Options
It is madness that someone who is not even an MP should be favourite for next LAB leader – political
It is madness that someone who is not even an MP should be favourite for next LAB leader – politicalbetting.com
I find it quite remarkable that ex-LAB MP and now Mayor of Gtr Manchester should still be the betting favourite to succeed. Starmer. For a requirement of the job is being an MP and it is not quite clear how Burnham would do that.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.
Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.
Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).
Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?
Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.
Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime". (And he's wrong, because if they tried something of that kind the Union Jack-waving right wing press would do the same but 10 times more forcefully.)
I basically hard agree. A Starmer election defeat and Burnham replacement is entirely plausible in 2023/24, but he's far too short. So much can change, not lease (as you say) Starmer succeeding.
Do you call France the Fifth Republic?
I don't know how old you are, Rob, but I can tell you that when I was growing up the weathermen didn't say e.g. it will be sunny over the south of the UK today, as they do now. And it was "British government", not "UK government".
On a more serious note the article seems to mostly about gangs and people of colour(if that is the current acceptable term). Well we are told stop and search is racist even though in glasgow it reduced white on white knife crime so we can't do that. Perhaps we should let blm take over....maybe they can take a knee or something?
And before anyone calls me racist. Yes I think its a serious problem and needs addressing however it also seems anytime anyone tries to do anything the effort is decried as racist
There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.
These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.
Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.
When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.
And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
If we assume an ~33% chance of Labour losing the next election, ~90% chance of Starmer lasting until the next election, and ~40% chance of Burnham winning a post-election leadership race . . . then that works out at a 24% chance of Burnham being next leader. Which is roughly what his odds currently are.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/map#?map=SignificantWeather&zoom=5&lon=-4.00&lat=55.01&fcTime=1627027200
"Heavy rain and thunderstorms will spread across parts of southern UK,"
In fact it got to the point that foreign gmts were telling their citizens not to travel to the whole of the UK. Scotland, NI and Wales - and for that matter NE England - were losing out touristically. The Scottish Gmt protested and the BBC had to tell its own staff to change their wording to 'English riots'.
The 43k vaccinated today could have been vaccinated last week if they'd wanted to be. Its going to be progressively harder to get anyone vaccinated from now on.
@rwjdingwall
Some reorganization of govt science advice. When the music stopped, my roles on NERVTAG and JCVI have come to an end today. This was decided some weeks ago and has no bearing on any recent events. (1/5)
There are x jobs in the country
Y% are good jobs
Z% are menial jobs
If the people qualified to do y jobs in society are greater than the number of y jobs then some of them will end up in z jobs. Keeping the wages of z jobs artificially low by using an infinite labour pool does those only able to get Z jobs whether through lack of skills or lack of luck getting a y job does them no favours.
* By "win", I mean "no Conservative majority or minority government"
My issue is with the 40% chance of a Burnham win in a 2023/24 election. I think he's be around that in a leadership race happening right now, but so much can happen over time and that's unlikely to help him. Burnham's stock is so high it is unlikely to improve, and other challengers might build their profile in that time. This is particularly true of any viable women, since Labour has never elected a woman leader and lots of the activists and MPs care about that.
Also the idea that no-one would work with the Tories? Done that, been there and didn't like the T-shirt. Never say never.
As for Burnham - there's a reason he quit as an MP after losing the leadership election. There's also a reason he is favourite. Labour know they lack a winner but there's thin gruel left in the PP.
But this particular neighbourhood of Trafford does seem to have been a particular hotspot - I don't think many primary schools have been quite so hard hit.
According to this data, the 10-19 bracket has been about four times harder hit than the 0-9:
https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1418599019098476554/photo/1
It makes you wonder about the wisdom of the people parting with money.
Heck you only have to look at the posters here who still have that ambition to know that no one clueful and sane wants to become one.
Now 50%+ head to university (and after a few years where few graduate schemes were run due to the global crisis) over filters have been added to the criteria used.
It's also the same elsewhere - the police now pick from their specials unless they have a seriously large number of vacancies. So if you want to be a police officer you need to spend a couple of years doing it in your spare time first.
However, if wages were driving down the cost of labour across the board, you'd expect to see a number of things:
(1) UK export growth exceed peers, as we'd have lower wage rates
(2) The profit share of GDP grow relative to countries where immigration was lower
(3) Lower wage growth than countries where immigration was lower
But (1) is a definite "no", (2) is also "no", with the UK's dropping behind most other EU and developed world countries for profit share, and (3) is at best is mixed (albeit, you would expect that countries with higher wage growth would attract more immigration, so it is chicken and egg).
I struggle to see how - given an increasing proportion of jobs can be delivered remotely or across national borders - wages in the medium term exceed international norms. Now, that may not be true of Starbucks or your local hairdresser, but it's probably true of pretty much every graduate level job.
I wonder if that's less likely in men's cricket due to having higher waists? Or if its just really unfortunate.
Let's look at the numbers as they continue to emerge over the next days and weeks before we all jump one way or another.
