Caught the start of Newsnight ,and Nick sodding Clegg is lecturing others about sanctimony.
He's been popping up a bit recently.
Tell me he's not planning a return to frontline politics some way or other?
His coalition was one if the best periods of government in recent decades. Maybe I am in a minority of one, but I think he put the country ahead of his party and himself and should be given credit for that. I would give him a knighthood.
It's a view. It's also a view that his refusing to discuss our membership of the EU during the Coalition resulted in Brexit.
If Clegg and Cameron had gone into the rose garden early in the Colition and called a Referendum - recommendeding staying in - it would have been won c.60:40.
Thank you, Nick Clegg.
Alexa, explain "gaslighting" to me.
To be fair, Clegg had called for an In/Out referendum on the EU. It was his 'reasoning' for abstaining on the Lisbon referendum when his party's manifesto had committed them to supporting one.
Good morning, everyone.
Imagine a world where we'd had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. We could have arrived at a world where there was a happy consensus on Europe - this far but no further. The great missed opportunity of British politics. All because the Lib Dems could not let a manifesto promise or a vague commitment to democracy outweigh their knee-jerk desire for all things Europe.
We would have voted no. There would then have been a renegotiation and we'd have got more opt-outs, and then we'd have eventually accepted it. Brexit would not have happened.
The Europhiles played double or quits, so we quit.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Burnham is expected to give a speech setting out his vision in London next week
That's the split between "care costs" and "hotel costs" (they even call them hotel costs on aircraft carriers).
I'm not sure what "operating on the NHS principle" means in this context.
But I note that the Dilnot Commission way back when expected "hotel costs" to be paid by the individual, and be outside the £35k lifetime cap on charges to the individual which applied to care costs.
Yes, that is correct about Dilnot.
Putting Dilnot into action would be a good staging post while they spend five years fleshing out a National Care Service imho.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
I'm simultaneously dubious and hopeful. Unless you're a partisan of another party or a confirmed grinch it makes no sense to get disappointed with Burnham before he's had the chance to actually be disappointing.
I’ve got to work on my expectations. I’ve been calling for a cut to VAT on electricity for ages and Burnham’s actually gone and done it.
Sure, standing charges remain and we still have ludicrous levels of tax on industrial electricity. We still have the stupid mileage charge on EVs coming in. But it’s a step in the right direction.
Industrial electricity prices are a big rock just below the surface, waiting for the good ship Manky Mancunion Face.
SKS, characteristically, did things that would have a fairly marginal impact over the longer term - maybe 2-5 years.
That will not imo be enough, and it will need some sort of structural shift to regional markets, which will also offer advantages for energy-heavy investment where it is needed for jobs and commerce, and to create something of a trend towards the regions and especially the coasts.
One other item I would quite like to see would be investment in industrial units by Local Authorities for small to medium businesses, both low cost startup and also more long term commercial.
When I was looking for a smallish unit for a business here, I was quite surprised to find out how many were operated by the District Council. They own around 100+ units, and investing in more startup type space is where some of the Town Fund money went.
There always seems to be a shortage - we had to look at about 15-20 units over more than a year over a 7-8 mile radius before we found something, and then go through the pain of a Change of Use.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Burnham is expected to give a speech setting out his vision in London next week
Interesting point from Robert Ford about social care - sorting the finance of it onto a proper footing will free councils from the wreaking that is their spiralling social care costs.
What he doesn't quite say is this is surely in keeping with Burnham's devolution agenda. Freeing councils from this millstone will give them space and resources for other stuff???
Robert Ford @robfordmancs Encouraging. Social care is a disaster zone which generates so much needless suffering and financial distress for families, and also wreaks havoc with local government finances. This move could reform social care and liberate local councils at one stroke.
It's interesting: the electorate seems to have no expectation that things will get better under Burnham but be happy that he's there. My interpretation is that people are just enjoying having a PM that they don't want to punch in the face.
Am I the only person who finds his voice almost unbearable.
Try playing a video of him at 1.25x speed. Far less irritating.
I do t think it's so much the voice itself, as the constant gaps in his speech ?
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
Caught the start of Newsnight ,and Nick sodding Clegg is lecturing others about sanctimony.
He's been popping up a bit recently.
Tell me he's not planning a return to frontline politics some way or other?
His coalition was one if the best periods of government in recent decades. Maybe I am in a minority of one, but I think he put the country ahead of his party and himself and should be given credit for that. I would give him a knighthood.
It's a view. It's also a view that his refusing to discuss our membership of the EU during the Coalition resulted in Brexit.
If Clegg and Cameron had gone into the rose garden early in the Colition and called a Referendum - recommendeding staying in - it would have been won c.60:40.
Thank you, Nick Clegg.
Alexa, explain "gaslighting" to me.
To be fair, Clegg had called for an In/Out referendum on the EU. It was his 'reasoning' for abstaining on the Lisbon referendum when his party's manifesto had committed them to supporting one.
Good morning, everyone.
Imagine a world where we'd had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. We could have arrived at a world where there was a happy consensus on Europe - this far but no further. The great missed opportunity of British politics. All because the Lib Dems could not let a manifesto promise or a vague commitment to democracy outweigh their knee-jerk desire for all things Europe.
I don't disagree, in principle, but the Lisbon treaty was already ratified by 2010. How would that have worked ?
When Brown was PM, their was a vote on parliament: the government position was that Lisbon should br ratified, the Tory amendment was, I think, that there should be a referendum. There were enough Labour Eurosceptics that Lib Dems going with their stated policy position of 'there should be a referendum' would have resulted in a referendum. Knowing this, Ed Davey led a contrived walkout of Lib Dem MPs, nominally in protest that actually there should be a referendum on British EU membership per se (yes, really). It didn't need the coalition to be in power - it was one of the rare occasions where oppositiom could have forced a position.
