Skip to content

Let’s Talk Election Security – part 1 of 3 – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 34,309
    edited 9:02PM
    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Obviously, in today's modern world, there's no requirement for the Prime Minister to live above their workplace.

    If Andy Burnham wants to live in Manchester or Penzance or Stornaway, that shouldn't be any kind of impediment to being able to do the job.

    I mean, the King and Queen aren't going to live in Buckingham Palace but use Clarence House and no one seems that bothered. We need to get out of the 20th century mindset of associating places with roles - the world has changed.

    Clarence House is a few minutes walk from Buckingham Palace, Manchester is the other side of the country from Downing St
    if you lot had not balls up HS2 it would have been a heap closer, your comments about distance being a barrier to effective working highlights just how awful a decision that was
    HS2 was never about speed.
    It was always about speed, that’s why it’s costing so much money.
    Nope its costing so much money because no Tory PM was brave enough to tell Cheryl Gillan No - so most of the money has been spent on tunnels through the Chilterns that require air vents that are more visible than the tracks would have been.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,214

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Obviously, in today's modern world, there's no requirement for the Prime Minister to live above their workplace.

    If Andy Burnham wants to live in Manchester or Penzance or Stornaway, that shouldn't be any kind of impediment to being able to do the job.

    I mean, the King and Queen aren't going to live in Buckingham Palace but use Clarence House and no one seems that bothered. We need to get out of the 20th century mindset of associating places with roles - the world has changed.

    Clarence House is a few minutes walk from Buckingham Palace, Manchester is the other side of the country from Downing St
    if you lot had not balls up HS2 it would have been a heap closer, your comments about distance being a barrier to effective working highlights just how awful a decision that was
    HS2 was never about speed.
    It was always about speed, that’s why it’s costing so much money.
    It was about capacity but the (miss)selling was about making journeys faster. The costs are for lots of reasons, but definitely include gold plating and bats.
    "Does it come in black?"
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 6,054
    edited 9:08PM
    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Obviously, in today's modern world, there's no requirement for the Prime Minister to live above their workplace.

    If Andy Burnham wants to live in Manchester or Penzance or Stornaway, that shouldn't be any kind of impediment to being able to do the job.

    I mean, the King and Queen aren't going to live in Buckingham Palace but use Clarence House and no one seems that bothered. We need to get out of the 20th century mindset of associating places with roles - the world has changed.

    Clarence House is a few minutes walk from Buckingham Palace, Manchester is the other side of the country from Downing St
    if you lot had not balls up HS2 it would have been a heap closer, your comments about distance being a barrier to effective working highlights just how awful a decision that was
    HS2 was never about speed.
    It was always about speed, that’s why it’s costing so much money.
    Nope its costing so much money because no Tory PM was brave enough to tell Cheryl Gillan No - so most of the money has been spent on tunnels through the Chilterns that require air vents that are more visible than the tracks would have been.
    Surely if it hadn't been tunneled underground Natural England would have insisted on 30 miles of bat canopy anyway?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 6,374
    This seems strangely salient again.



    February 5
    Big_G_NorthWales said:
    Sky

    40 billion for restoration of Houses of Parliament

    Pro-rata said:
    Couldn't we build a northern leg of HS2 for that and house parliament on a special 650 seat train doing 160mph circuits between London and Manchester.

    Merge projects, cut costs.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 6,374
    welshowl said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    AnneJGP said:

    My wife has suggested that the newspapers will airtag Burnham to keep track of where he sleeps each night and discover that he's juggling three affairs.

    Working away from home has often been used as a cover for affairs, so I can see how it would work.

    Pro tip for having an affair.

    Disable the auto-syncing of your photo library to iCloud so your wife cannot see what you've been up to on the photo gallery of the iPad you've left at home.
    /Oddly Specific


    This idea of not staying in London won't last a week. It could just about be done from here (90 minutes) but I still wouldn't.
    Most people who apply for a job have to accept they go where the job is. Will he turn up in Parliament for PMQs?
    His answer for everything appears to be "Manchester".

    I presume his next move will be to make Liam Gallagher Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
    Noel would be a better cabinet minister than Liam.
    Just don't make their other brother US ambassador.
    Nah that’s between Shaun Ryder and Bez I’d think.
    There have been interviews to the effect that the main reason Bez was in the band was to stop all the others fighting.

    If he could do that for the Happy Mondays, Trump should be a doddle.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 6,054
    Pro_Rata said:

    This seems strangely salient again.



    February 5
    Big_G_NorthWales said:
    Sky

    40 billion for restoration of Houses of Parliament

    Pro-rata said:
    Couldn't we build a northern leg of HS2 for that and house parliament on a special 650 seat train doing 160mph circuits between London and Manchester.

    Merge projects, cut costs.

    I am still holding out for Wentworth Woodhouse in Rotherham.

