Burnham's carpetbagging may not be ignored by the Makersfield voter
Does he not liver there, or within a stone's throw of there at any rate? This isn't carpet bagging. Its certainly opportunistic but its not carpet bagging.
I suppose it depends how much of an outsider the natives there consider him to be. Today, the term has evolved beyond its historical context. It is now used informally to describe anyone who presumptuously seeks success or a position in a new locality—essentially, an outsider moving into an area to take advantage of a situation for personal gain.
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
I would suggest that depends very much on what he then does as PM. Much like Starmer, people may find the reality of a Burnham Government very different from the expectation.
People are definitely projecting a lot of hopes and dreams onto Burnham just as they did in 2024 with Starmer and 2017 with Corbyn. Might be a good idea to wait and see what he's like as PM (if he wins the by election).
There's a very real possibility he becomes Labour's Liz Truss, mortgage rates spike and public opinion sours on him very quickly. Just the fear of him becoming PM has sent our debt yields to the highest in the G7 once again.
If he funds spending with high tax though (and Burnham has promised a land tax, wealth tax and to put the top income tax rate back up to 50%) he will have balanced the books better than Truss. Truss cut tax but not spending so ended up with huge borrowing plans which the markets won't forgive
Breaking Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes will be extremely unpopular. Unless he calls an election to get a new mandate he is still bound to the 2024 manifesto. There's no easy path to having a massive spending splurge that the left wingers are all demanding so either he disappoints them and becomes unpopular, he raises taxes on working people which makes him deeply unpopular or he borrows from money markets and risks precipitating a meltdown.
There's no easy choices for whoever the PM is and all of the options have got clear downsides and risks.
Based on the mood in Makerfield today, I think @AndyBurnhamGM has made a massive miscalculation. Just got a feeling that @reformparty_uk is going to win, by a significant margin
Makerfield is in the top 50 Reform target seats, on current polls Reform should easily win it. However if Burnham wins it he has proved he could transform Labour's fortunes overnight
My hunch is that Burnham wins by about 3,000 votes. But Reform don't need to be discouraged by such a result of course, it's a bit of a one-off so to speak.
If Burnham won by 3,000 votes that would suggest a Burnham Labour party would win most seats not Reform, that would be devastating for Farage
@HYUFD please don't sink to the depths of the Centrist Dorks. They are lost, forever. They wishcast and hopecast 24/7. It is pathetic
You are a valued PB commenter because, despite your obvious and often admirable loyalty to the Blue Cause, you give sharp eyed and objective analyses of the facts,. You admit when things are shit
Or you DID
A Burnham win by 3000 votes would not be "devastating" for Farage. Are you on ketamine? It would be a close fought campaign in a - let us not forget - tradtionally VERY SOLID Labour seat where the victor is the single most charismatic Labour politician around, and also a successful local mayor, and it would have been won partly as a vote AGAINST a loathed Labour Prime Minister
It would mean almost nothing for the wider national context, it would be unique, in so many ways
Burnham isn't a centrist dork though is he, he is a Northerner and a bit of a lad now on the left of the Labour party,
Makerfield is only the 29th Reform target seat, if Farage can't even beat Labour there, Reform won't even get 50 seats at the next general election if Burnham replaces Starmer as PM! Then you are back to Kemi is our only hope to beat Labour
Burnham's carpetbagging may not be ignored by the Makersfield voter
Does he not liver there, or within a stone's throw of there at any rate? This isn't carpet bagging. Its certainly opportunistic but its not carpet bagging.
And was previously MP for part of the constituency.
Based on the mood in Makerfield today, I think @AndyBurnhamGM has made a massive miscalculation. Just got a feeling that @reformparty_uk is going to win, by a significant margin
Makerfield is in the top 50 Reform target seats, on current polls Reform should easily win it. However if Burnham wins it he has proved he could transform Labour's fortunes overnight
My hunch is that Burnham wins by about 3,000 votes. But Reform don't need to be discouraged by such a result of course, it's a bit of a one-off so to speak.