I'd forgotten that bit of history. How much effort was made to get the LibDems on side in advance ?
I honestly don't know. But pb was up and running at the time. Perhaps a techier man than me could dig out the relevant thread. (On which note: life is going to be impossible for the historians of the future. There is just too much source material.)
That's what AI is for. It will need historians to direct it, naturally.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Burnham is expected to give a speech setting out his vision in London next week
Interesting point from Robert Ford about social care - sorting the finance of it onto a proper footing will free councils from the wreaking that is their spiralling social care costs.
What he doesn't quite say is this is surely in keeping with Burnham's devolution agenda. Freeing councils from this millstone will give them space and resources for other stuff???
Robert Ford @robfordmancs Encouraging. Social care is a disaster zone which generates so much needless suffering and financial distress for families, and also wreaks havoc with local government finances. This move could reform social care and liberate local councils at one stroke.
So basically he looks like he's going to announce the National Care Service that the SNP at Holyrood have been pushing for a decade and which Labour in Scotland have been doing there best to thwart!
Doing his bit for the unemployment rate. (What do Social Producers do? Produce socialism? Whatever they do, they're clearly much more valuable than mere Cyber Security workers.)
There’s derisory, and derisory.
Precisely no-one qualified to be a senior cyber security guy in the MoD’s nuclear department, is getting out of bed for £47k a year even with a nice pension.
Most decent people in the private sector will be on at least double that.
It’s the 20 year old problem - the civil service doesn’t have a pay system that would pay anyone in IT a wage that reflects the market value of those skills (even when you take the pension into account)
Not just IT, all kinds of science/technical roles.
We seem to be in a period of very small improvements, none of which make much difference but all of which are generally conceded to be tiny steps in the right direction. It's very different from the usual approach of picking a couple of big improvements which come under sustained attack for not being workable or simply aimed at Someone Else.
As a Big Picture fan I'm not naturally a supporter of this but for now I'm happy to see where it goes.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Burnham is expected to give a speech setting out his vision in London next week
That's quite interesting - Distributionism claims the same roots, from a more right-wing / nationalist position in today's landscape.
I think he'll be strong on what we might call "RC community values", but not explicit on the "personal morality" agenda. For style I'd make a comparison with say Theresa May as opposed to perhaps Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Caught the start of Newsnight ,and Nick sodding Clegg is lecturing others about sanctimony.
He's been popping up a bit recently.
Tell me he's not planning a return to frontline politics some way or other?
His coalition was one if the best periods of government in recent decades. Maybe I am in a minority of one, but I think he put the country ahead of his party and himself and should be given credit for that. I would give him a knighthood.
It's a view. It's also a view that his refusing to discuss our membership of the EU during the Coalition resulted in Brexit.
If Clegg and Cameron had gone into the rose garden early in the Colition and called a Referendum - recommendeding staying in - it would have been won c.60:40.
Thank you, Nick Clegg.
Alexa, explain "gaslighting" to me.
To be fair, Clegg had called for an In/Out referendum on the EU. It was his 'reasoning' for abstaining on the Lisbon referendum when his party's manifesto had committed them to supporting one.
Good morning, everyone.
Imagine a world where we'd had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. We could have arrived at a world where there was a happy consensus on Europe - this far but no further. The great missed opportunity of British politics. All because the Lib Dems could not let a manifesto promise or a vague commitment to democracy outweigh their knee-jerk desire for all things Europe.
We would have voted no. There would then have been a renegotiation and we'd have got more opt-outs, and then we'd have eventually accepted it. Brexit would not have happened.
The Europhiles played double or quits, so we quit.
Have to agree with that - and also thought so at the time (I am/was one of those LDs who thinks the democracy part is important - also why I was horrified at the reverse Brexit 2019 pledge and took my vote elsewhere)
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
Doing his bit for the unemployment rate. (What do Social Producers do? Produce socialism? Whatever they do, they're clearly much more valuable than mere Cyber Security workers.)
There’s derisory, and derisory.
Precisely no-one qualified to be a senior cyber security guy in the MoD’s nuclear department, is getting out of bed for £47k a year even with a nice pension.
Most decent people in the private sector will be on at least double that.
It’s the 20 year old problem - the civil service doesn’t have a pay system that would pay anyone in IT a wage that reflects the market value of those skills (even when you take the pension into account)
Not just IT, all kinds of science/technical roles.
Yet they can find loads of £67k salaries for people running around taking photos and videos of the PM and cabinet.
Now I’m sure most of these roles only last as long as the PM does, or at least the party in power, but it shows where the priorities are when they insist on a rigid pay structure for technical roles, which over time have been far outpaced by the private sector.
The £47k for the cyber security guy at the MoD, presumably with a whole pile of formal qualifications and clearances required, is insulting.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
Ahem. Relating NW seat count to UK population is not the point. It should be relating NW Labour Cabinet seat count to total NW Labour seat count.
Like Keir Starmer's genie before it all went wrong, your wish is my command;
North West: 7/65 Yorkshire: 4/42 North East: 2/26 West Mids: 2/37 London: 2/59 East Mids: 1/29 Wales: 2/27 South East + South West: 2/59 Scotland: 1/37 East: 0/27
Maybe the pattern is that the cabinet is from places that Burnham thinks "ought to" vote Labour, which is not the same as the places that did in 2024. That 2/86 for the non-London south and east, or even 4/145 when you include That There London, looks unbalanced.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
"The far-Right plot that never was: Twelve were arrested after 'threat' against 15,000-strong Islamic festival. Days later, all terror charges were dropped. Now, Sue Reid explores what happened... and link to Ann Widdecombe's murder"
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
Ahem. Relating NW seat count to UK population is not the point. It should be relating NW Labour Cabinet seat count to total NW Labour seat count.
