Am I right in thinking everybody who wants to stand need 81 MPs? So there is really only room for 3 candidates?
Starmer doesn't need 81 MPs but anyone else does, yes.
If Burnham wins the by-election, I can't see anyone other than him getting 81 nominations unless Starmer stands down. So we're most likely looking at a straight Starmer v Burnham membership ballot.
Miliband and Streeting have a fair bit of support.
Miliband won't stand against Burnham. He'll back him and probably be hoping for CoE. But Streeting is different matter. Streeting v Burnham is possible IMO. It would be that or a Burnham coronation.
Unless Burnham loses the byelection - which he might - in which case I think we're looking at Streeting v Miliband or Rayner.
Despite what he says I don't think Starmer will run in any leadership contest if it comes to it.
Starmer would run against Streeting and still probably beat him, he wouldn't run against Burnham now, as if Burnham beats Reform in this by election he is clearly Labour's Messiah in waiting anyway
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
That's not how gifts are treated. If it was genuinely a gift, and not part of an exchange, then it wouldn't be taxable. For example, many parents gift their children money to help buy a house. This isn't taxable because it's a gift, the relationship between giver and receiver isn't relevant, except insofar as it makes it more believable that it's a gift than when the giver and receiver are a crypto-billionaire tax exile and a politician.
Is there not a threshold on gifts, though?
There's an annual threshold on gifts that are exempt from inheritance tax if the giver dies within seven years of the gift being given.
So, if I give my daughter a gift of £1,000 this year and die next year she won't pay any inheritance tax on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die next year then there will be inheritance tax* to pay on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die in 2034 then there's no inheritance tax on the gift.
* Actually not, because I live in Ireland, and there's no inheritance tax in Ireland, but instead a tax on the recipient, which means that gifts are liable for tax, with a variety of allowances depending on who you receive the gift from. This means my daughter's inheritance from me will escape tax (my estate won't pay tax and she won't pay tax either) but any inheritance I receive from my Dad will be taxed twice, if the amounts are large enough (once on the estate in Britain, and again on my receipt in Ireland. I should probably let my Dad know so he can pass most of it on to my daughter directly).
Is inheritence tax covered by double taxation rules? Would any inheritence tax you pay in the UK be used to offset any tax liability in Ireland as it would if it were income?
That's an interesting question. Would the quid pro quo be some inheritance tax to pay to avoid the double negative? I guess I'll have to look into that.
Ah yes. There's a credit for inheritance tax paid in the UK against any capital acquisition tax payable in Ireland - but the quid pro quo is that they will charge capital acquisition tax in Ireland where the recipient lives abroad.
Mr Burnham, make your first policy masts up to 30m in height as PD
Given how roughshod mobile phone companies have been putting masts up - nope you will put them in stupid places without any thought.
Gibberish. You can’t put up a new site without planning and approval.
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
You were asking for PD (Permitted Development) rights - which means bypassing planning as you well know.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
Yes they should allow masts under PD rights. What is your issue with them?
See my original reply to your first comment. That you then contracted by failing to grasp that you need planning and approval because you don't have PD rights while saying my post was gibberish.
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained that Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting - a potential Labour leadership challenger - has thrown his support behind Andy Burnham's bid to contest the Makerfield by-election. "We need our best players on the pitch. There is no doubt that Andy Burnham is one of them," he says on X. "The Makerfield by-election will be tough. Votes will need to be earned. Andy is the best chance of winning and that should override factional advantage or propping up one person."..
Amidst the whirl of politics, KC3 went to Golders Green and was almost mobbed by anxious but happy Jewish people. Grateful for his presence. Imagine a Labour prime minister trying to do this. Oh wait he did and was screamed at
“Today, in response to a series of smaller attacks on Jews, our British monarch has just taken on a role as patron of the Community Security Trust. He has visited this site of an attempted massacre to shake hands with a traumatised and fearful Jewish community. He has, in short, behaved like a mensch. His visit tells a different story about how British institutions and leaders relate to this country’s Jewish community.”
Terrifying polling on Muslim views in France, UK, Germany
Summarised here:
Depending on the country of origin and destination: ~10-40% of Muslims are moderate & well integrated ~20-50% are conservative, religious, pious ~25% are fundamentalists ~Of which 15% (pp) are radical Islamists
(Though I'm skeptical of a lot of it. For example he talks about how many Muslims want to impose aspects of Sharia Law, without properly identifying which of the 57 or more versions of Sharia Law he means. He also seems to have a lot of what I would term "USA assumptions" - trying to overanalyse.)
And the numbers above in the tweet do not seem very compatible with a community Mosque attendance number of around 25% weekly in the UK.
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained thaf Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Theo Bartram (ex-Brown aide iirc) was pointing on X earlier that no one in Labour had worked in the City or shown much interest in how they work but also that it was the same the other way. He thinks both need to start seriously speaking to each other
Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting - a potential Labour leadership challenger - has thrown his support behind Andy Burnham's bid to contest the Makerfield by-election. "We need our best players on the pitch. There is no doubt that Andy Burnham is one of them," he says on X. "The Makerfield by-election will be tough. Votes will need to be earned. Andy is the best chance of winning and that should override factional advantage or propping up one person."..
Mr Burnham, make your first policy masts up to 30m in height as PD
Given how roughshod mobile phone companies have been putting masts up - nope you will put them in stupid places without any thought.
Gibberish. You can’t put up a new site without planning and approval.
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
You were asking for PD (Permitted Development) rights - which means bypassing planning as you well know.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
Yes they should allow masts under PD rights. What is your issue with them?
See my original reply to your first comment. That you then contracted by failing to grasp that you need planning and approval because you don't have PD rights while saying my post was gibberish.
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
NEW masts require proper permission, replacing or upgrading existing ones in effect don’t in practice.
Why is masts towering over local homes an issue? Lots of things are tall, like flats, or pylons. Who cares?
Sterling knocking a bit lower too. Reeves taking over as both PM and Chancellor would probably calm the markets, I think the u-turns were called for by her boss - economically she knew what had to be done but had the political instincts of a gnat.
Amidst the whirl of politics, KC3 went to Golders Green and was almost mobbed by anxious but happy Jewish people. Grateful for his presence. Imagine a Labour prime minister trying to do this. Oh wait he did and was screamed at
“Today, in response to a series of smaller attacks on Jews, our British monarch has just taken on a role as patron of the Community Security Trust. He has visited this site of an attempted massacre to shake hands with a traumatised and fearful Jewish community. He has, in short, behaved like a mensch. His visit tells a different story about how British institutions and leaders relate to this country’s Jewish community.”
Charles showing more leadership that Starmer in the US and at home right now. It must be very grating for Labour.
Why would it be grating for Labour? The King is doing his job as head of state. His speech in the US will certainly have been written with substantial government input. Being able to do this kind of subtle diplomacy abroad and non partisan unifying stuff at home is precisely why having a constitutional monarchy is so great.
Obvious point to make - but the monarchy is designed to be a unifying force - and it's certainly in its interests to be seen as such. Politicians, not so much.
KCIII has always, and sensibly, made a point of reaching out to minorities, of whatever type. In general, this attention is greatly appreciated, as you can see by the line-up of beaming community reps at royal visits. Helps to bind the nation in a way which, say, a President Farage is unlikely to achieve. Of course, "national treasures", like David Attenborough might do equally well but these kind of people are invariably keen monarchists anyway.
I never liked Prince Charles. I regard him as not particularly bright, and apparently he can be difficult. However I think part of his issues was waiting for the main gig for 50 years. He seems to have become brilliant at being the monarch, and I can respect him for that, even though I am a republican at heart.
Outlier view, I know, but I think he's an upgrade on the previous monarch.
I think Charles is great. I've been a fan since before the Monstrous Glass Stump, on which I half-agreed with him, though I'm not sure that a postmodern Liquorice Allsort with a roof garden was as much of an improvement as could be managed.
He's had the willingness and the wherewithal to ask questions and experiment. He's a public intellectual and a philosopher king !
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
We can safely say Farage wasn't being "careless" in recieving the £5 million from the foreign crypto trader, which is Neidle's allegation against Rayner contrary to the HMRC finding.
And on that £5 million: crucial context:
Peter Mandelson was sacked from the first New Labour government for having a £373,000 *loan* (not a gift) from a Labour colleague (Geoffrey Robinson) to buy a house
If you totted up the sums for every financial scandal in British politics (£2k per parliamentary question for cash-for-questions, £200k for Johnson’s No 10 renovation, the cost of that very nice campervan) even with second tier stuff like Rayner and Polanski, would you get close to £5mn *in total*?
Mr Burnham, make your first policy masts up to 30m in height as PD
Given how roughshod mobile phone companies have been putting masts up - nope you will put them in stupid places without any thought.
Gibberish. You can’t put up a new site without planning and approval.
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
You were asking for PD (Permitted Development) rights - which means bypassing planning as you well know.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
Yes they should allow masts under PD rights. What is your issue with them?