    Not fancy-pants Manchester.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,214
    Paraguay score against the mighty Germany!
  • eekeek Posts: 34,309
    edited 9:14PM
    In news that will surprise no-one TG Jones have a lot of bills to pay tomorrow and not enough cash to do so https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/29/former-wh-smith-stores-on-the-brink-of-insolvency/

    Edit to show how bad their name is I wrote TJ Hughes (the Liverpool discount department store name) without thinking..
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,685
    So will Larry the Cat become Larry the Manc?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,564
    Germany 0
    Paraguay 1

    45 mins
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,447
    eek said:

    In news that will surprise no-one TG Jones have a lot of bills to pay tomorrow and not enough cash to do so https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/29/former-wh-smith-stores-on-the-brink-of-insolvency/

    Edit to show how bad their name is I wrote TJ Hughes (the Liverpool discount department store name) without thinking..

    I was thinking of TP Hughes!

    https://www.tenby-today.co.uk/news/tp-hughes-in-tenby-to-close-after-123-years-864807
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,310
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Breaking news - Burnham has announced that Manchester is to be designated our capital city, replacing London.

    I appreciate that politicians struggle to think about next week, let alone the long term, but what happens to all this nonsense when the PM is not from Manchester?
    I think after a few years of all this commuting of the PM from No 10 in Westminster to their home in Manchester, voters will want a PM who lives in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
    If he does a good job I don't care in which county he lays his head.

    Anyway I have read a lot on here suggesting Burnham is not up to the job and is a dreadful PM. Isn't it time for a change?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 6,054
    edited 9:19PM
    eek said:

    In news that will surprise no-one TG Jones have a lot of bills to pay tomorrow and not enough cash to do so https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/29/former-wh-smith-stores-on-the-brink-of-insolvency/

    Edit to show how bad their name is I wrote TJ Hughes (the Liverpool discount department store name) without thinking..

    I remember TJ Hughes after how ever many years it is, so I knew that was the wrong name, but couldn't remember the right one either.

    I'm sure someone was paid well to run it to the inevitable conclusion.
  • TresTres Posts: 3,721

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,582
    Did Mr Burnham address the most important matter: will Larry be expected to move, or will there be a No 10 North mouser?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,509
    eek said:

    In news that will surprise no-one TG Jones have a lot of bills to pay tomorrow and not enough cash to do so https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/29/former-wh-smith-stores-on-the-brink-of-insolvency/

    Edit to show how bad their name is I wrote TJ Hughes (the Liverpool discount department store name) without thinking..

    I've read about how bad the WHSmith 're-brand' to TJ Jones is, but it's quite clear to me it isn't really a re-brand, it's just slapping a completely inconsequential name on some stores to eke out a bit of money (it seems a very small bit). A re-brand would take money and some tarting up of stores, which just isn't something the new owner can do.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,214
    Andy_JS said:

    Germany 0
    Paraguay 1

    45 mins

    Half-time!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,310
    Andy_JS said:

    Germany 0
    Paraguay 1

    45 mins

    Bloody hell! How do you know that? It hasn't started on BBC Wales yet.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,818

    dixiedean said:

    Do prime minsiters and presidents from other countries meet AB at his London or Manchester No10 in the future for state visits?

    Golborne.
    Stubshaw Cross Community Centre (in Ashton) have a room available for hire.
    Just not on darts and dominoes nights.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,309
    edited 9:26PM

    eek said:

    In news that will surprise no-one TG Jones have a lot of bills to pay tomorrow and not enough cash to do so https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/29/former-wh-smith-stores-on-the-brink-of-insolvency/

    Edit to show how bad their name is I wrote TJ Hughes (the Liverpool discount department store name) without thinking..

    I've read about how bad the WHSmith 're-brand' to TJ Jones is, but it's quite clear to me it isn't really a re-brand, it's just slapping a completely inconsequential name on some stores to eke out a bit of money (it seems a very small bit). A re-brand would take money and some tarting up of stores, which just isn't something the new owner can do.
    A rebrand can be as simple as a new sign over the door and different carrier bags.

    The weird bit about the failure of the chain is that you would expect people to just continue going into the store and treating it as Smiths but the change of sign seems to have caused people to think for 30 seconds and not go in (and that's been confirmed by footfall specialists who noticed that rebranded stores have fewer visitors).
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887
    edited 9:26PM
    tlg86 said:

    As ever, the problem with The North is that in Butnham’s mind it means Manchester. It doesn’t mean Sheffield. It doesn’t mean Sunderland. It doesn’t mean Scotland, Wales or Cornwall.

    Utter bilge I'm sorry to say.

    One of his right hand people, Haigh, is a Sheffield MP just for starters.



  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 9,379
    There's long been criticism that number 10 the location is not a good place to run a govt from. Might be inspired from Burnham to break with tradition.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887
    AnneJGP said:

    Did Mr Burnham address the most important matter: will Larry be expected to move, or will there be a No 10 North mouser?

    Important questions.

    I think Larry is due retirement to be honest. I think he is about 18.

    Time to meet Liam, the new mouser with swagger.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,214
    Anyhow, some light bedtime reading:


  • eekeek Posts: 34,309

    tlg86 said:

    As ever, the problem with The North is that in Butnham’s mind it means Manchester. It doesn’t mean Sheffield. It doesn’t mean Sunderland. It doesn’t mean Scotland, Wales or Cornwall.

    Utter bilge I'm sorry to say.

    One of his right hand people, Haigh, is a Sheffield MP just for starters.



    To be honest - even if it's just Manchester I don't care. To fix the issues the UK is in we need to move Government out of London so they don't focus on it and nothing else...