And welcome, btw.
I say that as a starter because I have a sad, very sad story to tell, A few weeks ago ago a relative of mine died the day after he was vaccinated, he is the brother in law of my sister in law, but on the other side of her family, if that makes since. it was a Saturday and he was looing after the 5 year old daughter, as his wife was working, when he stated to feel unwell, he called his parents who live near and asked if they could come and help look after the lintel one, as he was feeling bad. when they got to the house they could see her but not her dad, so they brock the door and got in, to be tolled, 'daddy's asleep in the kitchen and he wont wake up' he was a really nice chap, I did not know him well, just met him at my brother stage do and a few other family events. He was 35 ish.
I mention this because today, in the city where I work, a young ish lady had a bad reaction to the viruses I cant remember the name of the condition but her body continually shakes and she has to walk with crutches. all of the young people I work with seem to have it on there phones and seem to have all decided that they are not getting the jab and those who have had one jab are not getting the second.
I thought I would try to talk about it rationally and shared the experience above and noted that I recognised there consenes but hear are some numbers and facts, ...... lots more people die form the virus than the vaccine and even while the risk of death to people your age is small you could still get long Covid, vaccines work, and this one has now been tested on billions of people around the would, far moor than in any laboratory test, and we know there is a risk from the virus and we also know its very very small.
I completely failed to make an impact, I just got tolled to look again at the bloody video. maybe the thought of being permanently disabled is more freighting than death? or more likely a video is a powerful way of sharing a message.
If you check my maths then yes I mean 1/3rd chance of them winning, 2/3rds of them not having PM after the election.
90% (Starmer lasts until election) * 67% (Starmer loses and resigns) * 40% (Burnham wins) = 24% which is approximately Burnham's current odds. Fair odds for me, no value but fair.
2) GDP per capita in the uk has declined over the last 20 years to the point we are now 29th
3) Wage growth in this country is misleading if you stripped out the uprating of minimum wage and the excesses of the top 10% wage growth is minimal
A question to ask is whether next time Labour MPs and members want to appoint the quelli speciali who could actually win/deny Tories a majority, (which latter seems the much greater likelihood).
None of the first three come in that category, unless up against an equivalent of Mrs T May in an election.
But: Labour may revert to their usual practice of appointing the wrong one, in which case everyone is about level pegging; also SKS may be PM after 2023/4 until at least 2028/9 in which case at this moment no-one has a clue. It could be someone who is currently doing A levels or their degree in textile studies at Sunderland.
And if they want to appoint the special one, they may have to wait a bit for one to emerge out of the scrum. You are not yet quelli speciali if you have to scratch your head to remember their name.
If ever there was a case for taking Harry's advice and not betting, except perhaps for £1 on Pidcock (100/1) it is this.
This reason, above many others, is why Burnham will likely remain as mayor of Greater Manchester, where he can enjoy being able to do something, and also have a profile as some sort of Labour folk hero. If he does decide to return to the Commons it might be a sign that the tide is finally turning for Labour, and being a Labour MP has the potential to be personally rewarding, or it could simply be that he's started to believe his own mythology, as Labour's saviour-in-exile.
Other parties didn't have to create all woman shortlists. Getting rid of misogyny and ensuring there are good female candidates ought to be enough.
But NY Times and CNN are still serious news organisations that aspire to accuracy and factual reporting. Doesn’t mean they always get it right (particularly for reasons given above), but they still aspire to it.
Since 2015, Burnham has enormously strengthened his credibility. He's been seen to be an effective and energetic Mayor, vastly improving his reputation as a capable politician. He had a crushing victory against a poor national backdrop in May, boosting his status as a popular one. He's been a loud and vocal Johnson critic, which goes down well with Labour members. And he's been away from the Westminster Labour sh1tshow, so has avoided harm from that.
As an electable candidate (leaving aside the doubtless important "not an MP" point) Andy Burnham is a totally different proposition in 2021 than he was in 2015.
So perhaps it is fair to say that, in order to achieve a balance between the genders it was necessary for Labour to use all-women shortlists, because the Conservative approach clearly has not worked.
https://twitter.com/LucyStats/status/1418370036918624256?s=19
All their stats are very similar to PHE and Candian ones for things like hospitalisations, except totally skewed by the protection from getting it among those jabbed in Jan / Feb.
The tweet says it is because they are the most vulnerable, but there is something off, perhaps sample size. If it really was 16% among old / vulnerable, we wouldn't be seeing only 15% of cases among double vaxxed in the UK and we would have bug outbreaks in care homes etc, given how widespread it is among unvaxxed / partially vaxxed in the UK.
So, like Fox News then
Which, given Labour's present-day parade of Woke freaks, crazed giantesses, eerie Marxist old people, and Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, is an achievement
Then again I was told last night on PB that the UK's supermarket shelves were bulging with fresh produce. I have the photographs to prove that in Tesco, Bridgend at least, that was a great big fat hairy lie!