See my original reply to your first comment. That you then contracted by failing to grasp that you need planning and approval because you don't have PD rights while saying my post was gibberish.
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
NEW masts require proper permission, replacing or upgrading existing ones in effect don’t in practice.
Why is masts towering over local homes an issue? Lots of things are tall, like flats, or pylons. Who cares?
Rather impacts house prices as people love a nice few without a 20m mast contained within it.
Mr Burnham, make your first policy masts up to 30m in height as PD
Given how roughshod mobile phone companies have been putting masts up - nope you will put them in stupid places without any thought.
Gibberish. You can’t put up a new site without planning and approval.
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
You were asking for PD (Permitted Development) rights - which means bypassing planning as you well know.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
Yes they should allow masts under PD rights. What is your issue with them?
See my original reply to your first comment. That you then contracted by failing to grasp that you need planning and approval because you don't have PD rights while saying my post was gibberish.
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
NEW masts require proper permission, replacing or upgrading existing ones in effect don’t in practice.
Why is masts towering over local homes an issue? Lots of things are tall, like flats, or pylons. Who cares?
Rather impacts house prices as people love a nice few without a 20m mast contained within it.
Why are we not building critical infrastructure on the basis of house prices?
In any case, good connectivity improves house prices, not decreases them. This has been shown time and time again.
Do you not think high quality phone signal and broadband is important?
Mr Burnham, make your first policy masts up to 30m in height as PD
Given how roughshod mobile phone companies have been putting masts up - nope you will put them in stupid places without any thought.
Gibberish. You can’t put up a new site without planning and approval.
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
You were asking for PD (Permitted Development) rights - which means bypassing planning as you well know.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
Yes they should allow masts under PD rights. What is your issue with them?
See my original reply to your first comment. That you then contracted by failing to grasp that you need planning and approval because you don't have PD rights while saying my post was gibberish.
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
NEW masts require proper permission, replacing or upgrading existing ones in effect don’t in practice.
Why is masts towering over local homes an issue? Lots of things are tall, like flats, or pylons. Who cares?
Why do you think the three most important things for house prices are location, location, location?
People want their house to be close to some things (but not too close) and not close to others. Of course people care.
The balance we have to strike is to give people a degree of control and influence over what gets built, and how it is built, in their area, but not so much control that it amounts to a veto.
Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting - a potential Labour leadership challenger - has thrown his support behind Andy Burnham's bid to contest the Makerfield by-election. "We need our best players on the pitch. There is no doubt that Andy Burnham is one of them," he says on X. "The Makerfield by-election will be tough. Votes will need to be earned. Andy is the best chance of winning and that should override factional advantage or propping up one person."..
Its a wierd thing to say.
This bloke has caused an unecessary by-election to be held and therefore I will be backing him because he is the best person to win it but might lose it.
Mr Burnham, make your first policy masts up to 30m in height as PD
Given how roughshod mobile phone companies have been putting masts up - nope you will put them in stupid places without any thought.
Gibberish. You can’t put up a new site without planning and approval.
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
You were asking for PD (Permitted Development) rights - which means bypassing planning as you well know.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
Yes they should allow masts under PD rights. What is your issue with them?
See my original reply to your first comment. That you then contracted by failing to grasp that you need planning and approval because you don't have PD rights while saying my post was gibberish.
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
NEW masts require proper permission, replacing or upgrading existing ones in effect don’t in practice.
Why is masts towering over local homes an issue? Lots of things are tall, like flats, or pylons. Who cares?
Rather impacts house prices as people love a nice few without a 20m mast contained within it.
Why are we not building critical infrastructure on the basis of house prices?
In any case, good connectivity improves house prices, not decreases them. This has been shown time and time again.
Do you not think high quality phone signal and broadband is important?
I saw where Vodafone wanted to put the mast for the M6 in South Cumbria - if you are that stupid the answer is Nope forever.
The mast would have been visible from Skipton - given that the hill is visible from Skipton..
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained thaf Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Theo Bartram (ex-Brown aide iirc) was pointing on X earlier that no one in Labour had worked in the City or shown much interest in how they work but also that it was the same the other way. He thinks both need to start seriously speaking to each other
Martin Sorel was on the radio this morning pointing out that prior to the election Labour did the whole thing of sitting down meeting business leaders to listen to them and discuss plans and then once in power have completely ignored everything they were told about how to get growth and help business.
So it’s all very well getting them to speak but when you have ideological imperatives such as increasing minimum wage or duff tax policies for example then the talking is pointless.
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained thaf Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Theo Bartram (ex-Brown aide iirc) was pointing on X earlier that no one in Labour had worked in the City or shown much interest in how they work but also that it was the same the other way. He thinks both need to start seriously speaking to each other
Martin Sorel was on the radio this morning pointing out that prior to the election Labour did the whole thing of sitting down meeting business leaders to listen to them and discuss plans and then once in power have completely ignored everything they were told about how to get growth and help business.
So it’s all very well getting them to speak but when you have ideological imperatives such as increasing minimum wage or duff tax policies for example then the talking is pointless.
After the Tories, we hoped for an improvement, but still the same.
Mr Burnham, make your first policy masts up to 30m in height as PD
Given how roughshod mobile phone companies have been putting masts up - nope you will put them in stupid places without any thought.
Gibberish. You can’t put up a new site without planning and approval.
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
You were asking for PD (Permitted Development) rights - which means bypassing planning as you well know.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
Yes they should allow masts under PD rights. What is your issue with them?
See my original reply to your first comment. That you then contracted by failing to grasp that you need planning and approval because you don't have PD rights while saying my post was gibberish.
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
NEW masts require proper permission, replacing or upgrading existing ones in effect don’t in practice.
Why is masts towering over local homes an issue? Lots of things are tall, like flats, or pylons. Who cares?
Rather impacts house prices as people love a nice few without a 20m mast contained within it.
Why are we not building critical infrastructure on the basis of house prices?
In any case, good connectivity improves house prices, not decreases them. This has been shown time and time again.
Do you not think high quality phone signal and broadband is important?
I saw where Vodafone wanted to put the mast for the M6 in South Cumbria - if you are that stupid the answer is Nope forever.
The mast would have been visible from Skipton - given that the hill is visible from Skipton..
So do you think coverage on a major motorway is not important?
Again, why does it matter if you can see it? Every mast is visible, they have to be.
Mr Burnham, make your first policy masts up to 30m in height as PD
Given how roughshod mobile phone companies have been putting masts up - nope you will put them in stupid places without any thought.
Gibberish. You can’t put up a new site without planning and approval.
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
You were asking for PD (Permitted Development) rights - which means bypassing planning as you well know.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
Yes they should allow masts under PD rights. What is your issue with them?
See my original reply to your first comment. That you then contracted by failing to grasp that you need planning and approval because you don't have PD rights while saying my post was gibberish.
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
NEW masts require proper permission, replacing or upgrading existing ones in effect don’t in practice.
Why is masts towering over local homes an issue? Lots of things are tall, like flats, or pylons. Who cares?
Why do you think the three most important things for house prices are location, location, location?
People want their house to be close to some things (but not too close) and not close to others. Of course people care.
The balance we have to strike is to give people a degree of control and influence over what gets built, and how it is built, in their area, but not so much control that it amounts to a veto.
At the moment unless you’re a muppet it’d obvious people get a veto.
I can see two masts from my window. They were both built in the early 2000s before it all got silly.
Yet a third was rejected on the development next to mine because of “visual intrusion”. This is South West London.
Streeting backs Burnham. This isn’t going to be a serious contest.
What has the King of the North offered Wes? I presume Big Ange is going to be brought back as deputy. So what does Wes get, CoE?
Deputy position is not in the gift of the leader.
Deputy PM is, not deputy leader i.e. David Lammy is currently deputy PM appointed by Starmer, Lucy Powell is deputy leader appointed by the membership against Starmer wishes.
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained thaf Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Theo Bartram (ex-Brown aide iirc) was pointing on X earlier that no one in Labour had worked in the City or shown much interest in how they work but also that it was the same the other way. He thinks both need to start seriously speaking to each other
Martin Sorel was on the radio this morning pointing out that prior to the election Labour did the whole thing of sitting down meeting business leaders to listen to them and discuss plans and then once in power have completely ignored everything they were told about how to get growth and help business.
So it’s all very well getting them to speak but when you have ideological imperatives such as increasing minimum wage or duff tax policies for example then the talking is pointless.
After the Tories, we hoped for an improvement, but still the same.
The lack of focus of our political class on steps that could be taken to improve growth and our balance of payments is painful and deeply damaging. They would so much prefer to talk and do something, anything, about anything else.
It's why I was interested in the relative success of Manchester in recent years. If Burnham has been willing to do the hard yards to contribute, or even not get in the way, of that he will be a breath of fresh air. We really, really need to start focusing on how things are going to be paid for as opposed to how we would like to spend the non existent money.
It’s silly that you have resign a mayoralty to fight a by-election .