    If that means Manchester improves well so be it at least the UK will have 2/3 viable centres and not 1
  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 1,044
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Do prime minsiters and presidents from other countries meet AB at his London or Manchester No10 in the future for state visits?

    Golborne.
    Stubshaw Cross Community Centre (in Ashton) have a room available for hire.
    Just not on darts and dominoes nights.
    I've decided it will be in new Lincoln Offices on Braznosen Street.

    Next to the GCHQ Manc offices and very close to the town hall.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 8,211
    edited 9:32PM

    AnneJGP said:

    Did Mr Burnham address the most important matter: will Larry be expected to move, or will there be a No 10 North mouser?

    Important questions.

    I think Larry is due retirement to be honest. I think he is about 18.

    Time to meet Liam, the new mouser with swagger.

    Larry will be replaced by a ferret.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,582
    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,509
    eek said:

    eek said:

    In news that will surprise no-one TG Jones have a lot of bills to pay tomorrow and not enough cash to do so https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/29/former-wh-smith-stores-on-the-brink-of-insolvency/

    Edit to show how bad their name is I wrote TJ Hughes (the Liverpool discount department store name) without thinking..

    I've read about how bad the WHSmith 're-brand' to TJ Jones is, but it's quite clear to me it isn't really a re-brand, it's just slapping a completely inconsequential name on some stores to eke out a bit of money (it seems a very small bit). A re-brand would take money and some tarting up of stores, which just isn't something the new owner can do.
    A rebrand can be as simple as a new sign over the door and different carrier bags.

    The weird bit about the failure of the chain is that you would expect people to just continue going into the store and treating it as Smiths but the change of sign seems to have caused people to think for 30 seconds and not go in (and that's been confirmed by footfall specialists who noticed that rebranded stores have fewer visitors).
    It does have the stench of liquidation about it, the small tacky signage etc., so I'm not surprised, but I still don't see how anything particularly different was possible. How could they launch an attractive retail brand, on a shoestring, in those circumstances?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,263

    Anyhow, some light bedtime reading:


    Ra, Ra, Rasputin,
    Lover of the Russian Queen,
    There was a cat who really was gone.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,824
    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    I thought the Basic Law was to do with beer but he is an economist:



    Will Hutton
    @williamnhutton
    ·
    1h
    Andy Burnham refreshingly speaks human. But put aside the creation of No 10 North . The promise today to introduce something equivalent to Germany’s Article 107 of its Basic Law, equalising the resource available to every German region, is mind-blowing. This is real levelling up

    https://x.com/williamnhutton/status/2071657774254055842

    No that’s the Purity Law of 1516 (Reinheitsgebot) stating beer can only be made from hops, water, and malted barley ( well unless it’s wheat beer I guess!), as opposed to the Basic Law ( Grundgesetz ) of 1949 ( I think) which is essentially the German constitutional underpinning.

    Of course there’s a case that beer is Germany’s underpinning too.
    A case of beer might well have underpinned Germany's first half performance.
  • TresTres Posts: 3,721
    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
  • PeterCairnsPeterCairns Posts: 257
    Given that the Westminster Act devolves to Holyrood anything that isn’t specifically reserved; (Defence, Security, foreign affairs, the Constitution).

    As Local Government isn’t Reserved and therefore lies within Holyrood remit how can Burnham say he is going to devolve power within the Scotland?

    Peter.
  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 1,044
    edited 9:38PM
    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    GCHQ are next door, this is new and mostly empty...

    https://maps.app.goo.gl/zuUguNq7tA6qMHcH8
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,818
    I was going to opine what generous odds Germany were yesterday.
    But thought better of it.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,309
    Now I'm not saying that your typical MAGA politicians are thick but this is a great example

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mph4uwsyif26

    Dr Oz on ACA "fraud" -- "Of the people who signed up, 40% never use the insurance. Let me ask you, John, you have health insurance -- do you use it once a year? In Obamacare right now 40% of the people ostensibly signed up never use the insurance ... we have a lot of fake people on the policies"

    Because people are health they don't exist... The thing is if you remove those 40% the overall cost is just going to be higher....
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,824
    Late reminder for anyone wanting to look at the funny moon tonight.
  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 1,044
    edited 9:39PM

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    GCHQ are next door, this is new and mostly empty...

    https://maps.app.goo.gl/zuUguNq7tA6qMHcH8
    Ignore that

    There is only 9k sq ft left

    I am seeing 1,000 roles need to be housed, that would be about 100,000 sq ft
  • eekeek Posts: 34,309

    eek said:

    eek said:

    In news that will surprise no-one TG Jones have a lot of bills to pay tomorrow and not enough cash to do so https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/29/former-wh-smith-stores-on-the-brink-of-insolvency/

    Edit to show how bad their name is I wrote TJ Hughes (the Liverpool discount department store name) without thinking..

    I've read about how bad the WHSmith 're-brand' to TJ Jones is, but it's quite clear to me it isn't really a re-brand, it's just slapping a completely inconsequential name on some stores to eke out a bit of money (it seems a very small bit). A re-brand would take money and some tarting up of stores, which just isn't something the new owner can do.
    A rebrand can be as simple as a new sign over the door and different carrier bags.