Like Keir Starmer's genie before it all went wrong, your wish is my command;
North West: 7/65 Yorkshire: 4/42 North East: 2/26 West Mids: 2/37 London: 2/59 East Mids: 1/29 Wales: 2/27 South East + South West: 2/59 Scotland: 1/37 East: 0/27
Maybe the pattern is that the cabinet is from places that Burnham thinks "ought to" vote Labour, which is not the same as the places that did in 2024. That 2/86 for the non-London south and east, or even 4/145 when you include That There London, looks unbalanced.
It is a typical overcorrection following the ousting of the Islington Mafia.
Doing his bit for the unemployment rate. (What do Social Producers do? Produce socialism? Whatever they do, they're clearly much more valuable than mere Cyber Security workers.)
There’s derisory, and derisory.
Precisely no-one qualified to be a senior cyber security guy in the MoD’s nuclear department, is getting out of bed for £47k a year even with a nice pension.
Most decent people in the private sector will be on at least double that.
It’s the 20 year old problem - the civil service doesn’t have a pay system that would pay anyone in IT a wage that reflects the market value of those skills (even when you take the pension into account)
Not just IT, all kinds of science/technical roles.
Yet they can find loads of £67k salaries for people running around taking photos and videos of the PM and cabinet.
Now I’m sure most of these roles only last as long as the PM does, or at least the party in power, but it shows where the priorities are when they insist on a rigid pay structure for technical roles, which over time have been far outpaced by the private sector.
The £47k for the cyber security guy at the MoD, presumably with a whole pile of formal qualifications and clearances required, is insulting.
A very long time ago, close to my start as a government Scientific Officer, a very senior Civil Servant told a group of us that he just knew in his bones that administration is much more important.
I don't know why anybody would opt for anything other than a red Golf GTI auto with a 'sports' mode that you can click into and make the engine rev louder.
I do like a GTI. I reckon I've had over 20 of them.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
I have (as I suspect many of us do) all those listed "symptoms" of ADHD.
One of the things that really worries me about those symptoms is that sufferers from all of them would surely benefit from far more traditional teaching and learning methods than we currently use.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
And the Dilnot report is now more than 15 years old. If Burnham is the politician with the courage to grasp this nettle he will gain a lot of credit in my book.
He seems a cheerful chappy, which is a nice change from the dreary Starmer and the "be nasty to everyone else" philosophy of Farage and acolytes.
He has some notion of the longer term, unlike everyone else in politics. Maybe his plans won't survive contact with the reality but at least he's going through the motions.
What's your evidence that Farage wants to be "nasty to everyone else"?
I feel hopeful. I've been encouraged particularly by the Cabinet not being as bad as predicted, and by the words of the new COTE.
Actually (and everyone will dread this) I get a similar feeling about Burnham as I did with Truss. It's nothing to do with personal qualities, political philosophy, or even economic policy; it is about there being a fundamental desire there to turn the country around. Neither Starmer nor Sunak had that desire. They wanted to hold high office, and felt entitled to do so. But in terms of turning the country around, Sunak was not at the races, and Starmer was actively destructive.
There is a huge difference between someone who comes into office due to personal ambition, personal enrichment, or to implement a hidden agenda, and someone who governs according to the national interest. The former type of PM we have seen a lot, and it isn’t survivable for us any more.
I don't know what underpins Burnham's political philosophy - I agree with him on hardly anything, and I don't think ultimately he has the solutions to really get the country growing again, but I do think that he at least plans to win the next election by doing well as Prime Minister. That's a massive upgrade from Starmer, who wanted to win it by blaming the Tories, demonising Reform, and gaslighting us into believing that his Orwellian 'new normal' was the best we could ever hope for.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
And the Dilnot report is now more than 15 years old. If Burnham is the politician with the courage to grasp this nettle he will gain a lot of credit in my book.
Reportedly they're considering a flat levy of 10% on estates to replace IHT to partially fund it. The forecast is for a net increase in revenue of £4bn pa, though I suspect it might be a bit more than that, as complex IHT avoidance would might be seen as a waste of effort.
(The cost is a lot more, of course; £14bn I think for a fully funded scheme ?)
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
Its the bus all over again isn't it.... - people with a bit of a brain but no political nous at all thinking they're being clever by pointing out the terrible reality...
He seems a cheerful chappy, which is a nice change from the dreary Starmer and the "be nasty to everyone else" philosophy of Farage and acolytes.
He has some notion of the longer term, unlike everyone else in politics. Maybe his plans won't survive contact with the reality but at least he's going through the motions.
What's your evidence that Farage wants to be "nasty to everyone else"?
His NHS plans where Farage goes silent as soon as you start questioning them.
His change in viewpoint on Crypto once £5m appeared in his hands...
Need I go on - his viewpoints appear to be biddable...
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
And the Dilnot report is now more than 15 years old. If Burnham is the politician with the courage to grasp this nettle he will gain a lot of credit in my book.
Reportedly they're considering a flat levy of 10% on estates to replace IHT to partially fund it. The forecast is for a net increase in revenue of £4bn pa, though I suspect it might be a bit more than that, as complex IHT avoidance would might be seen as a waste of effort.
(The cost is a lot more, of course; £14bn I think for a fully funded scheme ?)
Replacing the current 40% rate, with a high threshold and a number of exemptions and workarounds, for a flat 10% rate, does seem on the face of it to be a money raiser.