If a shock happens and Burnham loses then Labour are screwed on two fronts . I can understand why some think it would be comedy gold if Burnham loses . I don’t get why he’s now seen as the next Messiah , I also find it deeply cynical for a politician to only now be bothered to re-enter Parliament because he expects a coronation. This is certainly not about him missing Commons life and it certainly won’t be about representing his constituents.
Unfortunately this by-election is taking on profound implications for the country , possibly the most consequential in recent history .
And my reservations about Burnham have to be put aside . I hope he can demolish Reform.
Am I right in thinking everybody who wants to stand need 81 MPs? So there is really only room for 3 candidates?
Starmer doesn't need 81 MPs but anyone else does, yes.
If Burnham wins the by-election, I can't see anyone other than him getting 81 nominations unless Starmer stands down. So we're most likely looking at a straight Starmer v Burnham membership ballot.
Miliband and Streeting have a fair bit of support.
Miliband won't stand against Burnham. He'll back him and probably be hoping for CoE. But Streeting is different matter. Streeting v Burnham is possible IMO. It would be that or a Burnham coronation.
Unless Burnham loses the byelection - which he might - in which case I think we're looking at Streeting v Miliband or Rayner.
Despite what he says I don't think Starmer will run in any leadership contest if it comes to it.
Starmer would run against Streeting and still probably beat him, he wouldn't run against Burnham now, as if Burnham beats Reform in this by election he is clearly Labour's Messiah in waiting anyway
But it wouldn't be just Streeting if Burnham fails. It would be Miliband/Rayner too. I don't think Starmer would run in that unless there's a big change in party sentiment over the next few weeks.
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained thaf Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Theo Bartram (ex-Brown aide iirc) was pointing on X earlier that no one in Labour had worked in the City or shown much interest in how they work but also that it was the same the other way. He thinks both need to start seriously speaking to each other
Martin Sorel was on the radio this morning pointing out that prior to the election Labour did the whole thing of sitting down meeting business leaders to listen to them and discuss plans and then once in power have completely ignored everything they were told about how to get growth and help business.
So it’s all very well getting them to speak but when you have ideological imperatives such as increasing minimum wage or duff tax policies for example then the talking is pointless.
After the Tories, we hoped for an improvement, but still the same.
The lack of focus of our political class on steps that could be taken to improve growth and our balance of payments is painful and deeply damaging. They would so much prefer to talk and do something, anything, about anything else.
It's why I was interested in the relative success of Manchester in recent years. If Burnham has been willing to do the hard yards to contribute, or even not get in the way, of that he will be a breath of fresh air. We really, really need to start focusing on how things are going to be paid for as opposed to how we would like to spend the non existent money.
It cost a bit in sunk costs, but I sometimes drive into Manchester and am glad he binned off the CAZ. A bit of practicality about the man.
A statement from the Guardian on Nigel Farage’s social media posts
The Guardian is concerned by the recent publication on Nigel Farage’s social media pages of the professional credentials of a photographer working on behalf of the Guardian while he was working lawfully in a public space. Holding public figures to account is the role of a free press.
Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting - a potential Labour leadership challenger - has thrown his support behind Andy Burnham's bid to contest the Makerfield by-election. "We need our best players on the pitch. There is no doubt that Andy Burnham is one of them," he says on X. "The Makerfield by-election will be tough. Votes will need to be earned. Andy is the best chance of winning and that should override factional advantage or propping up one person."..
Its a wierd thing to say.
This bloke has caused an unecessary by-election to be held and therefore I will be backing him because he is the best person to win it but might lose it.
"We need our best players on the pitch."is the slightly less nonsensical bit.
In any event, it's smart politics from Streeting if he doesn't want casting into the outer darkness, as and when he loses any leadership contest, in which his chances would be very far from certain.
And it's also smart, for anyone of the left who wants a united party, to accept the olive branch.
It’s silly that you have resign a mayoralty to fight a by-election .
If a shock happens and Burnham loses then Labour are screwed on two fronts . I can understand why some think it would be comedy gold if Burnham loses . I don’t get why he’s now seen as the next Messiah , I also find it deeply cynical for a politician to only now be bothered to re-enter Parliament because he expects a coronation. This is certainly not about him missing Commons life and it certainly won’t be about representing his constituents.
Unfortunately this by-election is taking on profound implications for the country , possibly the most consequential in recent history .
And my reservations about Burnham have to be put aside . I hope he can demolish Reform.
You don’t. If he loses the by-election he can stay as mayor
It’s silly that you have resign a mayoralty to fight a by-election .
If a shock happens and Burnham loses then Labour are screwed on two fronts . I can understand why some think it would be comedy gold if Burnham loses . I don’t get why he’s now seen as the next Messiah , I also find it deeply cynical for a politician to only now be bothered to re-enter Parliament because he expects a coronation. This is certainly not about him missing Commons life and it certainly won’t be about representing his constituents.
Unfortunately this by-election is taking on profound implications for the country , possibly the most consequential in recent history .
And my reservations about Burnham have to be put aside . I hope he can demolish Reform.
Hang on. He tried to be candidate for Gorton and Denton many months ago.
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained thaf Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Theo Bartram (ex-Brown aide iirc) was pointing on X earlier that no one in Labour had worked in the City or shown much interest in how they work but also that it was the same the other way. He thinks both need to start seriously speaking to each other
Martin Sorel was on the radio this morning pointing out that prior to the election Labour did the whole thing of sitting down meeting business leaders to listen to them and discuss plans and then once in power have completely ignored everything they were told about how to get growth and help business.
So it’s all very well getting them to speak but when you have ideological imperatives such as increasing minimum wage or duff tax policies for example then the talking is pointless.
After the Tories, we hoped for an improvement, but still the same.
The lack of focus of our political class on steps that could be taken to improve growth and our balance of payments is painful and deeply damaging. They would so much prefer to talk and do something, anything, about anything else.
It's why I was interested in the relative success of Manchester in recent years. If Burnham has been willing to do the hard yards to contribute, or even not get in the way, of that he will be a breath of fresh air. We really, really need to start focusing on how things are going to be paid for as opposed to how we would like to spend the non existent money.
I think that focus on business, and getting things done, is what is behind the high regard that Ben Houchen is held in Teesside.
It's why it is truly dismal that we have five more years of the SNP in Scotland, who have not shown the slightest interest in the economy or business since, at least, Salmond. The political strategy is giveaways, and feeding the welfare bill. The "economic strategy" is find a "rich" person and increase his taxes. It does keep a certain voting bloc onside, so successful in that regard, but a massive missed opportunity given the potential of Scotland. Labour no better, really.
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained thaf Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Theo Bartram (ex-Brown aide iirc) was pointing on X earlier that no one in Labour had worked in the City or shown much interest in how they work but also that it was the same the other way. He thinks both need to start seriously speaking to each other
Martin Sorel was on the radio this morning pointing out that prior to the election Labour did the whole thing of sitting down meeting business leaders to listen to them and discuss plans and then once in power have completely ignored everything they were told about how to get growth and help business.
So it’s all very well getting them to speak but when you have ideological imperatives such as increasing minimum wage or duff tax policies for example then the talking is pointless.
After the Tories, we hoped for an improvement, but still the same.
The lack of focus of our political class on steps that could be taken to improve growth and our balance of payments is painful and deeply damaging. They would so much prefer to talk and do something, anything, about anything else.
It's why I was interested in the relative success of Manchester in recent years. If Burnham has been willing to do the hard yards to contribute, or even not get in the way, of that he will be a breath of fresh air. We really, really need to start focusing on how things are going to be paid for as opposed to how we would like to spend the non existent money.
It cost a bit in sunk costs, but I sometimes drive into Manchester and am glad he binned off the CAZ. A bit of practicality about the man.
Wasn't aware of that. My comment about him being a breath of fresh air would have been a lot wittier if I had been!
Mr Burnham, make your first policy masts up to 30m in height as PD
Given how roughshod mobile phone companies have been putting masts up - nope you will put them in stupid places without any thought.
Gibberish. You can’t put up a new site without planning and approval.
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
You were asking for PD (Permitted Development) rights - which means bypassing planning as you well know.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
Yes they should allow masts under PD rights. What is your issue with them?
See my original reply to your first comment. That you then contracted by failing to grasp that you need planning and approval because you don't have PD rights while saying my post was gibberish.
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
NEW masts require proper permission, replacing or upgrading existing ones in effect don’t in practice.
Why is masts towering over local homes an issue? Lots of things are tall, like flats, or pylons. Who cares?
Rather impacts house prices as people love a nice few without a 20m mast contained within it.
Why are we not building critical infrastructure on the basis of house prices?
In any case, good connectivity improves house prices, not decreases them. This has been shown time and time again.
Do you not think high quality phone signal and broadband is important?
I saw where Vodafone wanted to put the mast for the M6 in South Cumbria - if you are that stupid the answer is Nope forever.