    The weird bit about the failure of the chain is that you would expect people to just continue going into the store and treating it as Smiths but the change of sign seems to have caused people to think for 30 seconds and not go in (and that's been confirmed by footfall specialists who noticed that rebranded stores have fewer visitors).
    It does have the stench of liquidation about it, the small tacky signage etc., so I'm not surprised, but I still don't see how anything particularly different was possible. How could they launch an attractive retail brand, on a shoestring, in those circumstances?
    Oh the business was dying - I don't think anyone was expecting it to go quite so quickly
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,582
    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Yes, I'm sure we could save quite a bit on expenses if MPs worked from home. They'd be spending much more time in their constituencies too, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,309

    Given that the Westminster Act devolves to Holyrood anything that isn’t specifically reserved; (Defence, Security, foreign affairs, the Constitution).

    As Local Government isn’t Reserved and therefore lies within Holyrood remit how can Burnham say he is going to devolve power within the Scotland?

    Peter.

    If tax is shifted from central Government to local Government in England the same will apply in Scotland. So the Scottish Government is going to see less unless it follows the same path.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887
    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    In news that will surprise no-one TG Jones have a lot of bills to pay tomorrow and not enough cash to do so https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/29/former-wh-smith-stores-on-the-brink-of-insolvency/

    Edit to show how bad their name is I wrote TJ Hughes (the Liverpool discount department store name) without thinking..

    I've read about how bad the WHSmith 're-brand' to TJ Jones is, but it's quite clear to me it isn't really a re-brand, it's just slapping a completely inconsequential name on some stores to eke out a bit of money (it seems a very small bit). A re-brand would take money and some tarting up of stores, which just isn't something the new owner can do.
    A rebrand can be as simple as a new sign over the door and different carrier bags.

    The weird bit about the failure of the chain is that you would expect people to just continue going into the store and treating it as Smiths but the change of sign seems to have caused people to think for 30 seconds and not go in (and that's been confirmed by footfall specialists who noticed that rebranded stores have fewer visitors).
    It does have the stench of liquidation about it, the small tacky signage etc., so I'm not surprised, but I still don't see how anything particularly different was possible. How could they launch an attractive retail brand, on a shoestring, in those circumstances?
    Oh the business was dying - I don't think anyone was expecting it to go quite so quickly
    Terrible news if you are a knapper for printed magazines. TG Smith and Jones gotta be the main way they are sold.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887
    Germany playing like that had a top night out with Ben Stokes last night.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887
    Kate from Kharkiv
    @BohuslavskaKate

    ZELENSKYY: Russia refuses to end the war, if Putin wants to sacrifice another million of his soldiers to keep smashing against this wall, then a million Russians, who not yet been mobilized into Russian army and are arguing in gas lines, should think about what awaits them next.

    https://x.com/BohuslavskaKate/status/2071686960595247208
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,214
    Germany equalise against Paraguay!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887
    Utterly undeserved
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,582

    Kate from Kharkiv
    @BohuslavskaKate

    ZELENSKYY: Russia refuses to end the war, if Putin wants to sacrifice another million of his soldiers to keep smashing against this wall, then a million Russians, who not yet been mobilized into Russian army and are arguing in gas lines, should think about what awaits them next.

    https://x.com/BohuslavskaKate/status/2071686960595247208

    Has Russia acknowledged yet that it is at war, rather than engaged in a Special Military Operation?
  • eekeek Posts: 34,309

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    GCHQ are next door, this is new and mostly empty...

    https://maps.app.goo.gl/zuUguNq7tA6qMHcH8
    Ignore that

    There is only 9k sq ft left

    I am seeing 1,000 roles need to be housed, that would be about 100,000 sq ft
    There isn't that many suitable options of the correct size.

    My (albeit not complete) search brings back just https://www.cbre.co.uk/property-search/office-space/listings/details/GB-Plus-499583/havelock-70-great-bridgewater-street-manchester-greater-manchester-m1-5es
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,310
    edited 9:59PM
    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    In news that will surprise no-one TG Jones have a lot of bills to pay tomorrow and not enough cash to do so https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/29/former-wh-smith-stores-on-the-brink-of-insolvency/

    Edit to show how bad their name is I wrote TJ Hughes (the Liverpool discount department store name) without thinking..

    I've read about how bad the WHSmith 're-brand' to TJ Jones is, but it's quite clear to me it isn't really a re-brand, it's just slapping a completely inconsequential name on some stores to eke out a bit of money (it seems a very small bit). A re-brand would take money and some tarting up of stores, which just isn't something the new owner can do.
    A rebrand can be as simple as a new sign over the door and different carrier bags.

    The weird bit about the failure of the chain is that you would expect people to just continue going into the store and treating it as Smiths but the change of sign seems to have caused people to think for 30 seconds and not go in (and that's been confirmed by footfall specialists who noticed that rebranded stores have fewer visitors).
    It does have the stench of liquidation about it, the small tacky signage etc., so I'm not surprised, but I still don't see how anything particularly different was possible. How could they launch an attractive retail brand, on a shoestring, in those circumstances?
    Oh the business was dying - I don't think anyone was expecting it to go quite so quickly
    Changing the name was most likely a factor for acceleration. Was "Smiths" distinct enough to WHSmith?