If Burnham won by 3,000 votes that would suggest a Burnham Labour party would win most seats not Reform, that would be devastating for Farage
@HYUFD please don't sink to the depths of the Centrist Dorks. They are lost, forever. They wishcast and hopecast 24/7. It is pathetic
You are a valued PB commenter because, despite your obvious and often admirable loyalty to the Blue Cause, you give sharp eyed and objective analyses of the facts,. You admit when things are shit
Or you DID
A Burnham win by 3000 votes would not be "devastating" for Farage. Are you on ketamine? It would be a close fought campaign in a - let us not forget - tradtionally VERY SOLID Labour seat where the victor is the single most charismatic Labour politician around, and also a successful local mayor, and it would have been won partly as a vote AGAINST a loathed Labour Prime Minister
It would mean almost nothing for the wider national context, it would be unique, in so many ways
Burnham isn't a centrist dork though is he, he is a Northerner and a bit of a lad now on the left of the Labour party,
Makerfield is only the 29th Reform target seat, if Farage can't even beat Labour there, Reform won't even get 50 seats at the next general election if Burnham replaces Starmer as PM! Then you are back to Kemi is our only hope to beat Labour
Kemi did better than I expected in the locals, certainly in London and got 2nd on the Sky NEV so I am behind her again
We really need a strategy for the rest of England over the next year. I also think she needs to start whatever her equivalent of "long term economic plan" is going to be asap. With Labour potentially screwing up the economy under Burnham with high tax and high spend or sovereign debt crisis having that phrase already cutting through will deliver dividends all through 2027 and 2028.
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
I would suggest that depends very much on what he then does as PM. Much like Starmer, people may find the reality of a Burnham Government very different from the expectation.
People are definitely projecting a lot of hopes and dreams onto Burnham just as they did in 2024 with Starmer and 2017 with Corbyn. Might be a good idea to wait and see what he's like as PM (if he wins the by election).
There's a very real possibility he becomes Labour's Liz Truss, mortgage rates spike and public opinion sours on him very quickly. Just the fear of him becoming PM has sent our debt yields to the highest in the G7 once again.
If he funds spending with high tax though (and Burnham has promised a land tax, wealth tax and to put the top income tax rate back up to 50%) he will have balanced the books better than Truss. Truss cut tax but not spending so ended up with huge borrowing plans which the markets won't forgive
Breaking Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes will be extremely unpopular. Unless he calls an election to get a new mandate he is still bound to the 2024 manifesto. There's no easy path to having a massive spending splurge that the left wingers are all demanding so either he disappoints them and becomes unpopular, he raises taxes on working people which makes him deeply unpopular or he borrows from money markets and risks precipitating a meltdown.
There's no easy choices for whoever the PM is and all of the options have got clear downsides and risks.
Yes but electorally he can get away with just raising tax on the rich, high earners and wealthy which is where Burnham would focus his tax rises
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
I would suggest that depends very much on what he then does as PM. Much like Starmer, people may find the reality of a Burnham Government very different from the expectation.
People are definitely projecting a lot of hopes and dreams onto Burnham just as they did in 2024 with Starmer and 2017 with Corbyn. Might be a good idea to wait and see what he's like as PM (if he wins the by election).
There's a very real possibility he becomes Labour's Liz Truss, mortgage rates spike and public opinion sours on him very quickly. Just the fear of him becoming PM has sent our debt yields to the highest in the G7 once again.
If he funds spending with high tax though (and Burnham has promised a land tax, wealth tax and to put the top income tax rate back up to 50%) he will have balanced the books better than Truss. Truss cut tax but not spending so ended up with huge borrowing plans which the markets won't forgive
Breaking Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes will be extremely unpopular. Unless he calls an election to get a new mandate he is still bound to the 2024 manifesto. There's no easy path to having a massive spending splurge that the left wingers are all demanding so either he disappoints them and becomes unpopular, he raises taxes on working people which makes him deeply unpopular or he borrows from money markets and risks precipitating a meltdown.
There's no easy choices for whoever the PM is and all of the options have got clear downsides and risks.
Yes but electorally he can get away with just raising tax on the rich, high earners and wealthy which is where Burnham would focus his tax rises
That's not going to raise a lot of money though which brings us back to either having to tell left wingers they can't have mega benefits rises and public sector payrises or risking a sovereign debt crisis by borrowing the difference. Burnham is already seen with a lot of suspicion by investors and a hint that he's going to borrow to splurge will have alarm bells ringing.
Based on the mood in Makerfield today, I think @AndyBurnhamGM has made a massive miscalculation. Just got a feeling that @reformparty_uk is going to win, by a significant margin
Makerfield is in the top 50 Reform target seats, on current polls Reform should easily win it. However if Burnham wins it he has proved he could transform Labour's fortunes overnight
My hunch is that Burnham wins by about 3,000 votes. But Reform don't need to be discouraged by such a result of course, it's a bit of a one-off so to speak.