The mast would have been visible from Skipton - given that the hill is visible from Skipton..
So do you think coverage on a major motorway is not important?
Again, why does it matter if you can see it? Every mast is visible, they have to be.
We all have different values and ideas about what is important.
Many millions of people value the ability to be connected at every single instant of their lives to the rest of the world and all its wonders. Many millions of people value unspoilt beauty of nature and all its wonders. Many millions fall into both categories.
I know you fall into the first category as you have made clear. I fall into the third. I also believe from your previous statements on this that you have some connection to the Telecomms industry so I would assume you are predisposed towards their side of the argument.
I don't say either side is wrong even though I prefer one to the other.
There has to be some way to balance both of these competing calls on the landscape.
It’s silly that you have resign a mayoralty to fight a by-election .
If a shock happens and Burnham loses then Labour are screwed on two fronts . I can understand why some think it would be comedy gold if Burnham loses . I don’t get why he’s now seen as the next Messiah , I also find it deeply cynical for a politician to only now be bothered to re-enter Parliament because he expects a coronation. This is certainly not about him missing Commons life and it certainly won’t be about representing his constituents.
Unfortunately this by-election is taking on profound implications for the country , possibly the most consequential in recent history .
And my reservations about Burnham have to be put aside . I hope he can demolish Reform.
I’m sure I read that the plan is that the NEC give him a waiver to stay as Mayor unless elected to parliament - it’s in Labour’s interests to do so so probably won’t be an issue.
It’s silly that you have resign a mayoralty to fight a by-election .
If a shock happens and Burnham loses then Labour are screwed on two fronts . I can understand why some think it would be comedy gold if Burnham loses . I don’t get why he’s now seen as the next Messiah , I also find it deeply cynical for a politician to only now be bothered to re-enter Parliament because he expects a coronation. This is certainly not about him missing Commons life and it certainly won’t be about representing his constituents.
Unfortunately this by-election is taking on profound implications for the country , possibly the most consequential in recent history .
And my reservations about Burnham have to be put aside . I hope he can demolish Reform.
Hang on. He tried to be candidate for Gorton and Denton many months ago.
With the express intention of challenging Starmer . The motive is the same as is the cynicism. Don’t get me wrong now it’s happening I want Burnham to win that doesn’t mean I don’t think the whole thing leaves a bad taste in the mouth .
A statement from the Guardian on Nigel Farage’s social media posts
The Guardian is concerned by the recent publication on Nigel Farage’s social media pages of the professional credentials of a photographer working on behalf of the Guardian while he was working lawfully in a public space. Holding public figures to account is the role of a free press.
It’s silly that you have resign a mayoralty to fight a by-election .
If a shock happens and Burnham loses then Labour are screwed on two fronts . I can understand why some think it would be comedy gold if Burnham loses . I don’t get why he’s now seen as the next Messiah , I also find it deeply cynical for a politician to only now be bothered to re-enter Parliament because he expects a coronation. This is certainly not about him missing Commons life and it certainly won’t be about representing his constituents.
Unfortunately this by-election is taking on profound implications for the country , possibly the most consequential in recent history .
And my reservations about Burnham have to be put aside . I hope he can demolish Reform.
You don’t. If he loses the by-election he can stay as mayor
The two Scottish MPs who have just been elected as MSPs didn't have to resign from Westminster in advance either. Though, of course, they are resigning now as dual mandates disallowed. Wonder if we will have all three by-elections on the same day?
It’s silly that you have resign a mayoralty to fight a by-election .
If a shock happens and Burnham loses then Labour are screwed on two fronts . I can understand why some think it would be comedy gold if Burnham loses . I don’t get why he’s now seen as the next Messiah , I also find it deeply cynical for a politician to only now be bothered to re-enter Parliament because he expects a coronation. This is certainly not about him missing Commons life and it certainly won’t be about representing his constituents.
Unfortunately this by-election is taking on profound implications for the country , possibly the most consequential in recent history .
And my reservations about Burnham have to be put aside . I hope he can demolish Reform.
Hang on. He tried to be candidate for Gorton and Denton many months ago.
Again because he was expecting a coronation. He was more than happy to walk away from Parliament in 2016 after he failed to win the leadership then.
A statement from the Guardian on Nigel Farage’s social media posts
The Guardian is concerned by the recent publication on Nigel Farage’s social media pages of the professional credentials of a photographer working on behalf of the Guardian while he was working lawfully in a public space. Holding public figures to account is the role of a free press.
It’s silly that you have resign a mayoralty to fight a by-election .
If a shock happens and Burnham loses then Labour are screwed on two fronts . I can understand why some think it would be comedy gold if Burnham loses . I don’t get why he’s now seen as the next Messiah , I also find it deeply cynical for a politician to only now be bothered to re-enter Parliament because he expects a coronation. This is certainly not about him missing Commons life and it certainly won’t be about representing his constituents.
Unfortunately this by-election is taking on profound implications for the country , possibly the most consequential in recent history .
And my reservations about Burnham have to be put aside . I hope he can demolish Reform.
Hang on. He tried to be candidate for Gorton and Denton many months ago.
With the express intention of challenging Starmer . The motive is the same as is the cynicism. Don’t get me wrong now it’s happening I want Burnham to win that doesn’t mean I don’t think the whole thing leaves a bad taste in the mouth .
Yes but. If he thinks Starmer is a dud like everyone else. And thinks he can do a better job, which he isn't alone in, then what's a politician supposed to do?
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained thaf Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Theo Bartram (ex-Brown aide iirc) was pointing on X earlier that no one in Labour had worked in the City or shown much interest in how they work but also that it was the same the other way. He thinks both need to start seriously speaking to each other
Martin Sorel was on the radio this morning pointing out that prior to the election Labour did the whole thing of sitting down meeting business leaders to listen to them and discuss plans and then once in power have completely ignored everything they were told about how to get growth and help business.
So it’s all very well getting them to speak but when you have ideological imperatives such as increasing minimum wage or duff tax policies for example then the talking is pointless.
After the Tories, we hoped for an improvement, but still the same.
The lack of focus of our political class on steps that could be taken to improve growth and our balance of payments is painful and deeply damaging. They would so much prefer to talk and do something, anything, about anything else.
It's why I was interested in the relative success of Manchester in recent years. If Burnham has been willing to do the hard yards to contribute, or even not get in the way, of that he will be a breath of fresh air. We really, really need to start focusing on how things are going to be paid for as opposed to how we would like to spend the non existent money.
I think that focus on business, and getting things done, is what is behind the high regard that Ben Houchen is held in Teesside.
It's why it is truly dismal that we have five more years of the SNP in Scotland, who have not shown the slightest interest in the economy or business since, at least, Salmond. The political strategy is giveaways, and feeding the welfare bill. The "economic strategy" is find a "rich" person and increase his taxes. It does keep a certain voting bloc onside, so successful in that regard, but a massive missed opportunity given the potential of Scotland. Labour no better, really.
The perception of Ben Houchen has changed - he's now regarded as playing politics and having failed..
It’s silly that you have resign a mayoralty to fight a by-election .
If a shock happens and Burnham loses then Labour are screwed on two fronts . I can understand why some think it would be comedy gold if Burnham loses . I don’t get why he’s now seen as the next Messiah , I also find it deeply cynical for a politician to only now be bothered to re-enter Parliament because he expects a coronation. This is certainly not about him missing Commons life and it certainly won’t be about representing his constituents.
Unfortunately this by-election is taking on profound implications for the country , possibly the most consequential in recent history .
And my reservations about Burnham have to be put aside . I hope he can demolish Reform.
He doesn't
Only if he is elected does he have to resign the mayoralty
Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting - a potential Labour leadership challenger - has thrown his support behind Andy Burnham's bid to contest the Makerfield by-election. "We need our best players on the pitch. There is no doubt that Andy Burnham is one of them," he says on X. "The Makerfield by-election will be tough. Votes will need to be earned. Andy is the best chance of winning and that should override factional advantage or propping up one person."..
Its a wierd thing to say.
This bloke has caused an unecessary by-election to be held and therefore I will be backing him because he is the best person to win it but might lose it.
"We need our best players on the pitch."is the slightly less nonsensical bit.
In any event, it's smart politics from Streeting if he doesn't want casting into the outer darkness, as and when he loses any leadership contest, in which his chances would be very far from certain.
And it's also smart, for anyone of the left who wants a united party, to accept the olive branch.
He's navigating this just fine imo. Positioned to have a tilt if there is a contest whilst nullifying any charge of being sneaky, divisive and not a team player.
Health PPS Rosie Wrighting has resigned from Keir Starmer’s Government
Bit odd to be resigning now I reckon. Everyone knows Starmer is holed under the water, even Wes has said he wants to wait for a contest and there's the by-election coming up. Resigning right now looks a bit Johnny come lately to try and get a job under Burnham. I'd stay put personally as a minister right now.
Mr Burnham, make your first policy masts up to 30m in height as PD
Given how roughshod mobile phone companies have been putting masts up - nope you will put them in stupid places without any thought.