    Although you are right. it was on its arse anyway. A stock of products no longer used by the great unwashed. Newspapers, magazines, books and stationary. All overtaken by the digital World.
  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 1,044
    eek said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    GCHQ are next door, this is new and mostly empty...

    https://maps.app.goo.gl/zuUguNq7tA6qMHcH8
    Ignore that

    There is only 9k sq ft left

    I am seeing 1,000 roles need to be housed, that would be about 100,000 sq ft
    There isn't that many suitable options of the correct size.

    My (albeit not complete) search brings back just https://www.cbre.co.uk/property-search/office-space/listings/details/GB-Plus-499583/havelock-70-great-bridgewater-street-manchester-greater-manchester-m1-5es
    Right next to Robert de Niro's 76 storey, 246m tower that is just starting construction
  • eekeek Posts: 34,309

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    In news that will surprise no-one TG Jones have a lot of bills to pay tomorrow and not enough cash to do so https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/29/former-wh-smith-stores-on-the-brink-of-insolvency/

    Edit to show how bad their name is I wrote TJ Hughes (the Liverpool discount department store name) without thinking..

    I've read about how bad the WHSmith 're-brand' to TJ Jones is, but it's quite clear to me it isn't really a re-brand, it's just slapping a completely inconsequential name on some stores to eke out a bit of money (it seems a very small bit). A re-brand would take money and some tarting up of stores, which just isn't something the new owner can do.
    A rebrand can be as simple as a new sign over the door and different carrier bags.

    The weird bit about the failure of the chain is that you would expect people to just continue going into the store and treating it as Smiths but the change of sign seems to have caused people to think for 30 seconds and not go in (and that's been confirmed by footfall specialists who noticed that rebranded stores have fewer visitors).
    It does have the stench of liquidation about it, the small tacky signage etc., so I'm not surprised, but I still don't see how anything particularly different was possible. How could they launch an attractive retail brand, on a shoestring, in those circumstances?
    Oh the business was dying - I don't think anyone was expecting it to go quite so quickly
    Changing the name was most likely a factor for acceleration. Was "Smiths" distinct enough to WHSmith?

    Although you are righ, it was on its arse anyway. A stock of products no longer used by the great unwashed. Newspapers, magazines, books and stationary. All overtaken by the digital World.
    It definitely accelerated the decline and the name is dire (see my inability to remember it between reading the article and writing my post)

    But the point was the Smiths management knew their high street presence was dying and they didn't want the death to be visible in case that destroyed their transformed travel brand which looking at the one in the station is 90% food / stupidly expensive bottles of pop.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,263
    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,310
    I wish Shearer would stop whinging on and on about Germany. He likes them as much as he does lady referees.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    GCHQ are next door, this is new and mostly empty...

    https://maps.app.goo.gl/zuUguNq7tA6qMHcH8
    Ignore that

    There is only 9k sq ft left

    I am seeing 1,000 roles need to be housed, that would be about 100,000 sq ft
    Philip Collins points out there is actually a Downing Street in Manchester.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 81,235
    France is going to monster Germany if they get through
  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 1,044

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    GCHQ are next door, this is new and mostly empty...

    https://maps.app.goo.gl/zuUguNq7tA6qMHcH8
    Ignore that

    There is only 9k sq ft left

    I am seeing 1,000 roles need to be housed, that would be about 100,000 sq ft
    Philip Collins points out there is actually a Downing Street in Manchester.
    I did a pub crawl in 2019, drinking in every bar in the centre of Manchester, all 501 of them, there were / are a couple of breweries around there, but it is waiting for HS2 regeneration to occur.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/man-who-went-never-ending-17753605
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,310
    Blimey @Andy_JS. How did you know the half time score?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,564
    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Move parliament to Barnsley for a few years while the refurbishment takes place.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887

    sean thomas knox
    @thomasknox

    Ahhh France. So my roadtrip is nearly over, two assignments done and four articles written and I now don’t particularly care where I stay. So I stare at a map and think “meh, about halfway, that’ll do” and I book a room

    https://x.com/thomasknox/status/2071647618837492204
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,263
    Pulpstar said:

    France is going to monster Germany if they get through

    Yep. Germany are so turgid. Worse than England.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887

    David Yelland
    @davidyelland

    Every single major broadcast news bulletin, BBC, ITV, Sky GBN, I could go on, has led with Andy Burnham's key messages - the decision not to take questions totally vindicated as millions have seen his message and not the usual Punch and Judy show about "who will be Chancellor..." Really important learnings.

    https://x.com/davidyelland/status/2071712456817164646


    ===

    Exactly as I said earlier when many on here were saying why is he not taking questions. Make them report on the bloody speech itself.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,941

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Andy Burnham reportedly has no plans to live in No 10 and will remain at his home in Manchester

    It would make him the first PM since Harold Wilson not to live in No 10'

    https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2071656704941441060?s=20

    Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
    He will work at his new Northern Number 10 at least one day a week apparently and will spend every night in Manchester not No 10
    That's one heck of a commute (and carbon footprint) if Burnham and entourage will be travelling daily between London and Manchester.
    It's one of those "man of the people" bright ideas that will end up costing a bloody fortune to carry out, and cause a lot of inconvenience. It's a bit like Trump and his use of Mar-a-Lago, Trump Tower, and other properties; when the White House, Camp David and other places are right there ready to use, and convenient for not just the President but all the people who are needed to support him.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,309
    Foxy said:

    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
    Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.