If nothing else it will drastically reduce the mount of estate planning that goes on.
Does anyone have any idea of an annual figure for valuation of estates transferred on death?
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
His obsession with Manchester and thinking that is the NORTH will be his undoing. Tesco cannot be run like a cornershop.
Morning,
The Restore politician Henry Bolton has posted a map on 'X' which points the most northerly point of mainland Britain, Dunnet Head in Caithness.
Only problem for him is the arrow is actually pointing to the north of the Orkneys ...
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
And the Dilnot report is now more than 15 years old. If Burnham is the politician with the courage to grasp this nettle he will gain a lot of credit in my book.
Reportedly they're considering a flat levy of 10% on estates to replace IHT to partially fund it. The forecast is for a net increase in revenue of £4bn pa, though I suspect it might be a bit more than that, as complex IHT avoidance would might be seen as a waste of effort.
(The cost is a lot more, of course; £14bn I think for a fully funded scheme ?)
If part of council tax was shifted to central Government to be used for social care and some income tax shifted towards councils to provide a different source of revenue (and incentives) then that would solve things - especially because hidden social care (as people not using it don't see it) wouldn't be the only thing a council spent money on.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
Its the bus all over again isn't it.... - people with a bit of a brain but no political nous at all thinking they're being clever by pointing out the terrible reality...
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
And the Dilnot report is now more than 15 years old. If Burnham is the politician with the courage to grasp this nettle he will gain a lot of credit in my book.
Reportedly they're considering a flat levy of 10% on estates to replace IHT to partially fund it. The forecast is for a net increase in revenue of £4bn pa, though I suspect it might be a bit more than that, as complex IHT avoidance would might be seen as a waste of effort.
(The cost is a lot more, of course; £14bn I think for a fully funded scheme ?)
Replacing the current 40% rate, with a high threshold and a number of exemptions and workarounds, for a flat 10% rate, does seem on the face of it to be a money raiser.
If nothing else it will drastically reduce the mount of estate planning that goes on.
Does anyone have any idea of an annual figure for valuation of estates transferred on death?
From a right wing POV, my favourite thing about the reduction of IHT to 10% that Burnham is proposing, is that it makes it much much easier to get rid of iHT entirely.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
And the Dilnot report is now more than 15 years old. If Burnham is the politician with the courage to grasp this nettle he will gain a lot of credit in my book.
Reportedly they're considering a flat levy of 10% on estates to replace IHT to partially fund it. The forecast is for a net increase in revenue of £4bn pa, though I suspect it might be a bit more than that, as complex IHT avoidance would might be seen as a waste of effort.
(The cost is a lot more, of course; £14bn I think for a fully funded scheme ?)
Replacing the current 40% rate, with a high threshold and a number of exemptions and workarounds, for a flat 10% rate, does seem on the face of it to be a money raiser.
If nothing else it will drastically reduce the mount of estate planning that goes on.
Does anyone have any idea of an annual figure for valuation of estates transferred on death?
From a right wing POV, my favourite thing about the reduction of IHT to 10% that Burnham is proposing, is that it makes it much much easier to get rid of iHT entirely.
Not if it's raising £12bn plus per annum, it doesn't.
Maybe in a couple of decades time when we're back to running a budget surplus...
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Lucky hasn't worked out what happens to domestic prisoners at the end of their sentences, apparently.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
And the Dilnot report is now more than 15 years old. If Burnham is the politician with the courage to grasp this nettle he will gain a lot of credit in my book.
Reportedly they're considering a flat levy of 10% on estates to replace IHT to partially fund it. The forecast is for a net increase in revenue of £4bn pa, though I suspect it might be a bit more than that, as complex IHT avoidance would might be seen as a waste of effort.
(The cost is a lot more, of course; £14bn I think for a fully funded scheme ?)
Replacing the current 40% rate, with a high threshold and a number of exemptions and workarounds, for a flat 10% rate, does seem on the face of it to be a money raiser.
If nothing else it will drastically reduce the mount of estate planning that goes on.
Does anyone have any idea of an annual figure for valuation of estates transferred on death?
From a right wing POV, my favourite thing about the reduction of IHT to 10% that Burnham is proposing, is that it makes it much much easier to get rid of iHT entirely.
Not if it's raising £12bn plus per annum, it doesn't.
Maybe in a couple of decades time when we're back to running a budget surplus...
Like most taxes which changes of behaviour can overcome, I fully suspect the initial assumption of how much it raises will never be met.
Even better we are currently producing 101.8% of our energy making us net exporters for once, if only by a tiny margin. I suspect the continuing problems in French nuclear is affecting the balance. We need to invest to be producing much more than 100% of our current energy needs to allow growth and to improve our balance of payments. With the level of interconnectors we have now this really is a no brainer. https://grid.iamkate.com/
"The far-Right plot that never was: Twelve were arrested after 'threat' against 15,000-strong Islamic festival. Days later, all terror charges were dropped. Now, Sue Reid explores what happened... and link to Ann Widdecombe's murder"
That is a group calling itself "British Security Project", flying drones filming an Islamic festival, a newish right-wing extremist group.
One of the 12 people arrested after the drone-flying exercise was sentenced to 6 months in prison, suspended for 2 years, for having weapons (stun gun whatever that is, extendable baton) in his van, and another baton at his home, after a guilty plea.
I have no problem whatsoever with this police action to protect law abiding citizens from this threat, regardless of my skepticism for the Muslim group running the festival (the Keswick Conference is probably a decent comparison).
I'd say the the Mail in this piece is attempting to minimise what happened: Hurrah for the Blackshirts.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades. Politicians have ignored them. Is there any wonder the faith in the system is so low?