If Burnham won by 3,000 votes that would suggest a Burnham Labour party would win most seats not Reform, that would be devastating for Farage
@HYUFD please don't sink to the depths of the Centrist Dorks. They are lost, forever. They wishcast and hopecast 24/7. It is pathetic
You are a valued PB commenter because, despite your obvious and often admirable loyalty to the Blue Cause, you give sharp eyed and objective analyses of the facts,. You admit when things are shit
Or you DID
A Burnham win by 3000 votes would not be "devastating" for Farage. Are you on ketamine? It would be a close fought campaign in a - let us not forget - tradtionally VERY SOLID Labour seat where the victor is the single most charismatic Labour politician around, and also a successful local mayor, and it would have been won partly as a vote AGAINST a loathed Labour Prime Minister
It would mean almost nothing for the wider national context, it would be unique, in so many ways
Burnham isn't a centrist dork though is he, he is a Northerner and a bit of a lad now on the left of the Labour party,
Makerfield is only the 29th Reform target seat, if Farage can't even beat Labour there, Reform won't even get 50 seats at the next general election if Burnham replaces Starmer as PM! Then you are back to Kemi is our only hope to beat Labour
Kemi did better than I expected in the locals, certainly in London and got 2nd on the Sky NEV so I am behind her again
We really need a strategy for the rest of England over the next year. I also think she needs to start whatever her equivalent of "long term economic plan" is going to be asap. With Labour potentially screwing up the economy under Burnham with high tax and high spend or sovereign debt crisis having that phrase already cutting through will deliver dividends all through 2027 and 2028.
Yes Burnham would be bad for Farage and Polanski, as he would win back lots of working class and progressive urbanites to Labour but good news for Kemi as with Stride she can put clear blue water between the Tories and Burnham Labour. Offering a low tax and controlled spending agenda in contrast to Burnham's tax and spend and a long term economic plan of fiscal prudence, targeted especially at middle class private sector workers, small business owners and retired asset owners
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
I would suggest that depends very much on what he then does as PM. Much like Starmer, people may find the reality of a Burnham Government very different from the expectation.
People are definitely projecting a lot of hopes and dreams onto Burnham just as they did in 2024 with Starmer and 2017 with Corbyn. Might be a good idea to wait and see what he's like as PM (if he wins the by election).
There's a very real possibility he becomes Labour's Liz Truss, mortgage rates spike and public opinion sours on him very quickly. Just the fear of him becoming PM has sent our debt yields to the highest in the G7 once again.
If he funds spending with high tax though (and Burnham has promised a land tax, wealth tax and to put the top income tax rate back up to 50%) he will have balanced the books better than Truss. Truss cut tax but not spending so ended up with huge borrowing plans which the markets won't forgive
Breaking Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes will be extremely unpopular. Unless he calls an election to get a new mandate he is still bound to the 2024 manifesto. There's no easy path to having a massive spending splurge that the left wingers are all demanding so either he disappoints them and becomes unpopular, he raises taxes on working people which makes him deeply unpopular or he borrows from money markets and risks precipitating a meltdown.
There's no easy choices for whoever the PM is and all of the options have got clear downsides and risks.
Yes but electorally he can get away with just raising tax on the rich, high earners and wealthy which is where Burnham would focus his tax rises
I just want him to have a coherent vision and an actionable and achievable plan, not this stumbling around in the fucking dark that Starmer is doing
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
Evidence A in my case against the PB Centrist Dork groupthink clusterwank
All of you, get a fucking grip. It's a mass pyschosis
Not me. The next three years are going to be rough as shit economically unless Trump can get some way out of Iran War and PM Burnham will get the blame.
Fair enough. Commendable honesty
The way I see it, this by-election is nearly all downside risk for Labour. I am trying to be objective, but that is what I see
To explain: if Burnham wins - unless he wins massively (highly unlikely) - that's a nice boost for the party, but it will soon be overwhelmed by the grisly reality of the leadership struggle (will Starmer go quietly? Will the Labour right meekly submit?) followed by the blood letting of reshuffles. And then the reality of trying to improve Britain in the midst of all the headwinds
Will a loss be a blow for Farage? Yes, but pretty modest, unless they are idiots. It can be portrayed as a vote against the Labour prime minister, with a very unusual and prominent Labour candidate, on his home turf, etc etc. It means almost nothing for the other 650 seats in the Commons
However, if even Andy Burnham cannot win, against Reform, in a traditionally Labour constituency, in his home town, where he is a popular Labour mayor - well, then Labour really are existentially fucked. And then they still have Starmer in power...