Gibberish. You can’t put up a new site without planning and approval.
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
You were asking for PD (Permitted Development) rights - which means bypassing planning as you well know.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
Yes they should allow masts under PD rights. What is your issue with them?
See my original reply to your first comment. That you then contracted by failing to grasp that you need planning and approval because you don't have PD rights while saying my post was gibberish.
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
NEW masts require proper permission, replacing or upgrading existing ones in effect don’t in practice.
Why is masts towering over local homes an issue? Lots of things are tall, like flats, or pylons. Who cares?
Rather impacts house prices as people love a nice few without a 20m mast contained within it.
Why are we not building critical infrastructure on the basis of house prices?
In any case, good connectivity improves house prices, not decreases them. This has been shown time and time again.
Do you not think high quality phone signal and broadband is important?
I saw where Vodafone wanted to put the mast for the M6 in South Cumbria - if you are that stupid the answer is Nope forever.
The mast would have been visible from Skipton - given that the hill is visible from Skipton..
So do you think coverage on a major motorway is not important?
Again, why does it matter if you can see it? Every mast is visible, they have to be.
We all have different values and ideas about what is important.
Many millions of people value the ability to be connected at every single instant of their lives to the rest of the world and all its wonders. Many millions of people value unspoilt beauty of nature and all its wonders. Many millions fall into both categories.
I know you fall into the first category as you have made clear. I fall into the third. I also believe from your previous statements on this that you have some connection to the Telecomms industry so I would assume you are predisposed towards their side of the argument.
I don't say either side is wrong even though I prefer one to the other.
There has to be some way to balance both of these competing calls on the landscape.
But it starts with accepting that the status quo is slanted ridiculously to a default “no”, or do you not agree with that?
Why can infrastructure built on existing buildings in cities even be rejected? Why is this not automatic PD?
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained thaf Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Theo Bartram (ex-Brown aide iirc) was pointing on X earlier that no one in Labour had worked in the City or shown much interest in how they work but also that it was the same the other way. He thinks both need to start seriously speaking to each other
Martin Sorel was on the radio this morning pointing out that prior to the election Labour did the whole thing of sitting down meeting business leaders to listen to them and discuss plans and then once in power have completely ignored everything they were told about how to get growth and help business.
So it’s all very well getting them to speak but when you have ideological imperatives such as increasing minimum wage or duff tax policies for example then the talking is pointless.
After the Tories, we hoped for an improvement, but still the same.
The lack of focus of our political class on steps that could be taken to improve growth and our balance of payments is painful and deeply damaging. They would so much prefer to talk and do something, anything, about anything else.
It's why I was interested in the relative success of Manchester in recent years. If Burnham has been willing to do the hard yards to contribute, or even not get in the way, of that he will be a breath of fresh air. We really, really need to start focusing on how things are going to be paid for as opposed to how we would like to spend the non existent money.
I think that focus on business, and getting things done, is what is behind the high regard that Ben Houchen is held in Teesside.
It's why it is truly dismal that we have five more years of the SNP in Scotland, who have not shown the slightest interest in the economy or business since, at least, Salmond. The political strategy is giveaways, and feeding the welfare bill. The "economic strategy" is find a "rich" person and increase his taxes. It does keep a certain voting bloc onside, so successful in that regard, but a massive missed opportunity given the potential of Scotland. Labour no better, really.
And I don't see much from the Tories either. Scotland has a lot of potential in renewable energy, wind and hydro in particular but it needs the market to be operated in a way where those benefits come to Scotland. So, for example, it should be possible to entice data centres to areas where such energy is available by offering competitive pricing. We need to make more use of our abundance of Universities to spin off successful businesses and to produce the graduates that employers actually need. We have major infrastructure impediments to growth, not all of which are the fault of the Greens. We need to entice and encourage entrepreneurs and business people, not drive them away with excess taxes. We need to do something urgent about our schools and the employability of those that leave them.
There is a clear agenda here that is not particularly party political, at least it shouldn't be. But lets talk about trans, or the importance of more benefits, or those nasty private schools or whatever instead, eh?
Looking at some social media comments about Burnham and the parachute by-election… I have a very bad feeling about this.
Reform have a tendency to make their by election points Online for people who don't have a vote. Clearly the parachute line goes down well with folk in Walsall. It had similar resonance with the Green candidate in Gorton and Denton.
A statement from the Guardian on Nigel Farage’s social media posts
The Guardian is concerned by the recent publication on Nigel Farage’s social media pages of the professional credentials of a photographer working on behalf of the Guardian while he was working lawfully in a public space. Holding public figures to account is the role of a free press.
Obsessively talking about security, suppression of the free press: aren't those 2 of the canonical signs of fascism?
I think it is national rather than personal security that is one of the indicators.
Fascism doesn't make a distinction between the national and personal security of the Leader. They blur together, as we see with the rhetoric around Trump from his coterie.
Am I right in thinking everybody who wants to stand need 81 MPs? So there is really only room for 3 candidates?
Starmer doesn't need 81 MPs but anyone else does, yes.
If Burnham wins the by-election, I can't see anyone other than him getting 81 nominations unless Starmer stands down. So we're most likely looking at a straight Starmer v Burnham membership ballot.
Miliband and Streeting have a fair bit of support.
Miliband won't stand against Burnham. He'll back him and probably be hoping for CoE. But Streeting is different matter. Streeting v Burnham is possible IMO. It would be that or a Burnham coronation.
Unless Burnham loses the byelection - which he might - in which case I think we're looking at Streeting v Miliband or Rayner.
Despite what he says I don't think Starmer will run in any leadership contest if it comes to it.
Starmer would run against Streeting and still probably beat him, he wouldn't run against Burnham now, as if Burnham beats Reform in this by election he is clearly Labour's Messiah in waiting anyway
But it wouldn't be just Streeting if Burnham fails. It would be Miliband/Rayner too. I don't think Starmer would run in that unless there's a big change in party sentiment over the next few weeks.
He would, Miliband has made clear he won't run if Starmer runs and Starmer could get Streeting preferences to beat Rayner
If what you want is to never see phone masts again then I’m afraid that’s simply unrealistic. They are tall, they look like masts. However much you try and hide them they are there.
So we either accept that and make it work or we tear them all down and give up.
At the moment we reject most masts (although on appeal some get approved - so a waste of time and money) and then people complain about poor connectivity.
I think in rural areas there’s more (although it’s still slanted way too much to “no”) scope for discussion but inside a major city like London I cannot see the reason to reject anything.
Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting - a potential Labour leadership challenger - has thrown his support behind Andy Burnham's bid to contest the Makerfield by-election. "We need our best players on the pitch. There is no doubt that Andy Burnham is one of them," he says on X. "The Makerfield by-election will be tough. Votes will need to be earned. Andy is the best chance of winning and that should override factional advantage or propping up one person."..
Big boost for Burnham, if he wins the by election Streeting will perhaps even back him to replace Starmer in return for a senior Cabinet post.
If Burnham loses the by election though, Streeting could even pick up Burnham votes to beat Starmer in a late summer leadership challenge
If what you want is to never see phone masts again then I’m afraid that’s simply unrealistic. They are tall, they look like masts. However much you try and hide them they are there.
So we either accept that and make it work or we tear them all down and give up.
At the moment we reject most masts (although on appeal some get approved - so a waste of time and money) and then people complain about poor connectivity.
I think in rural areas there’s more (although it’s still slanted way too much to “no”) scope for discussion but inside a major city like London I cannot see the reason to reject anything.
In low density places like parts of the National Parks and the Highlands shouldn't LEO to mobile negate at least some of the need for additional mobile masts?
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained thaf Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Theo Bartram (ex-Brown aide iirc) was pointing on X earlier that no one in Labour had worked in the City or shown much interest in how they work but also that it was the same the other way. He thinks both need to start seriously speaking to each other
Martin Sorel was on the radio this morning pointing out that prior to the election Labour did the whole thing of sitting down meeting business leaders to listen to them and discuss plans and then once in power have completely ignored everything they were told about how to get growth and help business.
So it’s all very well getting them to speak but when you have ideological imperatives such as increasing minimum wage or duff tax policies for example then the talking is pointless.
After the Tories, we hoped for an improvement, but still the same.
The lack of focus of our political class on steps that could be taken to improve growth and our balance of payments is painful and deeply damaging. They would so much prefer to talk and do something, anything, about anything else.
It's why I was interested in the relative success of Manchester in recent years. If Burnham has been willing to do the hard yards to contribute, or even not get in the way, of that he will be a breath of fresh air. We really, really need to start focusing on how things are going to be paid for as opposed to how we would like to spend the non existent money.
It cost a bit in sunk costs, but I sometimes drive into Manchester and am glad he binned off the CAZ. A bit of practicality about the man.