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
His obsession with Manchester and thinking that is the NORTH will be his undoing. Tesco cannot be run like a cornershop.
Years ago I read a book on psychology by Dr Ann Daly called "The Morbid Streak" and one bit sticks in my mind. She said that it was one thing to be fond of the area where you grew up and mention it occasionally in conversation but people who make it the central part of their personality (The professional Northerner or professional Welshman, for example), according to the book, usually have a personality vacuum and feel they need to fill it with a regional identify to make themselves interesting.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
And the Dilnot report is now more than 15 years old. If Burnham is the politician with the courage to grasp this nettle he will gain a lot of credit in my book.
Reportedly they're considering a flat levy of 10% on estates to replace IHT to partially fund it. The forecast is for a net increase in revenue of £4bn pa, though I suspect it might be a bit more than that, as complex IHT avoidance would might be seen as a waste of effort.
(The cost is a lot more, of course; £14bn I think for a fully funded scheme ?)
Dan Neidle, tax expert, says needs to be 20% to do social care.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Yes you are. You are suggesting that foreign nationals who commit crimes are being held in prison on their way to being deported. That means that the figure of those being held right now equals the total convicted minus the total already deported. I am merely asking, given the very high figure, what the percentage of those given custodial sentences is represented by foreign nationals if you add the prodigious numbers you claim have been deported back in.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Lucky hasn't worked out what happens to domestic prisoners at the end of their sentences, apparently.
Some prisoners are sent to do or to finish their sentence abroad. So the percentage of foreigners among the prison population will be lower than otherwise.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Lucky hasn't worked out what happens to domestic prisoners at the end of their sentences, apparently.
If what Bondygoo is saying is that they are being deported, but only when they've served their full sentence (minus reductions) in the UK, that is the logic fail. The whole idea of deporting them in the context of this discussion is that we reduce the prison population and stop paying the equivalent of Eton fees to house them.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Burnham is expected to give a speech setting out his vision in London next week
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
History, particularly bad history only started on July 5, 2024.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Burnham is expected to give a speech setting out his vision in London next week
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
His obsession with Manchester and thinking that is the NORTH will be his undoing. Tesco cannot be run like a cornershop.
Years ago I read a book on psychology by Dr Ann Daly called "The Morbid Streak" and one bit sticks in my mind. She said that it was one thing to be fond of the area where you grew up and mention it occasionally in conversation but people who make it the central part of their personality (The professional Northerner or professional Welshman, for example), according to the book, usually have a personality vacuum and feel they need to fill it with a regional identify to make themselves interesting.
I am starting to get that vibe with Andy Burnham.
We all need props..Wilson had his pipe, Thatcher her 👜..Andy has er.. Manchester..😏
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades. Politicians have ignored them. Is there any wonder the faith in the system is so low?
Politicians had ignored them. (Specifically, the Conservative Party politicians who were in power.) Politicians now aren’t ignoring them. Immigration is massively lower. UK net immigration has fallen 82% compared to its peak.
There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered! Imagine if we could get a 82% fall in NHS waiting lists, or in robbery rates, or in the welfare bill.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Lucky hasn't worked out what happens to domestic prisoners at the end of their sentences, apparently.
If what Bondygoo is saying is that they are being deported, but only when they've served their full sentence (minus reductions) in the UK, that is the logic fail. The whole idea of deporting them in the context of this discussion is that we reduce the prison population and stop paying the equivalent of Eton fees to house them.
The problem there is that we are deporting them after they've served their sentence and there is no guarantee that they would serve their sentence overseas if we deported them earlier.
Personally I think for a lot of prisoner's just deporting them with zero chance of ever returning would be suitable punishment..
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Yes you are. You are suggesting that foreign nationals who commit crimes are being held in prison on their way to being deported. That means that the figure of those being held right now equals the total convicted minus the total already deported. I am merely asking, given the very high figure, what the percentage of those given custodial sentences is represented by foreign nationals if you add the prodigious numbers you claim have been deported back in.
I have no idea of the numbers here but what you are saying makes no sense. Why would you add them back in if the sentence has been completed? Are you also going to add back in all the domestic prisoners who have also completed their sentences and been released. What is the difference?
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades. Politicians have ignored them. Is there any wonder the faith in the system is so low?
Politicians had ignored them. (Specifically, the Conservative Party politicians who were in power.) Politicians now aren’t ignoring them. Immigration is massively lower. UK net immigration has fallen 82% compared to its peak.
There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered! Imagine if we could get a 82% fall in NHS waiting lists, or in robbery rates, or in the welfare bill.
I suspect that even the Conservatives are surprised how successful their changes in policy have been, student visas being restricted to students and excluding families being by far the most significant.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Yes you are. You are suggesting that foreign nationals who commit crimes are being held in prison on their way to being deported. That means that the figure of those being held right now equals the total convicted minus the total already deported. I am merely asking, given the very high figure, what the percentage of those given custodial sentences is represented by foreign nationals if you add the prodigious numbers you claim have been deported back in.
Sorry, I am not following your logic here. I’ve said nothing about the total population of those given custodial sentences: I don’t have those numbers to hand. Your sums don’t work anyway without some sort of date constraints.
@AnneJGP suggested that, “We can't deport violent foreign criminals”. I say we are deporting thousands of foreign criminals (violent and non-violent): about 6,000 per year on the most recent figure. This number is going up. We clearly can deport violent foreign criminals. I’m not making any broader claims about the system, nor saying that the problem is solved.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades. Politicians have ignored them. Is there any wonder the faith in the system is so low?