Although I'm sticking with my analysis that I'd be surprised if Burnham loses, I tend more towards your analysis of the longer term import of it. Losing Caerphilly and Gorton and Denton weren't crushing blows for Reform.
Indeed. The idea that Reform voters around the country - outside Manchester - are going to say Oh wow Andy Burnham won Makerfield, I'm changing my vote to Labour - is ridiculous
What Burnham needs is 1. win the by election, then 2. win the Labour leadership and become PM. then 3. make a material difference in the lives of the average Brit, in the next three years, and do it all from a much more left wing pro-migration stance. Can he do this? Maybe. He might win some Green voters. He will be more pro Palestine, tho fuck knows why this matters. I wish it did not matter
My hunch is that, if he becomes PM, he will quickly meet the immovable object of the bond markets, he will quickly reveal he is not an irresistible force, and Labour will be quickly back where they started. Fucked, but with a slightly more charming captain at the helm
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
Evidence A in my case against the PB Centrist Dork groupthink clusterwank
All of you, get a fucking grip. It's a mass pyschosis
Not me. The next three years are going to be rough as shit economically unless Trump can get some way out of Iran War and PM Burnham will get the blame.
Fair enough. Commendable honesty
The way I see it, this by-election is nearly all downside risk for Labour. I am trying to be objective, but that is what I see
To explain: if Burnham wins - unless he wins massively (highly unlikely) - that's a nice boost for the party, but it will soon be overwhelmed by the grisly reality of the leadership struggle (will Starmer go quietly? Will the Labour right meekly submit?) followed by the blood letting of reshuffles. And then the reality of trying to improve Britain in the midst of all the headwinds
Will a loss be a blow for Farage? Yes, but pretty modest, unless they are idiots. It can be portrayed as a vote against the Labour prime minister, with a very unusual and prominent Labour candidate, on his home turf, etc etc. It means almost nothing for the other 650 seats in the Commons
However, if even Andy Burnham cannot win, against Reform, in a traditionally Labour constituency, in his home town, where he is a popular Labour mayor - well, then Labour really are existentially fucked. And then they still have Starmer in power...
Although I'm sticking with my analysis that I'd be surprised if Burnham loses, I tend more towards your analysis of the longer term import of it. Losing Caerphilly and Gorton and Denton weren't crushing blows for Reform.
Indeed. The idea that Reform voters around the country - outside Manchester - are going to say Oh wow Andy Burnham won Makerfield, I'm changing my vote to Labour - is ridiculous
What Burnham needs is 1. win the by election, then 2. win the Labour leadership and become PM. then 3. make a material difference in the lives of the average Brit, in the next three years, and do it all from a much more left wing pro-migration stance. Can he do this? Maybe. He might win some Green voters. He will be more pro Palestine, tho fuck knows why this matters. I wish it did not matter
My hunch is that, if he becomes PM, he will quickly meet the immovable object of the bond markets, he will quickly reveal he is not an irresistible force, and Labour will be quickly back where they started. Fucked, but with a slightly more charming captain at the helm
Sweden, France, Denmark, even Canada and Brazil now tax and spend more than we do. Their markets haven't crashed, even if they aren't growing like the UAE, Switzerland or Singapore or the US are.
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
I would suggest that depends very much on what he then does as PM. Much like Starmer, people may find the reality of a Burnham Government very different from the expectation.
People are definitely projecting a lot of hopes and dreams onto Burnham just as they did in 2024 with Starmer and 2017 with Corbyn. Might be a good idea to wait and see what he's like as PM (if he wins the by election).
There's a very real possibility he becomes Labour's Liz Truss, mortgage rates spike and public opinion sours on him very quickly. Just the fear of him becoming PM has sent our debt yields to the highest in the G7 once again.
If he funds spending with high tax though (and Burnham has promised a land tax, wealth tax and to put the top income tax rate back up to 50%) he will have balanced the books better than Truss. Truss cut tax but not spending so ended up with huge borrowing plans which the markets won't forgive
Breaking Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes will be extremely unpopular. Unless he calls an election to get a new mandate he is still bound to the 2024 manifesto. There's no easy path to having a massive spending splurge that the left wingers are all demanding so either he disappoints them and becomes unpopular, he raises taxes on working people which makes him deeply unpopular or he borrows from money markets and risks precipitating a meltdown.
There's no easy choices for whoever the PM is and all of the options have got clear downsides and risks.
