The Rules: Under Labour party rules introduced recently, serving directly elected mayors, such as Mr. Burnham, must receive express permission from the NEC to stand for Parliament.
Burnham has less chance of becoming a Lab MP than Nigel Farage under the SKS clique
They cannot stop him without sacrificing the seat to Reform. I just don't think they'll do it. They know Sir Useless is finished anyway.
We will see in next couple of hours but imo they would rather Nigel Farage became PM than surrender control
Any idea when the writ will be moved, when is the Gorton contest likely to be held? What a laugh it would be if GG has to campaign simultaneously in Gorton and Scotland
You'd expect GG to target Muslim voters, but he will be fishing in the same pool as the Greens and Reform for chunks of his vote. I wouldn't go against Burnham coming through the middle (if he is nominated as candidate)
Looking forward to hearing what those with local knowledge make of it all
How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it
I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.
They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!
Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.
Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...
I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.
Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".
Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.
As I think I have said before, whilst I am not the greatest fan of Carr's comedy, I do think he makes valuable contributions to the debate on modern life and where it has gone wrong (and right). I may not always agree with him - though mostly I do - but I value his ability to provide thoughtful, informed and considered analysis of the modern condition.
Every other sentence he throws in the word 'fuck'. More often than not inappropriately. It sounds like he's got a tick
A reminder that Galloway has already stood and campaigned in a Gorton by-election, getting 5.7%, albeit that parliament ultimately rolled it into the 2017 General Election:
I'd bank on him beating that given the last GE result, though unless the dominoes fall as absurdly as they did in Rochdale, I don't see him running this one close.
Me neither could ruin the Greens chances in the absence of Burnham though.
The Rules: Under Labour party rules introduced recently, serving directly elected mayors, such as Mr. Burnham, must receive express permission from the NEC to stand for Parliament.
Burnham has less chance of becoming a Lab MP than Nigel Farage under the SKS clique
They cannot stop him without sacrificing the seat to Reform. I just don't think they'll do it. They know Sir Useless is finished anyway.
We will see in next couple of hours but imo they would rather Nigel Farage became PM than surrender control
There's also a risk of revolving leadership. Since Cameron, the average career of a PM is very short.
I suspect Burnham would be better than Starmer. But if he doesn't have a tight grip on party factions he might face being ousted himself if he doesn't dance to the desire of left wing backbenchers.
Off topic, this from Freedman on the travails of government is interesting:
Quarter of a century ago, Professor Michael Moran came up with the concept of the “regulatory state” to describe the way British government works. He has since passed away but no one has yet produced a better analysis. Nor have many politicians engaged with his ideas, which is a shame because without doing so it’s hard to understand why we are where we are. His argument was that until the 1970s Britain was run like a London club with minimal regulatory oversight. Professions like medicine and finance were self-regulated. Public services had almost no accountability to central government. Private businesses were barely regulated at all. Nor was there any social regulation, like protection of disability rights. Though the state did a lot, Whitehall didn’t.
This form of “club governance” fell apart across a series of crises in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, from the collapse of Barings Bank to the mad cow disease scandal. Margaret Thatcher also wanted to use the power of government to attack what she saw as low quality taxpayer funded services and inadequate oversight of left-wing public sector workforces. The great myth of Thatcherism is that it was all about making the state smaller whereas, while it reduced capacity at local government level, it made Whitehall a lot larger and more powerful.
After 1997 New Labour added more oversight of the private sector and social regulation to enforce their human rights legislation. Collectively this led to the creation of a regulatory state without that ever being the intention. An enormous surveillance apparatus was created in an ad hoc fashion. We now have bodies that regulate the professions; that inspect hospitals, schools and other services; that oversee privatised utilities; and try to protect the vulnerable. Across government there are now almost a hundred regulators, and hundreds more public bodies many of which have a quasi-regulatory responsibility, for instance running school assessment or managing public complaints about the NHS. DEFRA alone works with 34 different agencies and public bodies.
But the creation of this apparatus was not accompanied by any change in the way politicians manage their departments. That has stayed as it was in the club government days, which has created a massive disconnect between expectations of politicians and what they can actually achieve.
That's very good.
Freedman's book "Failed state: Why nothing works and how we fix it", which I've recommended here before, is well worth a read, despite being much stronger on why nothing works than on how we fix it.
The above extract is from a paywalled article, so it would be wrong to paste much more of it, but Freedman goes on to argue that each government tries to tackle the problem by slapping new bodies or levers on top of what's already there, rather than changing anything fundamental. And that state capacity at every level below Westminster is so denuded that many of the things Westminster tries to achieve at the centre simply cannot be delivered out in the localities. The direction of his solutions - toward increasing local capacity and devolving the power to tackle problems - is one that I agree with, but as he observes, national politicians are always schizophrenic towards decentralisation, understanding it conceptually, but ultimately unwilling to cede their own power - even though it's often illusory. As he says, "Any serious attempt to rewire the state needs to focus on the disconnects between power and capacity rather than power per se. "
All parties state they believe in decentralising power and empowering communities, but rarely do. Local 'Devolution' is rarely any such thing, usually being creating a new body taking power from below not above, or just a new process dependent on Whitehall ultimately controlling things, often pitting local areas against each other.
Centralisation is not inherently bad, but it is treated as though it is, so instead we get dissonance from centralising and calling it something else.
Glocalisation
You need a central repository of operating principles, guidelines, data standards, best practice and expertise available to all devolved entities.
Then local entities can make decisions appropriate to local circumstances, with the added benefit that these decisions will be locally owned. The decision would be local to make, but could be checked centrally for consistency.
Any idea when the writ will be moved, when is the Gorton contest likely to be held? What a laugh it would be if GG has to campaign simultaneously in Gorton and Scotland
You'd expect GG to target Muslim voters, but he will be fishing in the same pool as the Greens and Reform for chunks of his vote. I wouldn't go against Burnham coming through the middle (if he is nominated as candidate)
Looking forward to hearing what those with local knowledge make of it all
The Rules: Under Labour party rules introduced recently, serving directly elected mayors, such as Mr. Burnham, must receive express permission from the NEC to stand for Parliament.
Burnham has less chance of becoming a Lab MP than Nigel Farage under the SKS clique
They cannot stop him without sacrificing the seat to Reform. I just don't think they'll do it. They know Sir Useless is finished anyway.
We will see in next couple of hours but imo they would rather Nigel Farage became PM than surrender control
Do we know his views on Gaza? He's definitely not a freeloader 'Friend of Israel' which is an upgrade on most of the Cabinet possibles
Any idea when the writ will be moved, when is the Gorton contest likely to be held? What a laugh it would be if GG has to campaign simultaneously in Gorton and Scotland
You'd expect GG to target Muslim voters, but he will be fishing in the same pool as the Greens and Reform for chunks of his vote. I wouldn't go against Burnham coming through the middle (if he is nominated as candidate)
Looking forward to hearing what those with local knowledge make of it all
I think I read it would be in a couple of months, but it seems a bit weird not to hold off until May.