So he binned off the Clean Air Zone because of the motorist lobby? I'd forgotten that. According to reports Manchester has worse air pollution than London. That suggests he has no spine like Keir, there is of course another Mayor who's taken considerable abuse about a clean air zone, has held firm and achieved significant improvement in air quality. If there are hard choices to be made to the disadvantage of vociferous lobby groups then it seems the other Mayor would be a better choice.
If what you want is to never see phone masts again then I’m afraid that’s simply unrealistic. They are tall, they look like masts. However much you try and hide them they are there.
So we either accept that and make it work or we tear them all down and give up.
At the moment we reject most masts (although on appeal some get approved - so a waste of time and money) and then people complain about poor connectivity.
I think in rural areas there’s more (although it’s still slanted way too much to “no”) scope for discussion but inside a major city like London I cannot see the reason to reject anything.
If what you want is to never see phone masts again then I’m afraid that’s simply unrealistic. They are tall, they look like masts. However much you try and hide them they are there.
So we either accept that and make it work or we tear them all down and give up.
At the moment we reject most masts (although on appeal some get approved - so a waste of time and money) and then people complain about poor connectivity.
I think in rural areas there’s more (although it’s still slanted way too much to “no”) scope for discussion but inside a major city like London I cannot see the reason to reject anything.
If what you want is to never see phone masts again then I’m afraid that’s simply unrealistic. They are tall, they look like masts. However much you try and hide them they are there.
So we either accept that and make it work or we tear them all down and give up.
At the moment we reject most masts (although on appeal some get approved - so a waste of time and money) and then people complain about poor connectivity.
I think in rural areas there’s more (although it’s still slanted way too much to “no”) scope for discussion but inside a major city like London I cannot see the reason to reject anything.
And now you go randomly in a completely different direction.
The thing is if 5 small masts can do the same as 1 big mast without the visual impact damaging 2 national parks, sorry but you need to build 5 masts instead of saving a few quid.
If what you want is to never see phone masts again then I’m afraid that’s simply unrealistic. They are tall, they look like masts. However much you try and hide them they are there.
So we either accept that and make it work or we tear them all down and give up.
At the moment we reject most masts (although on appeal some get approved - so a waste of time and money) and then people complain about poor connectivity.
I think in rural areas there’s more (although it’s still slanted way too much to “no”) scope for discussion but inside a major city like London I cannot see the reason to reject anything.
In low density places like parts of the National Parks and the Highlands shouldn't LEO to mobile negate at least some of the need for additional mobile masts?
O2 already have done that but it’s fundamentally limited in capacity and speed. It also doesn’t work indoors well at all.
It’s part of the solution but not the full solution. It wouldn’t work in cities or even many rural areas because of limited indoor coverage
Mr Burnham, make your first policy masts up to 30m in height as PD
Given how roughshod mobile phone companies have been putting masts up - nope you will put them in stupid places without any thought.
Gibberish. You can’t put up a new site without planning and approval.
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
You were asking for PD (Permitted Development) rights - which means bypassing planning as you well know.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
Yes they should allow masts under PD rights. What is your issue with them?
See my original reply to your first comment. That you then contracted by failing to grasp that you need planning and approval because you don't have PD rights while saying my post was gibberish.
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
NEW masts require proper permission, replacing or upgrading existing ones in effect don’t in practice.
Why is masts towering over local homes an issue? Lots of things are tall, like flats, or pylons. Who cares?
Rather impacts house prices as people love a nice few without a 20m mast contained within it.
Why are we not building critical infrastructure on the basis of house prices?
In any case, good connectivity improves house prices, not decreases them. This has been shown time and time again.
Do you not think high quality phone signal and broadband is important?
I saw where Vodafone wanted to put the mast for the M6 in South Cumbria - if you are that stupid the answer is Nope forever.
The mast would have been visible from Skipton - given that the hill is visible from Skipton..
So do you think coverage on a major motorway is not important?
Again, why does it matter if you can see it? Every mast is visible, they have to be.
We all have different values and ideas about what is important.
Many millions of people value the ability to be connected at every single instant of their lives to the rest of the world and all its wonders. Many millions of people value unspoilt beauty of nature and all its wonders. Many millions fall into both categories.
I know you fall into the first category as you have made clear. I fall into the third. I also believe from your previous statements on this that you have some connection to the Telecomms industry so I would assume you are predisposed towards their side of the argument.
I don't say either side is wrong even though I prefer one to the other.
There has to be some way to balance both of these competing calls on the landscape.
But it starts with accepting that the status quo is slanted ridiculously to a default “no”, or do you not agree with that?
Why can infrastructure built on existing buildings in cities even be rejected? Why is this not automatic PD?
Because you've already pushed the limits and can't be trusted - hence no PD rights.
If what you want is to never see phone masts again then I’m afraid that’s simply unrealistic. They are tall, they look like masts. However much you try and hide them they are there.
So we either accept that and make it work or we tear them all down and give up.
At the moment we reject most masts (although on appeal some get approved - so a waste of time and money) and then people complain about poor connectivity.
I think in rural areas there’s more (although it’s still slanted way too much to “no”) scope for discussion but inside a major city like London I cannot see the reason to reject anything.
And now you go randomly in a completely different direction.
The thing is if 5 small masts can do the same as 1 big mast without the visual impact damaging 2 national parks, sorry but you need to build 5 masts instead of saving a few quid.
But that’s what they try and already do. And the majority of even those will get rejected, so what do you propose they do?
Also not to sound rude but 5 masts is not an optimal solution due to interference, you can’t just substitute one mast with five and except a seamless experience. Radio planning is extremely complex.
What is your issue with them? You don’t like the look of them? What about pylons? Houses?
Why do you care about how they look? Why does it bother you?
Underrated possibility that Burnham wins the by-election, seizes the leadership and becomes PM, then becomes the first sitting prime minister to lose his seat at the next election.
That would be even funnier if Labour win most seats too.
Mr Burnham, make your first policy masts up to 30m in height as PD
Given how roughshod mobile phone companies have been putting masts up - nope you will put them in stupid places without any thought.
Gibberish. You can’t put up a new site without planning and approval.
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
You were asking for PD (Permitted Development) rights - which means bypassing planning as you well know.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
Yes they should allow masts under PD rights. What is your issue with them?
See my original reply to your first comment. That you then contracted by failing to grasp that you need planning and approval because you don't have PD rights while saying my post was gibberish.
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
NEW masts require proper permission, replacing or upgrading existing ones in effect don’t in practice.
Why is masts towering over local homes an issue? Lots of things are tall, like flats, or pylons. Who cares?
Rather impacts house prices as people love a nice few without a 20m mast contained within it.
Why are we not building critical infrastructure on the basis of house prices?
In any case, good connectivity improves house prices, not decreases them. This has been shown time and time again.
Do you not think high quality phone signal and broadband is important?
I saw where Vodafone wanted to put the mast for the M6 in South Cumbria - if you are that stupid the answer is Nope forever.
The mast would have been visible from Skipton - given that the hill is visible from Skipton..
So do you think coverage on a major motorway is not important?
Again, why does it matter if you can see it? Every mast is visible, they have to be.
We all have different values and ideas about what is important.
Many millions of people value the ability to be connected at every single instant of their lives to the rest of the world and all its wonders. Many millions of people value unspoilt beauty of nature and all its wonders. Many millions fall into both categories.
I know you fall into the first category as you have made clear. I fall into the third. I also believe from your previous statements on this that you have some connection to the Telecomms industry so I would assume you are predisposed towards their side of the argument.
I don't say either side is wrong even though I prefer one to the other.
There has to be some way to balance both of these competing calls on the landscape.
But it starts with accepting that the status quo is slanted ridiculously to a default “no”, or do you not agree with that?
Why can infrastructure built on existing buildings in cities even be rejected? Why is this not automatic PD?
Because you've already pushed the limits and can't be trusted - hence no PD rights.
Do you honestly think there shouldn’t be PD rights even in large cities? To build on existing structures? Really?
If not, then we can end our discussion here as there’s really nothing to be said. We are an international outlier of 1 on the basis of your point (if true).
If what you want is to never see phone masts again then I’m afraid that’s simply unrealistic. They are tall, they look like masts. However much you try and hide them they are there.
So we either accept that and make it work or we tear them all down and give up.
At the moment we reject most masts (although on appeal some get approved - so a waste of time and money) and then people complain about poor connectivity.
I think in rural areas there’s more (although it’s still slanted way too much to “no”) scope for discussion but inside a major city like London I cannot see the reason to reject anything.
And now you go randomly in a completely different direction.
The thing is if 5 small masts can do the same as 1 big mast without the visual impact damaging 2 national parks, sorry but you need to build 5 masts instead of saving a few quid.
But that’s what they already do. And the majority of even those will get rejected, so what do you propose they do?
Also not to sound rude but 5 masts is not an optimal solution due to interference, you can’t just substitute one mast with five and except a seamless experience. Radio planning is extremely complex.
We were talking about 40-60 miles of motorway which mobile phone companies seem to be obsessed about the coverage of. 5 separate masts aren't going to create that much interference.