Yes but electorally he can get away with just raising tax on the rich, high earners and wealthy which is where Burnham would focus his tax rises
I just want him to have a coherent vision and an actionable and achievable plan, not this stumbling around in the fucking dark that Starmer is doing
Burnham hasn't done tax and spend in Manchester, but has been nearly universally recognised as a good mayor. Can he do the same trick as PM? Maybe so. Certainly he has much better communication.
I am not particularly a fan, but there are worse options, including carrying on with Starmer.
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
Evidence A in my case against the PB Centrist Dork groupthink clusterwank
All of you, get a fucking grip. It's a mass pyschosis
Not me. The next three years are going to be rough as shit economically unless Trump can get some way out of Iran War and PM Burnham will get the blame.
Fair enough. Commendable honesty
The way I see it, this by-election is nearly all downside risk for Labour. I am trying to be objective, but that is what I see
To explain: if Burnham wins - unless he wins massively (highly unlikely) - that's a nice boost for the party, but it will soon be overwhelmed by the grisly reality of the leadership struggle (will Starmer go quietly? Will the Labour right meekly submit?) followed by the blood letting of reshuffles. And then the reality of trying to improve Britain in the midst of all the headwinds
Will a loss be a blow for Farage? Yes, but pretty modest, unless they are idiots. It can be portrayed as a vote against the Labour prime minister, with a very unusual and prominent Labour candidate, on his home turf, etc etc. It means almost nothing for the other 650 seats in the Commons
However, if even Andy Burnham cannot win, against Reform, in a traditionally Labour constituency, in his home town, where he is a popular Labour mayor - well, then Labour really are existentially fucked. And then they still have Starmer in power...
However, there is even more downside risk with sticking with Starmer.
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
Evidence A in my case against the PB Centrist Dork groupthink clusterwank
All of you, get a fucking grip. It's a mass pyschosis
Not me. The next three years are going to be rough as shit economically unless Trump can get some way out of Iran War and PM Burnham will get the blame.
Fair enough. Commendable honesty
The way I see it, this by-election is nearly all downside risk for Labour. I am trying to be objective, but that is what I see
To explain: if Burnham wins - unless he wins massively (highly unlikely) - that's a nice boost for the party, but it will soon be overwhelmed by the grisly reality of the leadership struggle (will Starmer go quietly? Will the Labour right meekly submit?) followed by the blood letting of reshuffles. And then the reality of trying to improve Britain in the midst of all the headwinds
Will a loss be a blow for Farage? Yes, but pretty modest, unless they are idiots. It can be portrayed as a vote against the Labour prime minister, with a very unusual and prominent Labour candidate, on his home turf, etc etc. It means almost nothing for the other 650 seats in the Commons
However, if even Andy Burnham cannot win, against Reform, in a traditionally Labour constituency, in his home town, where he is a popular Labour mayor - well, then Labour really are existentially fucked. And then they still have Starmer in power...
Although I'm sticking with my analysis that I'd be surprised if Burnham loses, I tend more towards your analysis of the longer term import of it. Losing Caerphilly and Gorton and Denton weren't crushing blows for Reform.
Indeed. The idea that Reform voters around the country - outside Manchester - are going to say Oh wow Andy Burnham won Makerfield, I'm changing my vote to Labour - is ridiculous
What Burnham needs is 1. win the by election, then 2. win the Labour leadership and become PM. then 3. make a material difference in the lives of the average Brit, in the next three years, and do it all from a much more left wing pro-migration stance. Can he do this? Maybe. He might win some Green voters. He will be more pro Palestine, tho fuck knows why this matters. I wish it did not matter
My hunch is that, if he becomes PM, he will quickly meet the immovable object of the bond markets, he will quickly reveal he is not an irresistible force, and Labour will be quickly back where they started. Fucked, but with a slightly more charming captain at the helm
There is also the personality aspect, Burnham would probably be the most charismatic Labour leader since Blair. Indeed had Labour picked him and not Jezza in 2015 as their leader they might even have beaten May's Tories in 2017
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
Evidence A in my case against the PB Centrist Dork groupthink clusterwank
All of you, get a fucking grip. It's a mass pyschosis
Not me. The next three years are going to be rough as shit economically unless Trump can get some way out of Iran War and PM Burnham will get the blame.