If all the elections were simultaneous, it would be amusing to see Scotland, Wales and Gorton competing over telling Starmer to stay away.
A reminder that Galloway has already stood and campaigned in a Gorton by-election, getting 5.7%, albeit that parliament ultimately rolled it into the 2017 General Election:
I'd bank on him beating that given the last GE result, though unless the dominoes fall as absurdly as they did in Rochdale, I don't see him running this one close.
Me neither could ruin the Greens chances in the absence of Burnham though.
How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it
I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.
They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!
Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.
Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...
I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.
Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".
Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.
As I think I have said before, whilst I am not the greatest fan of Carr's comedy, I do think he makes valuable contributions to the debate on modern life and where it has gone wrong (and right). I may not always agree with him - though mostly I do - but I value his ability to provide thoughtful, informed and considered analysis of the modern condition.
I would happily pay for him to talk seriously. Have no interest in paying to watch his stand up.
He's just a centrist dad who's quite happy not paying his taxes, despite being in the top 1 or 2% earnings wise..🧐
And the rest.
Top 1% by income is a bit over £200k.
He's onto something important with the idea that there ought to be such a thing as society, and it's absence is causing problems, especially for young men.
The problem, as always, is how to balance the me and the we, and how to pay for it.
The Rules: Under Labour party rules introduced recently, serving directly elected mayors, such as Mr. Burnham, must receive express permission from the NEC to stand for Parliament.
Burnham has less chance of becoming a Lab MP than Nigel Farage under the SKS clique
They cannot stop him without sacrificing the seat to Reform. I just don't think they'll do it. They know Sir Useless is finished anyway.
We will see in next couple of hours but imo they would rather Nigel Farage became PM than surrender control
Do we know his views on Gaza? He's definitely not a freeloader 'Friend of Israel' which is an upgrade on most of the Cabinet possibles
Think he is a Zionist but not in deep like the LFI lackies
Given ICE appears to have a memo stating that their view is an executive order trumps, ahem, the 4th amendment, they may well be instructing all their agents they can basically do anything.
After each execution every prominent member of the regime issues a statement saying they stand fully behind the stormtroopers
Suggesting that this year we will be moving from 1933 to 1934...
Looking on the bright side, that's would suggest eine Nacht der langen Messer is on its way. I'm sure we all have our fovourite candidate for the Röhm role.
The story from the fall of Weimar was that extra-state paramilitary power (the existence of which was essentially a fallout from the end of WW1), which could be deployed by leading politicians on illegal and violent tasks but then responsibility denied when it suited - was exceptionally useful in enabling them to take control of the state - not just government, but civil society. Some of the stories of properly elected centre-left politicians being beaten up in or physically dragged out of their offices, homes or council meetings and promised violence for them and their families until they resigned, which most of them then did - are horrifying.
Once the levers and organisations of state and society had been fully captured, the existence of semi-detached paramilitary power became a liabilty rather than asset, and an unwelcome alternative source of power, since the ability then existed (and the obstacles had been removed) to deploy violence under direct state control, and send many centre and left wing politicians off for a spell in Dachau.
With his demonic political instincts Hitler was smart enough to know that the SA had outlived its usefulness and no longer fitted in with the brave new Reich. Non-demented Trump might have realised shooting white US citizens in plain sight looks really bad, now not so much. Miller, Vance, Noem, Bondi et al have dipped their hands in so much blood that they're fully committed, any pause or retreat might result in legal examination. The enthusiastic support for the Nazis from big business is the biggest refutation of the idiots' cry 'but they were socialists!'. The tech bros falling into line with Trump is yet another startling parallel.
Elon Musk @elonmusk Hitler was a far left socialist. His party was called the national socialists.
What's going on in the US doesn't, yet at least, look like a concerted attempt to take on and dismantle the sources of opposition power, as happened in Germany in a remarkably determined way and in an amazingly short space of time (and without even majority power, to begin with).
Insofar as it makes sense, it appears to be some mix of, an attempt to influence the media agenda by pushing immigration and tackling crime to the fore - issues that the Republicans expect to play to their advantage; an attempt to trigger counter-protest in the hope that this will over-react and do more damage to the left than the original injustice does to the right, and playing to their base living in small rural communities far away from the US cities who probably have less understanding of US city life than we do, who will simply see 'their' government "finally getting tough".
I've no idea what the political affiliations of the latest Minnieapolis victim were, but not the least weird thing is that a VA nurse with a concealed carry license which he obviously made use of seems a natural independent with the potential to vote GOP. Not now of course.
Patrick Maguire @patrickkmaguire · 15m Several sources telling me anti-Burnham camp have the numbers...
That will be extremely damaging if true. IF true it'll be appropriate for Starmer to step in though I don't believe it is true. What reason could they have?
Andy Burnham has not been a supporter of the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). While there is speculation about his potential involvement with the Labour Party, there is no specific indication that he is a supporter of the LFI in the provided results.
Patrick Maguire @patrickkmaguire · 15m Several sources telling me anti-Burnham camp have the numbers...
That will be extremely damaging if true. IF true it'll be appropriate for Starmer to step in though I don't believe it is true. What reason could they have?
They don't care as I have been posting for 2 years.
The Economist: America has coped with worse things than Donald Trump:
He is not the first president to treat critics as enemies of the state. In 1798, under John Adams, the Alien and Sedition Acts criminalised “false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government. More than a century later, during and after the first world war, Woodrow Wilson’s administration jailed and deported dissidents, censored the press and tolerated mob violence against those deemed “un-American”. In each case repression was described as lawful and necessary, in the name of security, order and patriotism—language heard again today.
Nor is this the first time that America has suffered an erosion of norms about how power is exercised and defeat is accepted. After the civil war Andrew Johnson blocked civil rights for freed slaves and undermined Reconstruction, for a while hollowing out democracy in the South. Watergate revealed how law-enforcement and intelligence agencies could be bent to partisan ends, and how democracy depends on officials and reporters who refuse to play along. In both cases decency ultimately survived because Americans chose to defend it.
And if America often feels as if it is on the brink—struggling to cope with a polarised public—it has been there before, too. The country’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, proved too weak to hold the republic together, nearly leading to collapse. Its successor papered over slavery with compromise and euphemism, postponing a reckoning that would come through civil war. In the 1930s the Depression exposed a political system ill-equipped to deal with mass unemployment. More recently, an election decided by the Supreme Court in 2000 showed how heavily the system relies on good faith and restraint, qualities that are now in much shorter supply.
Today’s Rawnsley as we wait for today’s dose of heavy rain to arrive:
Starmer loyalists claim to have sufficient control over the party’s decision-making processes to strangle any Burnham challenge at birth by simply vetoing him as a candidate for parliament… but vetoing him is freighted with considerable danger for the prime minister.