But those companies have spent billions to build their networks, spending a few million to keep the country looking nice isn't significant when you've seen what they've spent now and in the past.
A statement from the Guardian on Nigel Farage’s social media posts
The Guardian is concerned by the recent publication on Nigel Farage’s social media pages of the professional credentials of a photographer working on behalf of the Guardian while he was working lawfully in a public space. Holding public figures to account is the role of a free press.
Obsessively talking about security, suppression of the free press: aren't those 2 of the canonical signs of fascism?
Funnily enough thanks to social media ‘auditors’ shoving the cameras into the faces of people going about their daily business, the public might have more sympathy with Farage on this than would previously have been the case. Indeed, there have even been calls to outlaw videoing of women out clubbing:-
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained thaf Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Theo Bartram (ex-Brown aide iirc) was pointing on X earlier that no one in Labour had worked in the City or shown much interest in how they work but also that it was the same the other way. He thinks both need to start seriously speaking to each other
Martin Sorel was on the radio this morning pointing out that prior to the election Labour did the whole thing of sitting down meeting business leaders to listen to them and discuss plans and then once in power have completely ignored everything they were told about how to get growth and help business.
So it’s all very well getting them to speak but when you have ideological imperatives such as increasing minimum wage or duff tax policies for example then the talking is pointless.
After the Tories, we hoped for an improvement, but still the same.
The lack of focus of our political class on steps that could be taken to improve growth and our balance of payments is painful and deeply damaging. They would so much prefer to talk and do something, anything, about anything else.
It's why I was interested in the relative success of Manchester in recent years. If Burnham has been willing to do the hard yards to contribute, or even not get in the way, of that he will be a breath of fresh air. We really, really need to start focusing on how things are going to be paid for as opposed to how we would like to spend the non existent money.
I think that focus on business, and getting things done, is what is behind the high regard that Ben Houchen is held in Teesside.
It's why it is truly dismal that we have five more years of the SNP in Scotland, who have not shown the slightest interest in the economy or business since, at least, Salmond. The political strategy is giveaways, and feeding the welfare bill. The "economic strategy" is find a "rich" person and increase his taxes. It does keep a certain voting bloc onside, so successful in that regard, but a massive missed opportunity given the potential of Scotland. Labour no better, really.
If what you want is to never see phone masts again then I’m afraid that’s simply unrealistic. They are tall, they look like masts. However much you try and hide them they are there.
So we either accept that and make it work or we tear them all down and give up.
At the moment we reject most masts (although on appeal some get approved - so a waste of time and money) and then people complain about poor connectivity.
I think in rural areas there’s more (although it’s still slanted way too much to “no”) scope for discussion but inside a major city like London I cannot see the reason to reject anything.
And now you go randomly in a completely different direction.
The thing is if 5 small masts can do the same as 1 big mast without the visual impact damaging 2 national parks, sorry but you need to build 5 masts instead of saving a few quid.
But that’s what they already do. And the majority of even those will get rejected, so what do you propose they do?
Also not to sound rude but 5 masts is not an optimal solution due to interference, you can’t just substitute one mast with five and except a seamless experience. Radio planning is extremely complex.
We were talking about 60 miles of motorway which mobile phone companies seem to be obsessed about the coverage of.
to the extent that back in 2012 Orange went down because they moved the mast's coverage so putting 3 network engineers' homes in a blackspot.
Network goes down and they couldn't raise any of them to get the servers back up.
Yes because 60 miles of motorway covers a ridiculous amount of traffic especially commercial, you know for all those businesses that use it.
If you don’t want to cover motorways with coverage then again you want us to be an international outlier of 1. That’s fine but it’s not a mainstream position for a country.
Everyone saying he'll put up taxes to fund spending so as to satisfy the markets - but surely the question will be how will the OBR score his tax rises in terms of the revenue they will generate and when that revenue will come in.
It's already been said that raising top rate of income tax will raise almost nothing.
If he brings in some new wealth tax there's going to be a significant time delay before any revenue actually comes in - whilst new system is set up, then a financial year, then 10 months to do tax return etc.
The new Mansion Tax announced in the November 2025 Budget comes into effect in April 2028.
So how is Burnham going to actually generate the revenue to fund the spending which he will want to do quickly?
It’s slightly baffling to me that you have a motorway which presumably is a massive eyesore but you won’t have a mast near it that provides coverage. I guess people have very odd priorities.
We should have 99% coverage on motorways as a minimum. This is frequently achieved in other countries and those that don’t have government supported schemes to do it e.g. Germany and France
Unbelievably, in my view, SKS’s stock is rising. Streeting is a back stabbing creep who apparently can’t count and Burnham is an opportunistic carpet bagger with little or no substance. As I keep saying, only Ed Milliband is better than SKS for leader. That’s not a reflection on Ed, that’s s reflection on the rest. Truly poor pickings in the Labour Party.
Unbelievably, in my view, SKS’s stock is rising. Streeting is a back stabbing creep who apparently can’t count and Burnham is an opportunistic carpet bagger with little or no substance. As I keep saying, only Ed Milliband is better than SKS for leader. That’s not a reflection on Ed, that’s s reflection on the rest. Truly poor pickings in the Labour Party.
Health PPS Rosie Wrighting has resigned from Keir Starmer’s Government
Bit odd to be resigning now I reckon. Everyone knows Starmer is holed under the water, even Wes has said he wants to wait for a contest and there's the by-election coming up. Resigning right now looks a bit Johnny come lately to try and get a job under Burnham. I'd stay put personally as a minister right now.
A longtime friend called to see us yesterday to invite us to his 80th birthday celebrations next year
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained thaf Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Theo Bartram (ex-Brown aide iirc) was pointing on X earlier that no one in Labour had worked in the City or shown much interest in how they work but also that it was the same the other way. He thinks both need to start seriously speaking to each other
Martin Sorel was on the radio this morning pointing out that prior to the election Labour did the whole thing of sitting down meeting business leaders to listen to them and discuss plans and then once in power have completely ignored everything they were told about how to get growth and help business.
So it’s all very well getting them to speak but when you have ideological imperatives such as increasing minimum wage or duff tax policies for example then the talking is pointless.
After the Tories, we hoped for an improvement, but still the same.
The lack of focus of our political class on steps that could be taken to improve growth and our balance of payments is painful and deeply damaging. They would so much prefer to talk and do something, anything, about anything else.
It's why I was interested in the relative success of Manchester in recent years. If Burnham has been willing to do the hard yards to contribute, or even not get in the way, of that he will be a breath of fresh air. We really, really need to start focusing on how things are going to be paid for as opposed to how we would like to spend the non existent money.
I think that focus on business, and getting things done, is what is behind the high regard that Ben Houchen is held in Teesside.
It's why it is truly dismal that we have five more years of the SNP in Scotland, who have not shown the slightest interest in the economy or business since, at least, Salmond. The political strategy is giveaways, and feeding the welfare bill. The "economic strategy" is find a "rich" person and increase his taxes. It does keep a certain voting bloc onside, so successful in that regard, but a massive missed opportunity given the potential of Scotland. Labour no better, really.
If what you want is to never see phone masts again then I’m afraid that’s simply unrealistic. They are tall, they look like masts. However much you try and hide them they are there.
So we either accept that and make it work or we tear them all down and give up.
At the moment we reject most masts (although on appeal some get approved - so a waste of time and money) and then people complain about poor connectivity.
I think in rural areas there’s more (although it’s still slanted way too much to “no”) scope for discussion but inside a major city like London I cannot see the reason to reject anything.
And now you go randomly in a completely different direction.
The thing is if 5 small masts can do the same as 1 big mast without the visual impact damaging 2 national parks, sorry but you need to build 5 masts instead of saving a few quid.
But that’s what they already do. And the majority of even those will get rejected, so what do you propose they do?
Also not to sound rude but 5 masts is not an optimal solution due to interference, you can’t just substitute one mast with five and except a seamless experience. Radio planning is extremely complex.
We were talking about 60 miles of motorway which mobile phone companies seem to be obsessed about the coverage of.
to the extent that back in 2012 Orange went down because they moved the mast's coverage so putting 3 network engineers' homes in a blackspot.
Network goes down and they couldn't raise any of them to get the servers back up.
Yes because 60 miles of motorway covers a ridiculous amount of traffic especially commercial, you know for all those businesses that use it.
If you don’t want to cover motorways with coverage then again you want us to be an international outlier of 1. That’s fine but it’s not a mainstream position for a country.
Again you miss the point, if you want to cover 60 miles of motorway there are multiple ways of doing it.
You don't wreck 2 national parks to save a bit of money, you can do it properly using smaller masts..
Comments
You've shown that someone he is talking gibberish and it's not me.
Currently all masts need permission which is why Ray Pratt, a 92-year-old disabled amateur radio enthusiast based in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees ended up having to take his very thin 7.5 mast down as it towered over local homes.