Fair enough. Commendable honesty
The way I see it, this by-election is nearly all downside risk for Labour. I am trying to be objective, but that is what I see
To explain: if Burnham wins - unless he wins massively (highly unlikely) - that's a nice boost for the party, but it will soon be overwhelmed by the grisly reality of the leadership struggle (will Starmer go quietly? Will the Labour right meekly submit?) followed by the blood letting of reshuffles. And then the reality of trying to improve Britain in the midst of all the headwinds
Will a loss be a blow for Farage? Yes, but pretty modest, unless they are idiots. It can be portrayed as a vote against the Labour prime minister, with a very unusual and prominent Labour candidate, on his home turf, etc etc. It means almost nothing for the other 650 seats in the Commons
However, if even Andy Burnham cannot win, against Reform, in a traditionally Labour constituency, in his home town, where he is a popular Labour mayor - well, then Labour really are existentially fucked. And then they still have Starmer in power...
Although I'm sticking with my analysis that I'd be surprised if Burnham loses, I tend more towards your analysis of the longer term import of it. Losing Caerphilly and Gorton and Denton weren't crushing blows for Reform.
Indeed. The idea that Reform voters around the country - outside Manchester - are going to say Oh wow Andy Burnham won Makerfield, I'm changing my vote to Labour - is ridiculous
What Burnham needs is 1. win the by election, then 2. win the Labour leadership and become PM. then 3. make a material difference in the lives of the average Brit, in the next three years, and do it all from a much more left wing pro-migration stance. Can he do this? Maybe. He might win some Green voters. He will be more pro Palestine, tho fuck knows why this matters. I wish it did not matter
My hunch is that, if he becomes PM, he will quickly meet the immovable object of the bond markets, he will quickly reveal he is not an irresistible force, and Labour will be quickly back where they started. Fucked, but with a slightly more charming captain at the helm
My hunch is, assuming 1 and 2 happen for a moment, that not a great deal will change. He's constantly criticised for having changed his positions within the Labour Party. Yet simultaneously asserted he'll be some kind of leftist ideologue in power leading to economic collapse. Well that isn't how he's run Manchester. Quite the opposite, in fact. My sense is that there be a huge change of tone. More upbeat, more optimistic, more open to ideas. More human. So. A great deal of surface change. But not a lot done differently.
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
Evidence A in my case against the PB Centrist Dork groupthink clusterwank
All of you, get a fucking grip. It's a mass pyschosis
Not me. The next three years are going to be rough as shit economically unless Trump can get some way out of Iran War and PM Burnham will get the blame.
Fair enough. Commendable honesty
The way I see it, this by-election is nearly all downside risk for Labour. I am trying to be objective, but that is what I see
To explain: if Burnham wins - unless he wins massively (highly unlikely) - that's a nice boost for the party, but it will soon be overwhelmed by the grisly reality of the leadership struggle (will Starmer go quietly? Will the Labour right meekly submit?) followed by the blood letting of reshuffles. And then the reality of trying to improve Britain in the midst of all the headwinds
Will a loss be a blow for Farage? Yes, but pretty modest, unless they are idiots. It can be portrayed as a vote against the Labour prime minister, with a very unusual and prominent Labour candidate, on his home turf, etc etc. It means almost nothing for the other 650 seats in the Commons
However, if even Andy Burnham cannot win, against Reform, in a traditionally Labour constituency, in his home town, where he is a popular Labour mayor - well, then Labour really are existentially fucked. And then they still have Starmer in power...
However, there is even more downside risk with sticking with Starmer.
Although that now seems highly unlikely.
Yes, I agree
They have to dump Starmer. Just because the alternatives aren't great doesn't mean Labour are making the wrong decision
Starmer is like a gangrenous limb. For whatever reasons, however irrational - he is that hated and he is that bad. He is threatening to poison the entire body, and prove fatal. Saw him off. It won't be nice, but that's where we are
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
I would suggest that depends very much on what he then does as PM. Much like Starmer, people may find the reality of a Burnham Government very different from the expectation.
People are definitely projecting a lot of hopes and dreams onto Burnham just as they did in 2024 with Starmer and 2017 with Corbyn. Might be a good idea to wait and see what he's like as PM (if he wins the by election).
There's a very real possibility he becomes Labour's Liz Truss, mortgage rates spike and public opinion sours on him very quickly. Just the fear of him becoming PM has sent our debt yields to the highest in the G7 once again.
If he funds spending with high tax though (and Burnham has promised a land tax, wealth tax and to put the top income tax rate back up to 50%) he will have balanced the books better than Truss. Truss cut tax but not spending so ended up with huge borrowing plans which the markets won't forgive
Breaking Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes will be extremely unpopular. Unless he calls an election to get a new mandate he is still bound to the 2024 manifesto. There's no easy path to having a massive spending splurge that the left wingers are all demanding so either he disappoints them and becomes unpopular, he raises taxes on working people which makes him deeply unpopular or he borrows from money markets and risks precipitating a meltdown.
