    Isn't Makerfield overwhelmingly a white constituency?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,726
    Eabhal said:

    A

    AnneJGP said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
    That’s why no one innovates, unless you can dangle a big financial incentive. Perhaps councils need to introduce fat bonuses?
    They're already cutting down on free gym membership and cycle to work schemes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,170
    edited 8:25AM
    Taz said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
    Yes it is. Certainly in my experience over 40 years.

    More work allocated so helping business grow more or more work allocated then headcount reduced

    In the public sector it’s not about enhancing productivity or effectiveness it’s about protecting inefficient people.
    Health Service productivity is growing quite quickly:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-recovery-continues-with-above-target-productivity-growth

    Certainly it is very much the focus of my Trust's SMT, with us having regular meetings to look at obstacles to improving further and how to overcome these.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 10,176

    Keir, thank you for all our cooperation, your support, and the joint decisions that have helped make our Europe and our protection of life stronger.

    The United Kingdom has been, is, and will remain among the world’s leaders. Here in Ukraine, we deeply value Britain, and every meeting and every conversation we have had has always been filled with real substance.

    Thank you for always being in touch, always engaged, and always striving to do what is needed and what will truly help.

    I wish the United Kingdom and all British people every success as well as realisation of your national goals. We have confidence in Britain.

    Keir, you are always a welcome guest in Ukraine.

    @Keir_Starmer


    https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/2069013990080917574

    Bit of a sly dig at Northern Ireland there? :wink:
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,437
    algarkirk said:

    There's always a Tweet.

    I have never taken part in a coup against any Leader of the Labour Party and I am not going to start now. 2/3

    https://x.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/747036912641318912

    In defence of Burnham there is this to say. The body of people who both took against Starmer and had the power to do something about it between elections is 400 Labour MPs and no-one else. 100% of the attention needs to be on them. If Starmer had been half a good as voters expected he would by now be comfortably on his way to a second term at a time of his choosing. For some time it has not been possible to locate large numbers from the 400 who confidently believed they could win the next election and that Starmer could avert the disaster of Reform.

    A coup is not a situation where 81 MPs have to name a candidate, the other 320 MPs can all support the PM and beat the insurgent soundly. Don't look at Burnham, look at the 400 and at the way in which they would neither keep Starmer in power nor find a single one of their number to replace him.

    So he resigned rather than fight to avoid having to be PM any longer. Seems reasonable.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,437
    Taz said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
    Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
    ...
    ...
    There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.

    For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.

    Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)

    Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.

    Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
    We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
    I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?

    At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
    I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.

    The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
    I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).

    Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
    You can have it now.

    Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.

    Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
    That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.

    If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
    If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.

    It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in

    If they can do in four days the work of five give them more

    Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
    Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
    Yes it is. Certainly in my experience over 40 years.

    More work allocated so helping business grow more or more work allocated then headcount reduced

    In the public sector it’s not about enhancing productivity or effectiveness it’s about protecting inefficient people.
    Have you worked in the public sector or dealt with them in any substantial way? Just wondering where this quite fixed opinion comes from.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,896
    Maybe Pat McFadden for Chancellor?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,509
    Typical public sector slackers - my Head of Department has decided to close our research labs on Wed and Thurs because of the 'extreme' heat.

    We have gone a bit soft in this country.
Sign In or Register to comment.