    But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,582
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
    Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.

    But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
    House prices will rocket. Will they fall in London?
  • eekeek Posts: 34,309
    glw said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Andy Burnham reportedly has no plans to live in No 10 and will remain at his home in Manchester

    It would make him the first PM since Harold Wilson not to live in No 10'

    https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2071656704941441060?s=20

    Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
    He will work at his new Northern Number 10 at least one day a week apparently and will spend every night in Manchester not No 10
    That's one heck of a commute (and carbon footprint) if Burnham and entourage will be travelling daily between London and Manchester.
    It's one of those "man of the people" bright ideas that will end up costing a bloody fortune to carry out, and cause a lot of inconvenience. It's a bit like Trump and his use of Mar-a-Lago, Trump Tower, and other properties; when the White House, Camp David and other places are right there ready to use, and convenient for not just the President but all the people who are needed to support him.
    It's step 1 of a softly softly move everything out of London approach...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,674
    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    In news that will surprise no-one TG Jones have a lot of bills to pay tomorrow and not enough cash to do so https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/29/former-wh-smith-stores-on-the-brink-of-insolvency/

    Edit to show how bad their name is I wrote TJ Hughes (the Liverpool discount department store name) without thinking..

    I've read about how bad the WHSmith 're-brand' to TJ Jones is, but it's quite clear to me it isn't really a re-brand, it's just slapping a completely inconsequential name on some stores to eke out a bit of money (it seems a very small bit). A re-brand would take money and some tarting up of stores, which just isn't something the new owner can do.
    A rebrand can be as simple as a new sign over the door and different carrier bags.

    The weird bit about the failure of the chain is that you would expect people to just continue going into the store and treating it as Smiths but the change of sign seems to have caused people to think for 30 seconds and not go in (and that's been confirmed by footfall specialists who noticed that rebranded stores have fewer visitors).
    It does have the stench of liquidation about it, the small tacky signage etc., so I'm not surprised, but I still don't see how anything particularly different was possible. How could they launch an attractive retail brand, on a shoestring, in those circumstances?
    Oh the business was dying - I don't think anyone was expecting it to go quite so quickly
    Changing the name was most likely a factor for acceleration. Was "Smiths" distinct enough to WHSmith?

    Although you are righ, it was on its arse anyway. A stock of products no longer used by the great unwashed. Newspapers, magazines, books and stationary. All overtaken by the digital World.
    It definitely accelerated the decline and the name is dire (see my inability to remember it between reading the article and writing my post)

    But the point was the Smiths management knew their high street presence was dying and they didn't want the death to be visible in case that destroyed their transformed travel brand which looking at the one in the station is 90% food / stupidly expensive bottles of pop.
    The whole point of the rebrand was because the High Street shops had all be sold to another company entirely and that company was simply not allowed to use the Smiths brand. Hence TG Jones.

    These shops are not WH Smiths shops with a rebrand. They are a completely separate company.

    Now you might reasonably criticise Modella Capital for buying the shops from Smiths but you can't blame them for the rebrand. that was not within their power to avoid.
  • PeterCairnsPeterCairns Posts: 257
    eek said:

    Given that the Westminster Act devolves to Holyrood anything that isn’t specifically reserved; (Defence, Security, foreign affairs, the Constitution).

    As Local Government isn’t Reserved and therefore lies within Holyrood remit how can Burnham say he is going to devolve power within the Scotland?

    Peter.

    If tax is shifted from central Government to local Government in England the same will apply in Scotland. So the Scottish Government is going to see less unless it follows the same path.
    Has Burnham actually talked about tax raising powers for the English regions without central support.

    As has been pointed out repeatedly local taxation means high taxes in poorer areas and low taxes in richer ones.

    The larger the proportion the local the tax is the greater the difference in wealth increases the difference in tax rate.

    I have a feeling Burnham thinks that if it worked for him in Manchester it can work for everyone everywhere.

    As we don’t have them in Scotland how successful have the other Mayors been compared to Manchester and equally just how much of the success in Manchester is actually directly down to Burnham or might have happened anyway.

    Peter.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887

    Patrick Maguire of the Times:

    No 10 North is the most concerted challenge to Treasury authority in half a century, hiding in plain sight.

    https://x.com/patrickkmaguire/status/2071692725272080672


    Game on!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,674
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
    Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.

    But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
    A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 1,044

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
    Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.

    But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
    A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
    Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,674
    edited 10:27PM

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
    Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.

    But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
    A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
    Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
    Still a stupid idea. All you do is cause chaos in Government

    The only first world country that has their seat of Government elsewhere than their capital is the Netherlands. And the distance from The Hague to Amsterdam? 37 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as from one side of Greater London to the other.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,281
    https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2071711605339865324

    Following the detonation of a bomb in Monaco, Minister of State of the Principality of Monaco Christophe Mirmand has confirmed that the explosion was likely an attack and that the device was likely equipped with bolts and other materials for maximum damage. Additionally, according to AFP, all of the victims are of Ukrainian origin.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,447
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,214
    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    France is going to monster Germany if they get through

    Yep. Germany are so turgid. Worse than England.
    Extra time beckons!
  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 1,044

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
    Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.