There's no easy choices for whoever the PM is and all of the options have got clear downsides and risks.
Yes but electorally he can get away with just raising tax on the rich, high earners and wealthy which is where Burnham would focus his tax rises
Electorally, possibly. It's unlikely to raise anything much, so won't be much cop for a spending spree.
It's worth noting that trying to pick the pockets of employers via NI has cut through as pretty unpopular, despite it being a tax on fairly faceless employers in many cases (the incidence is actually almost entirely on employees, but that's not something the man in the street really understands).
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
Evidence A in my case against the PB Centrist Dork groupthink clusterwank
All of you, get a fucking grip. It's a mass pyschosis
Not me. The next three years are going to be rough as shit economically unless Trump can get some way out of Iran War and PM Burnham will get the blame.
Fair enough. Commendable honesty
The way I see it, this by-election is nearly all downside risk for Labour. I am trying to be objective, but that is what I see
To explain: if Burnham wins - unless he wins massively (highly unlikely) - that's a nice boost for the party, but it will soon be overwhelmed by the grisly reality of the leadership struggle (will Starmer go quietly? Will the Labour right meekly submit?) followed by the blood letting of reshuffles. And then the reality of trying to improve Britain in the midst of all the headwinds
Will a loss be a blow for Farage? Yes, but pretty modest, unless they are idiots. It can be portrayed as a vote against the Labour prime minister, with a very unusual and prominent Labour candidate, on his home turf, etc etc. It means almost nothing for the other 650 seats in the Commons
However, if even Andy Burnham cannot win, against Reform, in a traditionally Labour constituency, in his home town, where he is a popular Labour mayor - well, then Labour really are existentially fucked. And then they still have Starmer in power...
Although I'm sticking with my analysis that I'd be surprised if Burnham loses, I tend more towards your analysis of the longer term import of it. Losing Caerphilly and Gorton and Denton weren't crushing blows for Reform.
In retrospect, Caerphilly and Gorton and Denton weren't prime targets for them because the realignment on the left was the biggest factor. Ordinarily, a by election Makerfield should be a must win for them to show that they're on course for power, but the circumstances of Burnham being the Labour candidate mean that the normal rules don't apply.
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
Evidence A in my case against the PB Centrist Dork groupthink clusterwank
All of you, get a fucking grip. It's a mass pyschosis
Not me. The next three years are going to be rough as shit economically unless Trump can get some way out of Iran War and PM Burnham will get the blame.
Fair enough. Commendable honesty
The way I see it, this by-election is nearly all downside risk for Labour. I am trying to be objective, but that is what I see
To explain: if Burnham wins - unless he wins massively (highly unlikely) - that's a nice boost for the party, but it will soon be overwhelmed by the grisly reality of the leadership struggle (will Starmer go quietly? Will the Labour right meekly submit?) followed by the blood letting of reshuffles. And then the reality of trying to improve Britain in the midst of all the headwinds
Will a loss be a blow for Farage? Yes, but pretty modest, unless they are idiots. It can be portrayed as a vote against the Labour prime minister, with a very unusual and prominent Labour candidate, on his home turf, etc etc. It means almost nothing for the other 650 seats in the Commons
However, if even Andy Burnham cannot win, against Reform, in a traditionally Labour constituency, in his home town, where he is a popular Labour mayor - well, then Labour really are existentially fucked. And then they still have Starmer in power...
However, there is even more downside risk with sticking with Starmer.
Although that now seems highly unlikely.
Yes, I agree
They have to dump Starmer. Just because the alternatives aren't great doesn't mean Labour are making the wrong decision
Starmer is like a gangrenous limb. For whatever reasons, however irrational - he is that hated and he is that bad. He is threatening to poison the entire body, and prove fatal. Saw him off. It won't be nice, but that's where we are
Why are German politicians always so wrong about everything?
"German chancellor warns young people against moving to US Friedrich Merz tells Catholic gathering in Würzburg that ‘even the best educated in America have great difficulty in finding a job’" (£)
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
Evidence A in my case against the PB Centrist Dork groupthink clusterwank
All of you, get a fucking grip. It's a mass pyschosis
Not me. The next three years are going to be rough as shit economically unless Trump can get some way out of Iran War and PM Burnham will get the blame.