If Labour MPs and members make enough noisy fuss about it, there’s a chance the resolve of Number 10 will crumble, as it has before on other issues. The peril facing Sir Keir is that he looks paranoid about one of his party’s more successful figures and frit of a leadership challenge. And a challenge may happen with or without the presence of Mr Burnham in parliament because, as you may have noticed, others – including some who sit in the cabinet – are also interested in taking the prime minister’s job.
Though there was a chunky Labour majority at the 2024 general election, there’s really no such thing as a safe Labour seat these days. Mr Burnham’s overarching claim is that he has the personality and the ideas to turn things around for his party. If he wants to start proving that concept, the best place to begin is by testing it at the ballot box. Power is rarely given; it has to be pursued. The whirligig of opportunity only comes round every so often. For sure, this is a gamble, but it is one he kind of had to take.
Today’s Rawnsley as we wait for today’s dose of heavy rain to arrive:
Starmer loyalists claim to have sufficient control over the party’s decision-making processes to strangle any Burnham challenge at birth by simply vetoing him as a candidate for parliament… but vetoing him is freighted with considerable danger for the prime minister.
If Labour MPs and members make enough noisy fuss about it, there’s a chance the resolve of Number 10 will crumble, as it has before on other issues. The peril facing Sir Keir is that he looks paranoid about one of his party’s more successful figures and frit of a leadership challenge. And a challenge may happen with or without the presence of Mr Burnham in parliament because, as you may have noticed, others – including some who sit in the cabinet – are also interested in taking the prime minister’s job.
Though there was a chunky Labour majority at the 2024 general election, there’s really no such thing as a safe Labour seat these days. Mr Burnham’s overarching claim is that he has the personality and the ideas to turn things around for his party. If he wants to start proving that concept, the best place to begin is by testing it at the ballot box. Power is rarely given; it has to be pursued. The whirligig of opportunity only comes round every so often. For sure, this is a gamble, but it is one he kind of had to take.
Does it occur to 'Starmer loyalists' that the only loyalty worth anything is the loyalty which summons up enough votes for Starmer to see off any challenge, from Burnham or anyone else. And that this requires the hard work of being the best option, not the easier work of packing a committee.
The Economist: America has coped with worse things than Donald Trump:
He is not the first president to treat critics as enemies of the state. In 1798, under John Adams, the Alien and Sedition Acts criminalised “false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government. More than a century later, during and after the first world war, Woodrow Wilson’s administration jailed and deported dissidents, censored the press and tolerated mob violence against those deemed “un-American”. In each case repression was described as lawful and necessary, in the name of security, order and patriotism—language heard again today.
Nor is this the first time that America has suffered an erosion of norms about how power is exercised and defeat is accepted. After the civil war Andrew Johnson blocked civil rights for freed slaves and undermined Reconstruction, for a while hollowing out democracy in the South. Watergate revealed how law-enforcement and intelligence agencies could be bent to partisan ends, and how democracy depends on officials and reporters who refuse to play along. In both cases decency ultimately survived because Americans chose to defend it.
And if America often feels as if it is on the brink—struggling to cope with a polarised public—it has been there before, too. The country’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, proved too weak to hold the republic together, nearly leading to collapse. Its successor papered over slavery with compromise and euphemism, postponing a reckoning that would come through civil war. In the 1930s the Depression exposed a political system ill-equipped to deal with mass unemployment. More recently, an election decided by the Supreme Court in 2000 showed how heavily the system relies on good faith and restraint, qualities that are now in much shorter supply.
See also Churchwell's excellent book: Behold, America: A History of America First and the American Dream
The Economist: America has coped with worse things than Donald Trump:
He is not the first president to treat critics as enemies of the state. In 1798, under John Adams, the Alien and Sedition Acts criminalised “false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government. More than a century later, during and after the first world war, Woodrow Wilson’s administration jailed and deported dissidents, censored the press and tolerated mob violence against those deemed “un-American”. In each case repression was described as lawful and necessary, in the name of security, order and patriotism—language heard again today.
Nor is this the first time that America has suffered an erosion of norms about how power is exercised and defeat is accepted. After the civil war Andrew Johnson blocked civil rights for freed slaves and undermined Reconstruction, for a while hollowing out democracy in the South. Watergate revealed how law-enforcement and intelligence agencies could be bent to partisan ends, and how democracy depends on officials and reporters who refuse to play along. In both cases decency ultimately survived because Americans chose to defend it.
And if America often feels as if it is on the brink—struggling to cope with a polarised public—it has been there before, too. The country’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, proved too weak to hold the republic together, nearly leading to collapse. Its successor papered over slavery with compromise and euphemism, postponing a reckoning that would come through civil war. In the 1930s the Depression exposed a political system ill-equipped to deal with mass unemployment. More recently, an election decided by the Supreme Court in 2000 showed how heavily the system relies on good faith and restraint, qualities that are now in much shorter supply.
More generally, I think all parties need a better process to pick MP candidates. It seems like a weird mix of skullduggery, putting in hours knocking on doors and random luck with competence or ability very far down the list
It appears the King sent a private note to Trump over his comments on Afghanistan and it prompted Trumps U turn
Look at what Trump said carefully. There is no U turn. No taking back of the detail in any respect of what he saud before. Just as there is no apology. The press have not covered this properly.
If Burnham is allowed to stand he likely wins. If not Reform or the Greens could win though not Galloway as it is not a Muslim heavy seat
Always provides some entertaining moments though.
I still have no idea how WPB were organised enough to put up 150 candidates at the GE. Your Party have broken out into factional slates just to select their leadership committee.
My guess would be that WPB doesn't have much by way of centralised organisation; simply someone in charge of allowing candidates to use the name, and when someone popped up in a seat with left-wing credentials who wanted to stand under the WPB banner, they were essentially granted use of the party's name and left alone to get on with it.
Whereas the various factions involved with YP have the centralising mentality that's much more common on the left, and have immediately launched into pitched battles to take control of the central apparatus of the new party, before it's even been created.
More generally, I think all parties need a better process to pick MP candidates. It seems like a weird mix of skullduggery, putting in hours knocking on doors and random luck with competence or ability very far down the list
Simon Hart makes the same point in his published diary of his time as Tory Chief Whip - with some pointed comments about some of his colleagues, Suella particularly, which deserve to be better known.
Party selection currently rests upon some mix of candidates' time-serving activity of having toiled away for the party, and conformance with the ideological peccadillos of the selection committee, which for the Tories has increasingly meant the ERG agenda. Ablity or competence doesn't really figure.
Of course, attempts to short-cut this with supposedly talent-based imposition of candidates from the centre, notably Cameron's A-list, had mixed success, bringing a few younger genuinely talented people into parliament along with a fair few oddballs and primadonnas.