    But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
    A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
    Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
    Still a stupid idea. All you do is cause chaos in Government

    The only first world country that has their seat of Government elsewhere than their capital is the Netherlands. And the distance from The Hague to Amsterdam? 37 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as from one side of Greater London to the other.
    Meaningless.

    Ottowa, Cambera, Washington and many other (English speaking) political centres are not in the largest city.

    Massive change, you call it chaos, is required to fix a country that is broken unless you are fortunate enough to benefit from the benefits of zone 1 in London.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    GCHQ are next door, this is new and mostly empty...

    https://maps.app.goo.gl/zuUguNq7tA6qMHcH8
    Ignore that

    There is only 9k sq ft left

    I am seeing 1,000 roles need to be housed, that would be about 100,000 sq ft
    Philip Collins points out there is actually a Downing Street in Manchester.
    I did a pub crawl in 2019, drinking in every bar in the centre of Manchester, all 501 of them, there were / are a couple of breweries around there, but it is waiting for HS2 regeneration to occur.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/man-who-went-never-ending-17753605
    Was that 2019? My word. I remember you posting about it and in my head it was only three or four years ago.

  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 1,044

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    GCHQ are next door, this is new and mostly empty...

    https://maps.app.goo.gl/zuUguNq7tA6qMHcH8
    Ignore that

    There is only 9k sq ft left

    I am seeing 1,000 roles need to be housed, that would be about 100,000 sq ft
    Philip Collins points out there is actually a Downing Street in Manchester.
    I did a pub crawl in 2019, drinking in every bar in the centre of Manchester, all 501 of them, there were / are a couple of breweries around there, but it is waiting for HS2 regeneration to occur.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/man-who-went-never-ending-17753605
    Was that 2019? My word. I remember you posting about it and in my head it was only three or four years ago.

    Yep

    Have done Metrolink stops since then and am doing a half hearted catch up of new Manc bars, but there are loads of new post covid bars to do and limited time.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,930
    On topic, sort of: In the US, vote fraud is generally commited with mail ballots. The reason is simple enough: Mail ballots do not have to be secret.

    There are other ways of avoiding secrecy, but usually they are less convenient. For example, when I was living in Chicago in the late 1960s, in some parts of the city, precinct captains would provide medical excuses to allow a party official to accompany voters, while they were voting.

    I hasten to add that vote fraud is rare in most of the US, and very seldom makes a difference in the outcome. And that it is much less common than it was even 20 or 30 years ago. When vote fraud does occur, it is almost always in low-turnout primary elections.

    (The use of mail ballots for vote fraud is not universal; some years ago, I was amused to learn that some voters in eastern Kentucky (Appalachia) could be bribed, even though the person paying the bribe could not see their ballots.)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,281
    https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2071716367036813408

    Early reports indicate that Ukrainian businessman Vadim Ermolaev, who was sanctioned earlier in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War for his ties to Russia through his business in occupied-Crimea, may have been the target of the bombing in Monaco earlier.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,564
    Both Germany and Brazil seem to be slipping down the list of great football teams.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,060
    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Obviously, in today's modern world, there's no requirement for the Prime Minister to live above their workplace.

    If Andy Burnham wants to live in Manchester or Penzance or Stornaway, that shouldn't be any kind of impediment to being able to do the job.

    I mean, the King and Queen aren't going to live in Buckingham Palace but use Clarence House and no one seems that bothered. We need to get out of the 20th century mindset of associating places with roles - the world has changed.

    Clarence House is a few minutes walk from Buckingham Palace, Manchester is the other side of the country from Downing St
    if you lot had not balls up HS2 it would have been a heap closer, your comments about distance being a barrier to effective working highlights just how awful a decision that was
    HS2 was never about speed.
    It was always about speed, that’s why it’s costing so much money.
    Nope its costing so much money because no Tory PM was brave enough to tell Cheryl Gillan No - so most of the money has been spent on tunnels through the Chilterns that require air vents that are more visible than the tracks would have been.
    Should have started in the North and left the Chilterns alone then.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,564
    Germany finally scores to make it 2-1.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,214
    edited 10:47PM
    Germany 2-1 Paraguay

    Or VAR check!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887
    That should be disallowed as the ball on the corner was not on the corner circle.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,674

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
    Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.

    But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
    A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
    Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
    Still a stupid idea. All you do is cause chaos in Government

    The only first world country that has their seat of Government elsewhere than their capital is the Netherlands. And the distance from The Hague to Amsterdam? 37 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as from one side of Greater London to the other.
    Meaningless.

    Ottowa, Cambera, Washington and many other (English speaking) political centres are not in the largest city.

    Massive change, you call it chaos, is required to fix a country that is broken unless you are fortunate enough to benefit from the benefits of zone 1 in London.
    I didn't say the largest city, I said the Capital. If you want to move the capital be honest about it. Demote London and see what that does for Labour's support.

    Move all the embassies - they need to be near the seat of power. Move all the massive infrastructure and the tens of thousands of people who work directly for the Government. Destroy the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands whose jobs rely on proximity to Government. Then spend decades trying to rebuild it all elsewhere.