He is a very successful North Wales businessman and he explained that Reeves budget, and the minimum wage rise, has added £100,000 pa to his restaurant costs and it is not sustainable
He is reducing staff, which in hospitality are in the main young, examining his menus, and looking at increasing prices but he is uncertain that his restaurant can survive
In all this chaos, can we have labour ministers that understand business as they are not the magic money tree some think they are
Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting - a potential Labour leadership challenger - has thrown his support behind Andy Burnham's bid to contest the Makerfield by-election.
"We need our best players on the pitch. There is no doubt that Andy Burnham is one of them," he says on X.
"The Makerfield by-election will be tough. Votes will need to be earned. Andy is the best chance of winning and that should override factional advantage or propping up one person."..
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/what-do-muslim-immigrants-think-in
(Though I'm skeptical of a lot of it. For example he talks about how many Muslims want to impose aspects of Sharia Law, without properly identifying which of the 57 or more versions of Sharia Law he means. He also seems to have a lot of what I would term "USA assumptions" - trying to overanalyse.)
And the numbers above in the tweet do not seem very compatible with a community Mosque attendance number of around 25% weekly in the UK.
'We cannot descend into tory style chaos'
You already have Steve
Why is masts towering over local homes an issue? Lots of things are tall, like flats, or pylons. Who cares?
He's had the willingness and the wherewithal to ask questions and experiment. He's a public intellectual and a philosopher king !
In any case, good connectivity improves house prices, not decreases them. This has been shown time and time again.
Do you not think high quality phone signal and broadband is important?
People want their house to be close to some things (but not too close) and not close to others. Of course people care.
The balance we have to strike is to give people a degree of control and influence over what gets built, and how it is built, in their area, but not so much control that it amounts to a veto.
This bloke has caused an unecessary by-election to be held and therefore I will be backing him because he is the best person to win it but might lose it.
The mast would have been visible from Skipton - given that the hill is visible from Skipton..
So it’s all very well getting them to speak but when you have ideological imperatives such as increasing minimum wage or duff tax policies for example then the talking is pointless.
Again, why does it matter if you can see it? Every mast is visible, they have to be.
I can see two masts from my window. They were both built in the early 2000s before it all got silly.
Yet a third was rejected on the development next to mine because of “visual intrusion”. This is South West London.
It's why I was interested in the relative success of Manchester in recent years. If Burnham has been willing to do the hard yards to contribute, or even not get in the way, of that he will be a breath of fresh air. We really, really need to start focusing on how things are going to be paid for as opposed to how we would like to spend the non existent money.
If a shock happens and Burnham loses then Labour are screwed on two fronts . I can understand why some think it would be comedy gold if Burnham loses . I don’t get why he’s now seen as the next Messiah , I also find it deeply cynical for a politician to only now be bothered to re-enter Parliament because he expects a coronation. This is certainly not about him missing Commons life and it certainly won’t be about representing his constituents.
Unfortunately this by-election is taking on profound implications for the country , possibly the most consequential in recent history .
And my reservations about Burnham have to be put aside . I hope he can demolish Reform.
They are 2 different positions
Make her Party Chair. She can be an attack dog but not actually be involved in governing.
My security team just found this journalist from The Guardian at my property.
This is exactly why I need security.
Completely unacceptable.
https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/2054938082378449367
A statement from the Guardian on Nigel Farage’s social media posts
The Guardian is concerned by the recent publication on Nigel Farage’s social media pages of the professional credentials of a photographer working on behalf of the Guardian while he was working lawfully in a public space. Holding public figures to account is the role of a free press.
As part of the Guardian’s journalism covering Nigel Farage’s purchase of a £1.4m property in cash shortly after receiving a £5m personal gift, a photographer took pictures from a public path and showed his press card when asked to identify himself.
https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/2026/may/15/a-statement-from-the-guardian-on-nigel-farages-social-media-posts
In any event, it's smart politics from Streeting if he doesn't want casting into the outer darkness, as and when he loses any leadership contest, in which his chances would be very far from certain.
And it's also smart, for anyone of the left who wants a united party, to accept the olive branch.
It's why it is truly dismal that we have five more years of the SNP in Scotland, who have not shown the slightest interest in the economy or business since, at least, Salmond. The political strategy is giveaways, and feeding the welfare bill. The "economic strategy" is find a "rich" person and increase his taxes. It does keep a certain voting bloc onside, so successful in that regard, but a massive missed opportunity given the potential of Scotland. Labour no better, really.
Many millions of people value the ability to be connected at every single instant of their lives to the rest of the world and all its wonders.
Many millions of people value unspoilt beauty of nature and all its wonders.
Many millions fall into both categories.
I know you fall into the first category as you have made clear. I fall into the third. I also believe from your previous statements on this that you have some connection to the Telecomms industry so I would assume you are predisposed towards their side of the argument.
I don't say either side is wrong even though I prefer one to the other.
There has to be some way to balance both of these competing calls on the landscape.
Andy versus Wes in the final!
If he thinks Starmer is a dud like everyone else.
And thinks he can do a better job, which he isn't alone in, then what's a politician supposed to do?
RIP.
Only if he is elected does he have to resign the mayoralty
Why can infrastructure built on existing buildings in cities even be rejected? Why is this not automatic PD?
Starmer chaos has taken over the media
Scotland has a lot of potential in renewable energy, wind and hydro in particular but it needs the market to be operated in a way where those benefits come to Scotland. So, for example, it should be possible to entice data centres to areas where such energy is available by offering competitive pricing.
We need to make more use of our abundance of Universities to spin off successful businesses and to produce the graduates that employers actually need.
We have major infrastructure impediments to growth, not all of which are the fault of the Greens.
We need to entice and encourage entrepreneurs and business people, not drive them away with excess taxes.
We need to do something urgent about our schools and the employability of those that leave them.
There is a clear agenda here that is not particularly party political, at least it shouldn't be. But lets talk about trans, or the importance of more benefits, or those nasty private schools or whatever instead, eh?
Clearly the parachute line goes down well with folk in Walsall.
It had similar resonance with the Green candidate in Gorton and Denton.
So we either accept that and make it work or we tear them all down and give up.
At the moment we reject most masts (although on appeal some get approved - so a waste of time and money) and then people complain about poor connectivity.
I think in rural areas there’s more (although it’s still slanted way too much to “no”) scope for discussion but inside a major city like London I cannot see the reason to reject anything.
If Burnham loses the by election though, Streeting could even pick up Burnham votes to beat Starmer in a late summer leadership challenge
That suggests he has no spine like Keir, there is of course another Mayor who's taken considerable abuse about a clean air zone, has held firm and achieved significant improvement in air quality.
If there are hard choices to be made to the disadvantage of vociferous lobby groups then it seems the other Mayor would be a better choice.
{runs away giggling}
The thing is if 5 small masts can do the same as 1 big mast without the visual impact damaging 2 national parks, sorry but you need to build 5 masts instead of saving a few quid.
It’s part of the solution but not the full solution. It wouldn’t work in cities or even many rural areas because of limited indoor coverage
Also not to sound rude but 5 masts is not an optimal solution due to interference, you can’t just substitute one mast with five and except a seamless experience. Radio planning is extremely complex.
What is your issue with them? You don’t like the look of them? What about pylons? Houses?
Why do you care about how they look? Why does it bother you?
If not, then we can end our discussion here as there’s really nothing to be said. We are an international outlier of 1 on the basis of your point (if true).
But those companies have spent billions to build their networks, spending a few million to keep the country looking nice isn't significant when you've seen what they've spent now and in the past.
https://www.npr.org/2026/05/15/g-s1-122203/tensions-flare-near-strait-of-hormuz
b) I don't think we can blame the Prime Minister for the bonkers level of coverage the story has had this week.
Men covertly filming women at night and profiting from footage, BBC finds
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wxx97jlveo
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/stripped-tees.pdf
If you don’t want to cover motorways with coverage then again you want us to be an international outlier of 1. That’s fine but it’s not a mainstream position for a country.
https://x.com/LBC/status/2055191522216226863?s=20
Seems a bit prudish.
Everyone saying he'll put up taxes to fund spending so as to satisfy the markets - but surely the question will be how will the OBR score his tax rises in terms of the revenue they will generate and when that revenue will come in.
It's already been said that raising top rate of income tax will raise almost nothing.
If he brings in some new wealth tax there's going to be a significant time delay before any revenue actually comes in - whilst new system is set up, then a financial year, then 10 months to do tax return etc.
The new Mansion Tax announced in the November 2025 Budget comes into effect in April 2028.
So how is Burnham going to actually generate the revenue to fund the spending which he will want to do quickly?
We should have 99% coverage on motorways as a minimum. This is frequently achieved in other countries and those that don’t have government supported schemes to do it e.g. Germany and France
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62ceccdc8fa8f50c012d1406/COMEAP-dementia-report-2022.pdf
You don't wreck 2 national parks to save a bit of money, you can do it properly using smaller masts..