Politicians had ignored them. (Specifically, the Conservative Party politicians who were in power.) Politicians now aren’t ignoring them. Immigration is massively lower. UK net immigration has fallen 82% compared to its peak.
There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered! Imagine if we could get a 82% fall in NHS waiting lists, or in robbery rates, or in the welfare bill.
I suspect that part of the answer is that "net immigration less than 100k" wasn't quite what the public wanted. It was probably public-will adjacent, but also not exactly the issue.
If you actually want to solve problems, it's vital to probe for long enough to identify what the problem actually is. In this case, I don't know if it's about access to public services, or neighbourhoods changing.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades. Politicians have ignored them. Is there any wonder the faith in the system is so low?
Politicians had ignored them. (Specifically, the Conservative Party politicians who were in power.) Politicians now aren’t ignoring them. Immigration is massively lower. UK net immigration has fallen 82% compared to its peak.
There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered! Imagine if we could get a 82% fall in NHS waiting lists, or in robbery rates, or in the welfare bill.
They wanted an 82% fall from the current levels, not the boriswave levels. They see through your 'peak'.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
Darren Sacked was is in Bristol. Now the Southwesternmost Cabinet member is Heidi Alexander in Swindon.
Some people consider Swindon is the South West.
It's more appropriate to say West Country. When the Central Match Live was ruining in the 90's it was counted as a midlands/central team. But we very much regard ourselves as West Country, not south west.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades. Politicians have ignored them. Is there any wonder the faith in the system is so low?
Politicians had ignored them. (Specifically, the Conservative Party politicians who were in power.) Politicians now aren’t ignoring them. Immigration is massively lower. UK net immigration has fallen 82% compared to its peak.
There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered! Imagine if we could get a 82% fall in NHS waiting lists, or in robbery rates, or in the welfare bill.
I suspect that even the Conservatives are surprised how successful their changes in policy have been, student visas being restricted to students and excluding families being by far the most significant.
Remember that, prior to Theresa May, none of those students or dependants would have been included in the figures...
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Lucky hasn't worked out what happens to domestic prisoners at the end of their sentences, apparently.
If what Bondygoo is saying is that they are being deported, but only when they've served their full sentence (minus reductions) in the UK, that is the logic fail. The whole idea of deporting them in the context of this discussion is that we reduce the prison population and stop paying the equivalent of Eton fees to house them.
I never said we only deport them after they’ve served their full sentence. Please read what I’ve written. There are various schemes whereby some are deported partway through their sentence when we can be confident they are going to a country that will appropriately imprison them for the remainder of their sentence.
We could deport many foreign offenders sooner, but the downside of that is that they might get out of prison earlier. Do you think it’s acceptable that someone should get away with a lesser sentence because they are not a UK national? That really would be two-tier justice.
Typically the 'new guy'* gets 100 days so no clear direction in the polls until 28th October.
* AB and many of his appointments are New Labour retreads.
From the 2007 article I linked to in the header.
The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades. Politicians have ignored them. Is there any wonder the faith in the system is so low?
Politicians had ignored them. (Specifically, the Conservative Party politicians who were in power.) Politicians now aren’t ignoring them. Immigration is massively lower. UK net immigration has fallen 82% compared to its peak.
There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered! Imagine if we could get a 82% fall in NHS waiting lists, or in robbery rates, or in the welfare bill.
I suspect that part of the answer is that "net immigration less than 100k" wasn't quite what the public wanted. It was probably public-will adjacent, but also not exactly the issue.
If you actually want to solve problems, it's vital to probe for long enough to identify what the problem actually is. In this case, I don't know if it's about access to public services, or neighbourhoods changing.
The public want many things, often contradictory things. I was simply starting with Mortimer’s comment: the public wanted lower immigration. Well, they’ve got much lower immigration, so Mortimer should be celebrating, I presume?
Is that really want the public wanted? Sure, that’s a harder question. Many of the areas that were most Brexity, that vote Reform and are most concerned about immigration have very low immigration locally, so I don’t think it’s really about neighbourhoods changing or access to public services.
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
And when do we address this horrible injustice and discrimination against non-Brits?
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Lucky hasn't worked out what happens to domestic prisoners at the end of their sentences, apparently.
If what Bondygoo is saying is that they are being deported, but only when they've served their full sentence (minus reductions) in the UK, that is the logic fail. The whole idea of deporting them in the context of this discussion is that we reduce the prison population and stop paying the equivalent of Eton fees to house them.
I never said we only deport them after they’ve served their full sentence. Please read what I’ve written. There are various schemes whereby some are deported partway through their sentence when we can be confident they are going to a country that will appropriately imprison them for the remainder of their sentence.
We could deport many foreign offenders sooner, but the downside of that is that they might get out of prison earlier. Do you think it’s acceptable that someone should get away with a lesser sentence because they are not a UK national? That really would be two-tier justice.
In my limited experience of this area a further problem with transferring foreign prisoners is what happens to them when they are released. A lot of sex offenders, for example, are subject to extended sentences where they are very carefully monitored on release and restricted in what jobs they can apply for, have notification requirements and restrictions on internet usage. Some countries don't seem to have anything similar with the result that the sentence cannot be properly served in the country they might potentially be deported to. The result is that they are subject to supervision in this country.
I am not entirely sure that most Judges get that these kinds of conditions, which are entirely appropriate for UK prisoners, might result in a continuing risk to the UK population on release.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
And the Dilnot report is now more than 15 years old. If Burnham is the politician with the courage to grasp this nettle he will gain a lot of credit in my book.