    It really is one of the dumbest moves I have heard of in years. And yes it will cause utter chaos and immobilise the work of Government for years, if not decades.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,214
    edited 10:49PM

    That should be disallowed as the ball on the corner was not on the corner circle.

    VAR picked up a foul!!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887

    That should be disallowed as the ball on the corner was not on the corner circle.

    VAR picked up a foul!!
    Not quite. the VAR says the goalie was fouled
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,060

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
    Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.

    But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
    A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
    Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
    Still a stupid idea. All you do is cause chaos in Government

    The only first world country that has their seat of Government elsewhere than their capital is the Netherlands. And the distance from The Hague to Amsterdam? 37 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as from one side of Greater London to the other.
    Only because you are defining it based on the capital and not based on their primary city.

    Washington DC is a tertiary city compared to New York, Los Angeles etc
    Canberra is a tertiary city compared to Sydney and Melbourne.
    Ottowa is a tertiary city compared to Toronto, Vancouver etc

    Actually separating the capital/seat of government from the primary cities which can concentrate on finance and other issues without government being there is quite common across the first world. Move government wholesale out of London.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 81,235
    Ridiculous considering the refereeing for the rest of the match tbh
  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 1,044

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
    Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.

    But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
    A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
    Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
    Still a stupid idea. All you do is cause chaos in Government

    The only first world country that has their seat of Government elsewhere than their capital is the Netherlands. And the distance from The Hague to Amsterdam? 37 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as from one side of Greater London to the other.
    Meaningless.

    Ottowa, Cambera, Washington and many other (English speaking) political centres are not in the largest city.

    Massive change, you call it chaos, is required to fix a country that is broken unless you are fortunate enough to benefit from the benefits of zone 1 in London.
    I didn't say the largest city, I said the Capital. If you want to move the capital be honest about it. Demote London and see what that does for Labour's support.

    Move all the embassies - they need to be near the seat of power. Move all the massive infrastructure and the tens of thousands of people who work directly for the Government. Destroy the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands whose jobs rely on proximity to Government. Then spend decades trying to rebuild it all elsewhere.

    It really is one of the dumbest moves I have heard of in years. And yes it will cause utter chaos and immobilise the work of Government for years, if not decades.
    no one is suggesting the capital should more

    people are suggesting the decision makers move

    suggest you look at the rest of the world and see just how easy the rest of theplanet manages not to be totally controlled in every way by the largest city in their countries

    no chaos required, just sensible governance in an adult way that trusts people to make decisions locally and not be dictated to from Whitehall
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,887
    I was hoping to get to bed before midnight...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,674

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
    Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.

    But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
    A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
    Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
    Still a stupid idea. All you do is cause chaos in Government

    The only first world country that has their seat of Government elsewhere than their capital is the Netherlands. And the distance from The Hague to Amsterdam? 37 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as from one side of Greater London to the other.
    Only because you are defining it based on the capital and not based on their primary city.

    Washington DC is a tertiary city compared to New York, Los Angeles etc
    Canberra is a tertiary city compared to Sydney and Melbourne.
    Ottowa is a tertiary city compared to Toronto, Vancouver etc

    Actually separating the capital/seat of government from the primary cities which can concentrate on finance and other issues without government being there is quite common across the first world. Move government wholesale out of London.
    Like I said an idiotic idea that will set back both governance and the economy in this country for decades. Don't get me wrong, I detest London and do everything I can to avoid going anywhere near it. But tghis is a truly stupid and self harming idea.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,060

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Tres said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Tres said:

    Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.

    FFS.

    Focus on something important for a change.

    quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
    It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
    House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
    Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
    Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.

    But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
    A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
    Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
    Still a stupid idea. All you do is cause chaos in Government

    The only first world country that has their seat of Government elsewhere than their capital is the Netherlands. And the distance from The Hague to Amsterdam? 37 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as from one side of Greater London to the other.
    Meaningless.

    Ottowa, Cambera, Washington and many other (English speaking) political centres are not in the largest city.

    Massive change, you call it chaos, is required to fix a country that is broken unless you are fortunate enough to benefit from the benefits of zone 1 in London.
    I didn't say the largest city, I said the Capital. If you want to move the capital be honest about it. Demote London and see what that does for Labour's support.

    Move all the embassies - they need to be near the seat of power. Move all the massive infrastructure and the tens of thousands of people who work directly for the Government. Destroy the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands whose jobs rely on proximity to Government. Then spend decades trying to rebuild it all elsewhere.

    It really is one of the dumbest moves I have heard of in years. And yes it will cause utter chaos and immobilise the work of Government for years, if not decades.
    no one is suggesting the capital should more

    people are suggesting the decision makers move

    suggest you look at the rest of the world and see just how easy the rest of theplanet manages not to be totally controlled in every way by the largest city in their countries

    no chaos required, just sensible governance in an adult way that trusts people to make decisions locally and not be dictated to from Whitehall
    I am.

    I have long suggested that.

    We overburden everything into London.

    It would be good for London to be able to be less overheated and concentrate on what it does well without government, and good for the rest of the nation to not have everything drawn into London.

    Get government completely out of London. Build a new capital in the North as a new city, Canberra-style, and turn Westminster into a museum.
Sign In or Register to comment.