How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it
I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.
They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!
Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.
Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...
I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.
Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".
Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.
As I think I have said before, whilst I am not the greatest fan of Carr's comedy, I do think he makes valuable contributions to the debate on modern life and where it has gone wrong (and right). I may not always agree with him - though mostly I do - but I value his ability to provide thoughtful, informed and considered analysis of the modern condition.
I would happily pay for him to talk seriously. Have no interest in paying to watch his stand up.
I would not piss on him if he was on fire , totally unfunny and only equalled by Corden.
Patrick Maguire @patrickkmaguire · 15m Several sources telling me anti-Burnham camp have the numbers...
Crazy . Just let the guy stand which is the least worst option .
Not to the clique.
Losing control of the Party is the worst option and the only one that counts to them.
SKS will be replaced by a fellow traveller in 2026 my money on Mahmood beating Streeting and Rayner
I'm struggling to see any real benefit to Starmer in letting Burnham run.
Sure, there will be howls of outrage if he's blocked. But he's blocked many before (and turfed Corbynites out of the NEC) and weathered that too.
You're right that they put party control, conformity and obedience above all, and won't lose much sleep at having shut out a potential cause of political problems down the road. As they've done lots of times before.
The big - and really, only - question is whether publicly blocking Burnham makes a Green (or Reform) win at the by-election a possibility? For the Greens in particular, the momentum they could get from a stunning win could knock directly on into the cities in May, and I'm sceptical that Labour can hold the by-election off until the locals.
How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it
I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.
They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!
Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.
Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...
I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.
Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".
Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.
As I think I have said before, whilst I am not the greatest fan of Carr's comedy, I do think he makes valuable contributions to the debate on modern life and where it has gone wrong (and right). I may not always agree with him - though mostly I do - but I value his ability to provide thoughtful, informed and considered analysis of the modern condition.
I would happily pay for him to talk seriously. Have no interest in paying to watch his stand up.
I would not piss on him if he was on fire , totally unfunny and only equalled by Corden.
I'm thinking that the ABV of your urine might possibly make the fire worse?
How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it
I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.
They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!
Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.
Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...
I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.
Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".
Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.
As I think I have said before, whilst I am not the greatest fan of Carr's comedy, I do think he makes valuable contributions to the debate on modern life and where it has gone wrong (and right). I may not always agree with him - though mostly I do - but I value his ability to provide thoughtful, informed and considered analysis of the modern condition.
Carr is no pure libertarian either and has emphasised the importance of community institutions from pubs to churches and accused Labour of abandoning the working class
The Economist: America has coped with worse things than Donald Trump:
He is not the first president to treat critics as enemies of the state. In 1798, under John Adams, the Alien and Sedition Acts criminalised “false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government. More than a century later, during and after the first world war, Woodrow Wilson’s administration jailed and deported dissidents, censored the press and tolerated mob violence against those deemed “un-American”. In each case repression was described as lawful and necessary, in the name of security, order and patriotism—language heard again today.
Nor is this the first time that America has suffered an erosion of norms about how power is exercised and defeat is accepted. After the civil war Andrew Johnson blocked civil rights for freed slaves and undermined Reconstruction, for a while hollowing out democracy in the South. Watergate revealed how law-enforcement and intelligence agencies could be bent to partisan ends, and how democracy depends on officials and reporters who refuse to play along. In both cases decency ultimately survived because Americans chose to defend it.
And if America often feels as if it is on the brink—struggling to cope with a polarised public—it has been there before, too. The country’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, proved too weak to hold the republic together, nearly leading to collapse. Its successor papered over slavery with compromise and euphemism, postponing a reckoning that would come through civil war. In the 1930s the Depression exposed a political system ill-equipped to deal with mass unemployment. More recently, an election decided by the Supreme Court in 2000 showed how heavily the system relies on good faith and restraint, qualities that are now in much shorter supply.
Given ICE appears to have a memo stating that their view is an executive order trumps, ahem, the 4th amendment, they may well be instructing all their agents they can basically do anything.
After each execution every prominent member of the regime issues a statement saying they stand fully behind the stormtroopers
Suggesting that this year we will be moving from 1933 to 1934...
Looking on the bright side, that's would suggest eine Nacht der langen Messer is on its way. I'm sure we all have our fovourite candidate for the Röhm role.
The story from the fall of Weimar was that extra-state paramilitary power (the existence of which was essentially a fallout from the end of WW1), which could be deployed by leading politicians on illegal and violent tasks but then responsibility denied when it suited - was exceptionally useful in enabling them to take control of the state - not just government, but civil society. Some of the stories of properly elected centre-left politicians being beaten up in or physically dragged out of their offices, homes or council meetings and promised violence for them and their families until they resigned, which most of them then did - are horrifying.
Once the levers and organisations of state and society had been fully captured, the existence of semi-detached paramilitary power became a liabilty rather than asset, and an unwelcome alternative source of power, since the ability then existed (and the obstacles had been removed) to deploy violence under direct state control, and send many centre and left wing politicians off for a spell in Dachau.
With his demonic political instincts Hitler was smart enough to know that the SA had outlived its usefulness and no longer fitted in with the brave new Reich. Non-demented Trump might have realised shooting white US citizens in plain sight looks really bad, now not so much. Miller, Vance, Noem, Bondi et al have dipped their hands in so much blood that they're fully committed, any pause or retreat might result in legal examination. The enthusiastic support for the Nazis from big business is the biggest refutation of the idiots' cry 'but they were socialists!'. The tech bros falling into line with Trump is yet another startling parallel.
Elon Musk @elonmusk Hitler was a far left socialist. His party was called the national socialists.
What's going on in the US doesn't, yet at least, look like a concerted attempt to take on and dismantle the sources of opposition power, as happened in Germany in a remarkably determined way and in an amazingly short space of time (and without even majority power, to begin with).
Insofar as it makes sense, it appears to be some mix of, an attempt to influence the media agenda by pushing immigration and tackling crime to the fore - issues that the Republicans expect to play to their advantage; an attempt to trigger counter-protest in the hope that this will over-react and do more damage to the left than the original injustice does to the right, and playing to their base living in small rural communities far away from the US cities who probably have less understanding of US city life than we do, who will simply see 'their' government "finally getting tough".
I think it is more than that. The open ignoring of court instructions, the memos telling ICE executive orders are more important than the constitution, the intimidation to obtain voting records, it may not be all encompassing, but it does look like trying to overwhelm alternative sources of power.
It isn't entirely clear one way or the other. The mid-terms will be crucial. If they are rigged the USA may then be too far gone to be considered a free and democratic State.
They can't be rigged US wide as mid term elections are run state by state by state election boards, half of which are Democrats
Given ICE appears to have a memo stating that their view is an executive order trumps, ahem, the 4th amendment, they may well be instructing all their agents they can basically do anything.