Reportedly they're considering a flat levy of 10% on estates to replace IHT to partially fund it. The forecast is for a net increase in revenue of £4bn pa, though I suspect it might be a bit more than that, as complex IHT avoidance would might be seen as a waste of effort.
(The cost is a lot more, of course; £14bn I think for a fully funded scheme ?)
Dan Neidle, tax expert, says needs to be 20% to do social care.
On its own, sure. I'm assuming that won't be the case.
Typically the 'new guy'* gets 100 days so no clear direction in the polls until 28th October.
* AB and many of his appointments are New Labour retreads.
From the 2007 article I linked to in the header.
The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.
Who was the other Burnham ?
There’s two of them now?!
That was my question, too. I think the author was just carried away by their own rhetoric, unlikely though that seems. 😏
Caught the start of Newsnight ,and Nick sodding Clegg is lecturing others about sanctimony.
He's been popping up a bit recently.
Tell me he's not planning a return to frontline politics some way or other?
His coalition was one if the best periods of government in recent decades. Maybe I am in a minority of one, but I think he put the country ahead of his party and himself and should be given credit for that. I would give him a knighthood.
It's a view. It's also a view that his refusing to discuss our membership of the EU during the Coalition resulted in Brexit.
If Clegg and Cameron had gone into the rose garden early in the Colition and called a Referendum - recommendeding staying in - it would have been won c.60:40.
Thank you, Nick Clegg.
Alexa, explain "gaslighting" to me.
To be fair, Clegg had called for an In/Out referendum on the EU. It was his 'reasoning' for abstaining on the Lisbon referendum when his party's manifesto had committed them to supporting one.
Good morning, everyone.
Imagine a world where we'd had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. We could have arrived at a world where there was a happy consensus on Europe - this far but no further. The great missed opportunity of British politics. All because the Lib Dems could not let a manifesto promise or a vague commitment to democracy outweigh their knee-jerk desire for all things Europe.
I don't disagree, in principle, but the Lisbon treaty was already ratified by 2010. How would that have worked ?
When Brown was PM, their was a vote on parliament: the government position was that Lisbon should br ratified, the Tory amendment was, I think, that there should be a referendum. There were enough Labour Eurosceptics that Lib Dems going with their stated policy position of 'there should be a referendum' would have resulted in a referendum. Knowing this, Ed Davey led a contrived walkout of Lib Dem MPs, nominally in protest that actually there should be a referendum on British EU membership per se (yes, really). It didn't need the coalition to be in power - it was one of the rare occasions where oppositiom could have forced a position.
I'd forgotten that bit of history. How much effort was made to get the LibDems on side in advance ?
I honestly don't know. But pb was up and running at the time. Perhaps a techier man than me could dig out the relevant thread. (On which note: life is going to be impossible for the historians of the future. There is just too much source material.)
It was entirely performative and insincere.
They wanted to be seen to be democratic and in favour of a referendum through calling one that they knew no-one else would back (at the time), whilst denying a vote on the one they might have.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Comments
The Europhiles played double or quits, so we quit.
Putting Dilnot into action would be a good staging post while they spend five years fleshing out a National Care Service imho.
OTOH my Cumbrian Tory voting wife said that it was good to hear a PM with a northern accent for a change. (And we are 120 north of Manchester.)
SKS, characteristically, did things that would have a fairly marginal impact over the longer term - maybe 2-5 years.
That will not imo be enough, and it will need some sort of structural shift to regional markets, which will also offer advantages for energy-heavy investment where it is needed for jobs and commerce, and to create something of a trend towards the regions and especially the coasts.
One other item I would quite like to see would be investment in industrial units by Local Authorities for small to medium businesses, both low cost startup and also more long term commercial.
When I was looking for a smallish unit for a business here, I was quite surprised to find out how many were operated by the District Council. They own around 100+ units, and investing in more startup type space is where some of the Town Fund money went.
There always seems to be a shortage - we had to look at about 15-20 units over more than a year over a 7-8 mile radius before we found something, and then go through the pain of a Change of Use.
seventy twoone Virgin?What he doesn't quite say is this is surely in keeping with Burnham's devolution agenda. Freeing councils from this millstone will give them space and resources for other stuff???
Robert Ford
@robfordmancs
Encouraging. Social care is a disaster zone which generates so much needless suffering and financial distress for families, and also wreaks havoc with local government finances. This move could reform social care and liberate local councils at one stroke.
https://x.com/robfordmancs/status/2080934460476842376
Far less irritating.
I do t think it's so much the voice itself, as the constant gaps in his speech ?
It will need historians to direct it, naturally.
This is what it means for bosses and workers"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70gq125xweo
Harold Wilson used, IIRC, get some stick over his "Northern vowels"
Having been married to a Lancastrian for over 60 years I quite enjoy hearing a variety of accents.
https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/07/21/andy-burnhams-government-has-a-northern-soul/
Darren Sacked was is in Bristol. Now the Southwesternmost Cabinet member is Heidi Alexander in Swindon.
Peter.
As a Big Picture fan I'm not naturally a supporter of this but for now I'm happy to see where it goes.
That's quite interesting - Distributionism claims the same roots, from a more right-wing / nationalist position in today's landscape.
I think he'll be strong on what we might call "RC community values", but not explicit on the "personal morality" agenda. For style I'd make a comparison with say Theresa May as opposed to perhaps Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Here's a summary of his voting record by the Christian Institute (who were set up as a campaigning charity in 1991 - around CofE Women Priests' time), who are conservative evangelical. Think maybe Danny Kruger for where the Christian Institute stand.
https://www.christian.org.uk/features/where-does-andy-burnham-stand-on-key-moral-issues-the-new-pms-voting-record/
Now I’m sure most of these roles only last as long as the PM does, or at least the party in power, but it shows where the priorities are when they insist on a rigid pay structure for technical roles, which over time have been far outpaced by the private sector.