After each execution every prominent member of the regime issues a statement saying they stand fully behind the stormtroopers
Suggesting that this year we will be moving from 1933 to 1934...
Looking on the bright side, that's would suggest eine Nacht der langen Messer is on its way. I'm sure we all have our fovourite candidate for the Röhm role.
The story from the fall of Weimar was that extra-state paramilitary power (the existence of which was essentially a fallout from the end of WW1), which could be deployed by leading politicians on illegal and violent tasks but then responsibility denied when it suited - was exceptionally useful in enabling them to take control of the state - not just government, but civil society. Some of the stories of properly elected centre-left politicians being beaten up in or physically dragged out of their offices, homes or council meetings and promised violence for them and their families until they resigned, which most of them then did - are horrifying.
Once the levers and organisations of state and society had been fully captured, the existence of semi-detached paramilitary power became a liabilty rather than asset, and an unwelcome alternative source of power, since the ability then existed (and the obstacles had been removed) to deploy violence under direct state control, and send many centre and left wing politicians off for a spell in Dachau.
With his demonic political instincts Hitler was smart enough to know that the SA had outlived its usefulness and no longer fitted in with the brave new Reich. Non-demented Trump might have realised shooting white US citizens in plain sight looks really bad, now not so much. Miller, Vance, Noem, Bondi et al have dipped their hands in so much blood that they're fully committed, any pause or retreat might result in legal examination. The enthusiastic support for the Nazis from big business is the biggest refutation of the idiots' cry 'but they were socialists!'. The tech bros falling into line with Trump is yet another startling parallel.
Elon Musk @elonmusk Hitler was a far left socialist. His party was called the national socialists.
What's going on in the US doesn't, yet at least, look like a concerted attempt to take on and dismantle the sources of opposition power, as happened in Germany in a remarkably determined way and in an amazingly short space of time (and without even majority power, to begin with).
Insofar as it makes sense, it appears to be some mix of, an attempt to influence the media agenda by pushing immigration and tackling crime to the fore - issues that the Republicans expect to play to their advantage; an attempt to trigger counter-protest in the hope that this will over-react and do more damage to the left than the original injustice does to the right, and playing to their base living in small rural communities far away from the US cities who probably have less understanding of US city life than we do, who will simply see 'their' government "finally getting tough".
It's also about voter suppression. Non-white citizens and others are scared to go outside in Minnesota right now. If you can achieve that effect on voting day, you achieve big swings to the Republicans.
How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it
I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.
They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!
Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.
Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...
I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.
Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".
Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.
As I think I have said before, whilst I am not the greatest fan of Carr's comedy, I do think he makes valuable contributions to the debate on modern life and where it has gone wrong (and right). I may not always agree with him - though mostly I do - but I value his ability to provide thoughtful, informed and considered analysis of the modern condition.
Carr is no pure libertarian either and has emphasised the importance of community institutions from pubs to churches and accused Labour of abandoning the working class
He's difficult to pigeon hole. He's certainly funny, and clever. He has also become something of a guru. I'm not sure that necessarily a great thing. Should you be looking to Stand Ups for a direction in life?
Patrick Maguire @patrickkmaguire · 15m Several sources telling me anti-Burnham camp have the numbers...
Crazy . Just let the guy stand which is the least worst option .
Not to the clique.
Losing control of the Party is the worst option and the only one that counts to them.
SKS will be replaced by a fellow traveller in 2026 my money on Mahmood beating Streeting and Rayner
I wonder if the best way of keeping control of the party is to run the country really well having chosen a top team of great talent, to have a plan and communicate it brilliantly to the country and to your own MPs so that they know their best chance of being re-elected is to keep you in place? Is it worth at least a try?
How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it
I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.
They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!
Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.
Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...
I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.
Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".
Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.
As I think I have said before, whilst I am not the greatest fan of Carr's comedy, I do think he makes valuable contributions to the debate on modern life and where it has gone wrong (and right). I may not always agree with him - though mostly I do - but I value his ability to provide thoughtful, informed and considered analysis of the modern condition.
I would happily pay for him to talk seriously. Have no interest in paying to watch his stand up.
I would not piss on him if he was on fire , totally unfunny and only equalled by Corden.
I'm thinking that the ABV of your urine might possibly make the fire worse?
This last week I have been in my bed ill, have very bad UTI , some horrible virus and on antibiotics etc so ABV = 0
On the merits he's already got a job as mayor so do your job.
On the politics it's constant Labour division process stories if he wins and rancour if he loses because he'll blame the other factions.
Just say no. Why would they say yes?
Because Starmer is disliked by lots of people, and those people have decided in various (probably contradictory) ways that Andy will give them the things that Keir has denied them.
There's also a bit of the argument for Boris in 2019; Andy/Boris going to keep causing trouble until he gets what he wants, so if we give it to him maybe we will get five minutes peace and quiet.
The wider (because it's a pattern) question is why we value really wanting the job (to the extent of causing trouble for the party) above likelihood to do the job well? Gordon, Boris, Liz, now Andy ..
I expected the vote to be closer than that 8 to 1 with Mahmood abstaining.
Champagne Shami was on LK this morning insisting he should be allowed to stand - the NEC vote doesn't represent the party and is merely further evidence of how Starmer and his allies have the party machinery under their thumb.
On the merits he's already got a job as mayor so do your job.
On the politics it's constant Labour division process stories if he wins and rancour if he loses because he'll blame the other factions.
Just say no. Why would they say yes?
Because Starmer is disliked by lots of people, and those people have decided in various (probably contradictory) ways that Andy will give them the things that Keir has denied them.
There's also a bit of the argument for Boris in 2019; Andy/Boris going to keep causing trouble until he gets what he wants, so if we give it to him maybe we will get five minutes peace and quiet.
The wider (because it's a pattern) question is why we value really wanting the job (to the extent of causing trouble for the party) above likelihood to do the job well? Gordon, Boris, Liz, now Andy ..
Boris did win the Tories a majority in 2019 they wouldn't have got otherwise
Labour's risk now is that if both Green and Reform put up high profile candidates, despite their starting with a massive majority in the seat they could be written out of the central story of this by-election
On the merits he's already got a job as mayor so do your job.
On the politics it's constant Labour division process stories if he wins and rancour if he loses because he'll blame the other factions.
Just say no. Why would they say yes?
Starmer will look feeble and weak if he bars him, he will be finished the remaining circling sharks will have his guts for garters. Let bad thing he can do is wave it through and give Burnham a plum job, dump the likes of Lamentable or Reeves
PS: I seem to be behind the curve , they stupidly take the worst possible option and prove that Starmer and cronies are even more stupid than we thought.
Labour's risk now is that if both Green and Reform put up high profile candidates, despite their starting with a massive majority in the seat they could be written out of the central story of this by-election
Burnham must now surely be secretly hoping Reform or the Greens win the Gorton by election and Starmer and the NEC are humiliated
The World is on fire and Burnham (appropriate name) is playing dick head Johnsonian petty politics. He can f*** off and I hope he loses Manchester to the Greens in 2028.
Burnham must now surely be secretly hoping Reform or the Greens win the Gorton by election and Starmer and the NEC are humiliated
The World is on fire and Burnham (appropriate name) is playing dick head Johnsonian petty politics. He can f*** off and I hope he loses Manchester to the Greens in 2028.
He won't, the Burnham faction will now be gunning for revenge and to get rid of Starmer by the next general election
Burnham leaves Labour, forms a splitter party and the govt loses its majority, precipitating a spring election, where Big Nige romps home. And then I woke up.
Burnham leaves Labour, forms a splitter party and the govt loses its majority, precipitating a spring election, where Big Nige romps home. And then I woke up.
He won't, Burnham wants to be Labour leader and the vast majority of Labour members in polls want that too
Burnham must now surely be secretly hoping Reform or the Greens win the Gorton by election and Starmer and the NEC are humiliated
The World is on fire and Burnham (appropriate name) is playing dick head Johnsonian petty politics. He can f*** off and I hope he loses Manchester to the Greens in 2028.
He won't, the Burnham faction will now be gunning for revenge and to get rid of Starmer by the next general election
How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it
I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.
They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!
Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.
Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...
I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.
Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".
Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.
As I think I have said before, whilst I am not the greatest fan of Carr's comedy, I do think he makes valuable contributions to the debate on modern life and where it has gone wrong (and right). I may not always agree with him - though mostly I do - but I value his ability to provide thoughtful, informed and considered analysis of the modern condition.
I would happily pay for him to talk seriously. Have no interest in paying to watch his stand up.
I would not piss on him if he was on fire , totally unfunny and only equalled by Corden.
I'm thinking that the ABV of your urine might possibly make the fire worse?
This last week I have been in my bed ill, have very bad UTI , some horrible virus and on antibiotics etc so ABV = 0
You've kept posting though; well done. Best wishes for recovery.
Although, perchance, you've been a little more short-tempered than usual?
Burnham must now surely be secretly hoping Reform or the Greens win the Gorton by election and Starmer and the NEC are humiliated
The World is on fire and Burnham (appropriate name) is playing dick head Johnsonian petty politics. He can f*** off and I hope he loses Manchester to the Greens in 2028.
He won't, the Burnham faction will now be gunning for revenge and to get rid of Starmer by the next general election
On the merits he's already got a job as mayor so do your job.
On the politics it's constant Labour division process stories if he wins and rancour if he loses because he'll blame the other factions.
Just say no. Why would they say yes?
Because Starmer is disliked by lots of people, and those people have decided in various (probably contradictory) ways that Andy will give them the things that Keir has denied them.
There's also a bit of the argument for Boris in 2019; Andy/Boris going to keep causing trouble until he gets what he wants, so if we give it to him maybe we will get five minutes peace and quiet.
The wider (because it's a pattern) question is why we value really wanting the job (to the extent of causing trouble for the party) above likelihood to do the job well? Gordon, Boris, Liz, now Andy ..
Boris did win the Tories a majority in 2019 they wouldn't have got otherwise
Possibly the last one ever, though.
And given BoJo's role in creating the problems he promised to solve, he no more deserves our gratitude than Howard Kirk did.
Labour's risk now is that if both Green and Reform put up high profile candidates, despite their starting with a massive majority in the seat they could be written out of the central story of this by-election
Patrick Maguire @patrickkmaguire · 15m Several sources telling me anti-Burnham camp have the numbers...
Crazy . Just let the guy stand which is the least worst option .
Not to the clique.
Losing control of the Party is the worst option and the only one that counts to them.
SKS will be replaced by a fellow traveller in 2026 my money on Mahmood beating Streeting and Rayner
I'm struggling to see any real benefit to Starmer in letting Burnham run.
Sure, there will be howls of outrage if he's blocked. But he's blocked many before (and turfed Corbynites out of the NEC) and weathered that too.
You're right that they put party control, conformity and obedience above all, and won't lose much sleep at having shut out a potential cause of political problems down the road. As they've done lots of times before.
The big - and really, only - question is whether publicly blocking Burnham makes a Green (or Reform) win at the by-election a possibility? For the Greens in particular, the momentum they could get from a stunning win could knock directly on into the cities in May, and I'm sceptical that Labour can hold the by-election off until the locals.
It almost certainly does, and I suspect the Greens would win because there are more progressive voters in the constituency than one for Reform and, for a government this unpopular, Labour won't otherwise do it.
But, by-election impacts can be overrated, as the LDs will tell you. Labour are in real trouble in the locals in May anyway, and Burnham running lowers their treasure chest for that by c.£1m due to the need to then refight the mayoralty.
How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it
I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.
They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!
Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.
Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...
I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.
Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".
Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.
As I think I have said before, whilst I am not the greatest fan of Carr's comedy, I do think he makes valuable contributions to the debate on modern life and where it has gone wrong (and right). I may not always agree with him - though mostly I do - but I value his ability to provide thoughtful, informed and considered analysis of the modern condition.
I would happily pay for him to talk seriously. Have no interest in paying to watch his stand up.
I would not piss on him if he was on fire , totally unfunny and only equalled by Corden.
I'm thinking that the ABV of your urine might possibly make the fire worse?
This last week I have been in my bed ill, have very bad UTI , some horrible virus and on antibiotics etc so ABV = 0
You've kept posting though; well done. Best wishes for recovery.
Although, perchance, you've been a little more short-tempered than usual?
Labour's risk now is that if both Green and Reform put up high profile candidates, despite their starting with a massive majority in the seat they could be written out of the central story of this by-election
'Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said she initially joined the Conservatives for the "party aspect of it - socialising, drinks, hanging out with other young people".
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, Badenoch said that after university all her friends had "gone all over the world" and she thought joining the party would be "a fun thing to do".
She met her husband through her membership of the Conservatives and dedicated one of her record picks - Wet Wet Wet's Love is All Around - to him.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkrrknxe08o
Off topic, this from Freedman on the travails of government is interesting:
Quarter of a century ago, Professor Michael Moran came up with the concept of the “regulatory state” to describe the way British government works. He has since passed away but no one has yet produced a better analysis. Nor have many politicians engaged with his ideas, which is a shame because without doing so it’s hard to understand why we are where we are. His argument was that until the 1970s Britain was run like a London club with minimal regulatory oversight. Professions like medicine and finance were self-regulated. Public services had almost no accountability to central government. Private businesses were barely regulated at all. Nor was there any social regulation, like protection of disability rights. Though the state did a lot, Whitehall didn’t.