The £47k for the cyber security guy at the MoD, presumably with a whole pile of formal qualifications and clearances required, is insulting.
North West: 7/65
Yorkshire: 4/42
North East: 2/26
West Mids: 2/37
London: 2/59
East Mids: 1/29
Wales: 2/27
South East + South West: 2/59
Scotland: 1/37
East: 0/27
Maybe the pattern is that the cabinet is from places that Burnham thinks "ought to" vote Labour, which is not the same as the places that did in 2024. That 2/86 for the non-London south and east, or even 4/145 when you include That There London, looks unbalanced.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16003453/far-right-plot-Islamic-festival-British-Security-Project-terror-Ann-Widdecombe-investigation-SUE-REID.html
France and Spain race to control wildfires as Bordeaux suburbs evacuated
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jul/25/france-spain-wildfires-latest-news-updates-madrid-cap-ferret-bordeaux-gironde
Brum Brum.
Today’s smokeshow is at Tyumen oil refinery, located over 2,000 km away from Ukraine.
https://x.com/revishvilig/status/2080943805243494758
Proper nationalists don't just fly flags, they supply quotations and evidence on high-class posters.
(Private house, Cromarty.)
Actually (and everyone will dread this) I get a similar feeling about Burnham as I did with Truss. It's nothing to do with personal qualities, political philosophy, or even economic policy; it is about there being a fundamental desire there to turn the country around. Neither Starmer nor Sunak had that desire. They wanted to hold high office, and felt entitled to do so. But in terms of turning the country around, Sunak was not at the races, and Starmer was actively destructive.
There is a huge difference between someone who comes into office due to personal ambition, personal enrichment, or to implement a hidden agenda, and someone who governs according to the national interest. The former type of PM we have seen a lot, and it isn’t survivable for us any more.
I don't know what underpins Burnham's political philosophy - I agree with him on hardly anything, and I don't think ultimately he has the solutions to really get the country growing again, but I do think that he at least plans to win the next election by doing well as Prime Minister. That's a massive upgrade from Starmer, who wanted to win it by blaming the Tories, demonising Reform, and gaslighting us into believing that his Orwellian 'new normal' was the best we could ever hope for.
The forecast is for a net increase in revenue of £4bn pa, though I suspect it might be a bit more than that, as complex IHT avoidance would might be seen as a waste of effort.
(The cost is a lot more, of course; £14bn I think for a fully funded scheme ?)
https://x.com/zelenskyyua/status/2080955669407015342
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-elizabeth-hospital-glasgow-death-37452096
His change in viewpoint on Crypto once £5m appeared in his hands...
Need I go on - his viewpoints appear to be biddable...
https://www.theaccountant-online.com/news/uk-inheritance-tax-receipts/
Replacing the current 40% rate, with a high threshold and a number of exemptions and workarounds, for a flat 10% rate, does seem on the face of it to be a money raiser.
If nothing else it will drastically reduce the mount of estate planning that goes on.
Does anyone have any idea of an annual figure for valuation of estates transferred on death?
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Maybe in a couple of decades time when we're back to running a budget surplus...
Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
https://grid.iamkate.com/
One of the 12 people arrested after the drone-flying exercise was sentenced to 6 months in prison, suspended for 2 years, for having weapons (stun gun whatever that is, extendable baton) in his van, and another baton at his home, after a guilty plea.
I have no problem whatsoever with this police action to protect law abiding citizens from this threat, regardless of my skepticism for the Muslim group running the festival (the Keswick Conference is probably a decent comparison).
I'd say the the Mail in this piece is attempting to minimise what happened: Hurrah for the Blackshirts.
I am starting to get that vibe with Andy Burnham.
I doubt it's statistically significant, though.
* Before someone corrects me, I am joking, #ironyfreesocialists .
Eh? These costs already are inflicted. Unless you have less than £23K in assets.
There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered! Imagine if we could get a 82% fall in NHS waiting lists, or in robbery rates, or in the welfare bill.
Personally I think for a lot of prisoner's just deporting them with zero chance of ever returning would be suitable punishment..
@AnneJGP suggested that, “We can't deport violent foreign criminals”. I say we are deporting thousands of foreign criminals (violent and non-violent): about 6,000 per year on the most recent figure. This number is going up. We clearly can deport violent foreign criminals. I’m not making any broader claims about the system, nor saying that the problem is solved.
If you actually want to solve problems, it's vital to probe for long enough to identify what the problem actually is. In this case, I don't know if it's about access to public services, or neighbourhoods changing.
Is it me or does the name Bryson DeChambeau sound like a fictional villain?
We could deport many foreign offenders sooner, but the downside of that is that they might get out of prison earlier. Do you think it’s acceptable that someone should get away with a lesser sentence because they are not a UK national? That really would be two-tier justice.
I predicted 5 policies Andy Burnham could implement quickly, and I think I had several correct.
Now I can't find it.
Is that really want the public wanted? Sure, that’s a harder question. Many of the areas that were most Brexity, that vote Reform and are most concerned about immigration have very low immigration locally, so I don’t think it’s really about neighbourhoods changing or access to public services.
I am not entirely sure that most Judges get that these kinds of conditions, which are entirely appropriate for UK prisoners, might result in a continuing risk to the UK population on release.
I'm assuming that won't be the case.
I think the author was just carried away by their own rhetoric, unlikely though that seems. 😏
They wanted to be seen to be democratic and in favour of a referendum through calling one that they knew no-one else would back (at the time), whilst denying a vote on the one they might have.