This form of “club governance” fell apart across a series of crises in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, from the collapse of Barings Bank to the mad cow disease scandal. Margaret Thatcher also wanted to use the power of government to attack what she saw as low quality taxpayer funded services and inadequate oversight of left-wing public sector workforces. The great myth of Thatcherism is that it was all about making the state smaller whereas, while it reduced capacity at local government level, it made Whitehall a lot larger and more powerful.
After 1997 New Labour added more oversight of the private sector and social regulation to enforce their human rights legislation. Collectively this led to the creation of a regulatory state without that ever being the intention. An enormous surveillance apparatus was created in an ad hoc fashion. We now have bodies that regulate the professions; that inspect hospitals, schools and other services; that oversee privatised utilities; and try to protect the vulnerable. Across government there are now almost a hundred regulators, and hundreds more public bodies many of which have a quasi-regulatory responsibility, for instance running school assessment or managing public complaints about the NHS. DEFRA alone works with 34 different agencies and public bodies.
But the creation of this apparatus was not accompanied by any change in the way politicians manage their departments. That has stayed as it was in the club government days, which has created a massive disconnect between expectations of politicians and what they can actually achieve.
That's very good.
Freedman's book "Failed state: Why nothing works and how we fix it", which I've recommended here before, is well worth a read, despite being much stronger on why nothing works than on how we fix it.
The above extract is from a paywalled article, so it would be wrong to paste much more of it, but Freedman goes on to argue that each government tries to tackle the problem by slapping new bodies or levers on top of what's already there, rather than changing anything fundamental. And that state capacity at every level below Westminster is so denuded that many of the things Westminster tries to achieve at the centre simply cannot be delivered out in the localities. The direction of his solutions - toward increasing local capacity and devolving the power to tackle problems - is one that I agree with, but as he observes, national politicians are always schizophrenic towards decentralisation, understanding it conceptually, but ultimately unwilling to cede their own power - even though it's often illusory. As he says, "Any serious attempt to rewire the state needs to focus on the disconnects between power and capacity rather than power per se. "
It would be a stronger argument if he had noted that several of the bodies he cites as evidence of New Labour regulatory creep began under Thatcher (e.g. OFWAT, OFGAS and OFFER, now OFGEM) and Major (OFSTED).
But Freedman has always been rather prone to fitting facts to his theories. It's one reason why his time in education at the DfE and TeachFirst was a disaster.
It appears the King sent a private note to Trump over his comments on Afghanistan and it prompted Trumps U turn
Look at what Trump said carefully. There is no U turn. No taking back of the detail in any respect of what he saud before. Just as there is no apology. The press have not covered this properly.
They've pretty much treated it like the apology it isn't.
Burnham must now surely be secretly hoping Reform or the Greens win the Gorton by election and Starmer and the NEC are humiliated
You might see him out canvassing. There's such a thing as swallowing disappointment and coming to the aid of the party.
Oh I suspect he may turn out for a couple of hours when the cameras are they to demonstrate no hard feelings. But I can't see it being more than the absolute minimum.
Labour's risk now is that if both Green and Reform put up high profile candidates, despite their starting with a massive majority in the seat they could be written out of the central story of this by-election
Great news for us Greens.
Hope Zack stands now and wins
6/1 was a great price
Real fun and games would be Burnham standing - for the Greens.
'Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said she initially joined the Conservatives for the "party aspect of it - socialising, drinks, hanging out with other young people".
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, Badenoch said that after university all her friends had "gone all over the world" and she thought joining the party would be "a fun thing to do".
She met her husband through her membership of the Conservatives and dedicated one of her record picks - Wet Wet Wet's Love is All Around - to him.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkrrknxe08o
Exotic travel, sea, sunshine and partying...or signing up with the Conservative Party? What a choice!
Labour's risk now is that if both Green and Reform put up high profile candidates, despite their starting with a massive majority in the seat they could be written out of the central story of this by-election
Great news for us Greens.
Hope Zack stands now and wins
6/1 was a great price
Real fun and games would be Burnham standing - for the Greens.
Not sure Zack's ego would be up for it though.
Burnham is too blokey to be a Green, he will stay being Manchester Mayor and remain the Prince across the Water for Labour
Off topic, this from Freedman on the travails of government is interesting:
Quarter of a century ago, Professor Michael Moran came up with the concept of the “regulatory state” to describe the way British government works. He has since passed away but no one has yet produced a better analysis. Nor have many politicians engaged with his ideas, which is a shame because without doing so it’s hard to understand why we are where we are. His argument was that until the 1970s Britain was run like a London club with minimal regulatory oversight. Professions like medicine and finance were self-regulated. Public services had almost no accountability to central government. Private businesses were barely regulated at all. Nor was there any social regulation, like protection of disability rights. Though the state did a lot, Whitehall didn’t.
This form of “club governance” fell apart across a series of crises in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, from the collapse of Barings Bank to the mad cow disease scandal. Margaret Thatcher also wanted to use the power of government to attack what she saw as low quality taxpayer funded services and inadequate oversight of left-wing public sector workforces. The great myth of Thatcherism is that it was all about making the state smaller whereas, while it reduced capacity at local government level, it made Whitehall a lot larger and more powerful.
After 1997 New Labour added more oversight of the private sector and social regulation to enforce their human rights legislation. Collectively this led to the creation of a regulatory state without that ever being the intention. An enormous surveillance apparatus was created in an ad hoc fashion. We now have bodies that regulate the professions; that inspect hospitals, schools and other services; that oversee privatised utilities; and try to protect the vulnerable. Across government there are now almost a hundred regulators, and hundreds more public bodies many of which have a quasi-regulatory responsibility, for instance running school assessment or managing public complaints about the NHS. DEFRA alone works with 34 different agencies and public bodies.
But the creation of this apparatus was not accompanied by any change in the way politicians manage their departments. That has stayed as it was in the club government days, which has created a massive disconnect between expectations of politicians and what they can actually achieve.
That's very good.
Freedman's book "Failed state: Why nothing works and how we fix it", which I've recommended here before, is well worth a read, despite being much stronger on why nothing works than on how we fix it.
The above extract is from a paywalled article, so it would be wrong to paste much more of it, but Freedman goes on to argue that each government tries to tackle the problem by slapping new bodies or levers on top of what's already there, rather than changing anything fundamental. And that state capacity at every level below Westminster is so denuded that many of the things Westminster tries to achieve at the centre simply cannot be delivered out in the localities. The direction of his solutions - toward increasing local capacity and devolving the power to tackle problems - is one that I agree with, but as he observes, national politicians are always schizophrenic towards decentralisation, understanding it conceptually, but ultimately unwilling to cede their own power - even though it's often illusory. As he says, "Any serious attempt to rewire the state needs to focus on the disconnects between power and capacity rather than power per se. "
It would be a stronger argument if he had noted that several of the bodies he cites as evidence of New Labour regulatory creep began under Thatcher (e.g. OFWAT, OFGAS and OFFER, now OFGEM) and Major (OFSTED).
But Freedman has always been rather prone to fitting facts to his theories. It's one reason why his time in education at the DfE and TeachFirst was a disaster.
TBF from his whole piece he does deposit a significant part of the blame on the Tories post-1979
Comments
Any idea when the writ will be moved, when is the Gorton contest likely to be held? What a laugh it would be if GG has to campaign simultaneously in Gorton and Scotland
You'd expect GG to target Muslim voters, but he will be fishing in the same pool as the Greens and Reform for chunks of his vote. I wouldn't go against Burnham coming through the middle (if he is nominated as candidate)
Looking forward to hearing what those with local knowledge make of it all
I suspect Burnham would be better than Starmer. But if he doesn't have a tight grip on party factions he might face being ousted himself if he doesn't dance to the desire of left wing backbenchers.
Would be cleaner to put him out of his misery today mind
You need a central repository of operating principles, guidelines, data standards, best practice and expertise available to all devolved entities.
Then local entities can make decisions appropriate to local circumstances, with the added benefit that these decisions will be locally owned. The decision would be local to make, but could be checked centrally for consistency.
Devolution within a light global framework.
If all the elections were simultaneous, it would be amusing to see Scotland, Wales and Gorton competing over telling Starmer to stay away.
GG not me neither
Top 1% by income is a bit over £200k.
He's onto something important with the idea that there ought to be such a thing as society, and it's absence is causing problems, especially for young men.
The problem, as always, is how to balance the me and the we, and how to pay for it.
Not now of course.
@patrickkmaguire
·
15m
Several sources telling me anti-Burnham camp have the numbers...
Andy Burnham has not been a supporter of the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). While there is speculation about his potential involvement with the Labour Party, there is no specific indication that he is a supporter of the LFI in the provided results.
Hence why he will be barred today or Tuesday
Control is all they care about.
Not a signed up Red Tory? no job here mate.
He is not the first president to treat critics as enemies of the state. In 1798, under John Adams, the Alien and Sedition Acts criminalised “false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government. More than a century later, during and after the first world war, Woodrow Wilson’s administration jailed and deported dissidents, censored the press and tolerated mob violence against those deemed “un-American”. In each case repression was described as lawful and necessary, in the name of security, order and patriotism—language heard again today.
Nor is this the first time that America has suffered an erosion of norms about how power is exercised and defeat is accepted. After the civil war Andrew Johnson blocked civil rights for freed slaves and undermined Reconstruction, for a while hollowing out democracy in the South. Watergate revealed how law-enforcement and intelligence agencies could be bent to partisan ends, and how democracy depends on officials and reporters who refuse to play along. In both cases decency ultimately survived because Americans chose to defend it.
And if America often feels as if it is on the brink—struggling to cope with a polarised public—it has been there before, too. The country’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, proved too weak to hold the republic together, nearly leading to collapse. Its successor papered over slavery with compromise and euphemism, postponing a reckoning that would come through civil war. In the 1930s the Depression exposed a political system ill-equipped to deal with mass unemployment. More recently, an election decided by the Supreme Court in 2000 showed how heavily the system relies on good faith and restraint, qualities that are now in much shorter supply.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/25/ai-generated-british-schoolgirl-becomes-far-right-social-media-meme?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Lucy Powell should intervene but she is too weak
Losing control of the Party is the worst option and the only one that counts to them.
SKS will be replaced by a fellow traveller in 2026 my money on Mahmood beating Streeting and Rayner
Sure, there will be howls of outrage if he's blocked. But he's blocked many before (and turfed Corbynites out of the NEC) and weathered that too.
Party selection currently rests upon some mix of candidates' time-serving activity of having toiled away for the party, and conformance with the ideological peccadillos of the selection committee, which for the Tories has increasingly meant the ERG agenda. Ablity or competence doesn't really figure.
Of course, attempts to short-cut this with supposedly talent-based imposition of candidates from the centre, notably Cameron's A-list, had mixed success, bringing a few younger genuinely talented people into parliament along with a fair few oddballs and primadonnas.
It seems silly to have to give up that post before hand .
The big - and really, only - question is whether publicly blocking Burnham makes a Green (or Reform) win at the by-election a possibility? For the Greens in particular, the momentum they could get from a stunning win could knock directly on into the cities in May, and I'm sceptical that Labour can hold the by-election off until the locals.
https://news.sky.com/story/almost-two-in-three-labour-members-back-burnham-over-starmer-for-leader-poll-show-13441078
On the merits he's already got a job as mayor so do your job.
On the politics it's constant Labour division process stories if he wins and rancour if he loses because he'll blame the other factions.
Just say no. Why would they say yes?
Civil war in Labour incoming? Reform must now fancy their chances if an all BAME shortlist imposed in Gorton instead
There's also a bit of the argument for Boris in 2019; Andy/Boris going to keep causing trouble until he gets what he wants, so if we give it to him maybe we will get five minutes peace and quiet.
The wider (because it's a pattern) question is why we value really wanting the job (to the extent of causing trouble for the party) above likelihood to do the job well? Gordon, Boris, Liz, now Andy ..
Broad church!!
@DPJHodges
·
3m
Let's see how this "Power Move" looks the day after the Gorton and Denton by-election...
PS:
I seem to be behind the curve , they stupidly take the worst possible option and prove that Starmer and cronies are even more stupid than we thought.
I want to bet on Zack now.
Hope Zack stands now and wins
6/1 was a great price
On balance, although this is an awful stitch up, I think it might be right decision.
Weak as dishwater
You have totally lost it
Starmer looks weak and frightened to make a case for his leadership. I wasn’t a fan of Burnham but supported him being allowed to stand.
Although, perchance, you've been a little more short-tempered than usual?
And given BoJo's role in creating the problems he promised to solve, he no more deserves our gratitude than Howard Kirk did.
I think if Zack stands he wins.
But, by-election impacts can be overrated, as the LDs will tell you. Labour are in real trouble in the locals in May anyway, and Burnham running lowers their treasure chest for that by c.£1m due to the need to then refight the mayoralty.
And I suspect they will - few people are going to go out and vote for Labour's second best candidate...
6/1 didn't last long.
You might see him out canvassing. There's such a thing as swallowing disappointment and coming to the aid of the party.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, Badenoch said that after university all her friends had "gone all over the world" and she thought joining the party would be "a fun thing to do".
She met her husband through her membership of the Conservatives and dedicated one of her record picks - Wet Wet Wet's Love is All Around - to him.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkrrknxe08o
Least surprising decision ever.
But Freedman has always been rather prone to fitting facts to his theories. It's one reason why his time in education at the DfE and TeachFirst was a disaster.
Mexican Pete says he can F**k off
Paid up tosser
Or on your typo
Not sure Zack's ego would be up for it though.
I expect labour to lose this by election now
Come on you 💚
NEW THREAD