Fair enough. Commendable honesty
The way I see it, this by-election is nearly all downside risk for Labour. I am trying to be objective, but that is what I see
To explain: if Burnham wins - unless he wins massively (highly unlikely) - that's a nice boost for the party, but it will soon be overwhelmed by the grisly reality of the leadership struggle (will Starmer go quietly? Will the Labour right meekly submit?) followed by the blood letting of reshuffles. And then the reality of trying to improve Britain in the midst of all the headwinds
Will a loss be a blow for Farage? Yes, but pretty modest, unless they are idiots. It can be portrayed as a vote against the Labour prime minister, with a very unusual and prominent Labour candidate, on his home turf, etc etc. It means almost nothing for the other 650 seats in the Commons
However, if even Andy Burnham cannot win, against Reform, in a traditionally Labour constituency, in his home town, where he is a popular Labour mayor - well, then Labour really are existentially fucked. And then they still have Starmer in power...
Although I'm sticking with my analysis that I'd be surprised if Burnham loses, I tend more towards your analysis of the longer term import of it. Losing Caerphilly and Gorton and Denton weren't crushing blows for Reform.
Indeed. The idea that Reform voters around the country - outside Manchester - are going to say Oh wow Andy Burnham won Makerfield, I'm changing my vote to Labour - is ridiculous
What Burnham needs is 1. win the by election, then 2. win the Labour leadership and become PM. then 3. make a material difference in the lives of the average Brit, in the next three years, and do it all from a much more left wing pro-migration stance. Can he do this? Maybe. He might win some Green voters. He will be more pro Palestine, tho fuck knows why this matters. I wish it did not matter
My hunch is that, if he becomes PM, he will quickly meet the immovable object of the bond markets, he will quickly reveal he is not an irresistible force, and Labour will be quickly back where they started. Fucked, but with a slightly more charming captain at the helm
He's got to disappoint one or more groups of voters.
1. He spends loads extra by raising tens of billions in extra tax by breaking Labour's manifesto pledge. Just recently over 60% of voters said taxes are already too high, I don't think this is feasible, if he does it then he alienates millions of voters.
2. He spends loads extra by cutting spending elsewhere, realistically this has to come from welfare and pensions. I don't think the left will allow this and it will make him extremely unpopular with left wingers, old people and public sector workers.
3. He spends loads by borrowing loads from the markets. Risking a sovereign debt crisis and surging bond yields pissing off every single person who has a mortgage and bringing back the ghost of Liz Truss. Very high risk and ultimately probably not going to happen once he's briefed by the BoE and Treasury on just how bad things actually are and how little headroom there is for additional borrowing
4. He changes very little maybe a token tax rise on the "rich" that doesn't raise very much money, doesn't commit to any real extra spending, runs a very similar fiscal plan to now and lefties hate him for it.
Of these options the fourth is the most likely and the third the least likely. Two and three probably about the same.
Anyone talking about 10 years for Labour because Burnham will walk the next election is caught up in the moment. Lots of unpopular decisions await him, not least energy prices, jet fuel supplies in the run up to summer holidays and petrol prices in the very short term.
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
I would suggest that depends very much on what he then does as PM. Much like Starmer, people may find the reality of a Burnham Government very different from the expectation.
People are definitely projecting a lot of hopes and dreams onto Burnham just as they did in 2024 with Starmer and 2017 with Corbyn. Might be a good idea to wait and see what he's like as PM (if he wins the by election).
There's a very real possibility he becomes Labour's Liz Truss, mortgage rates spike and public opinion sours on him very quickly. Just the fear of him becoming PM has sent our debt yields to the highest in the G7 once again.
If he funds spending with high tax though (and Burnham has promised a land tax, wealth tax and to put the top income tax rate back up to 50%) he will have balanced the books better than Truss. Truss cut tax but not spending so ended up with huge borrowing plans which the markets won't forgive
Breaking Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes will be extremely unpopular. Unless he calls an election to get a new mandate he is still bound to the 2024 manifesto. There's no easy path to having a massive spending splurge that the left wingers are all demanding so either he disappoints them and becomes unpopular, he raises taxes on working people which makes him deeply unpopular or he borrows from money markets and risks precipitating a meltdown.
There's no easy choices for whoever the PM is and all of the options have got clear downsides and risks.
Yes but electorally he can get away with just raising tax on the rich, high earners and wealthy which is where Burnham would focus his tax rises
I just want him to have a coherent vision and an actionable and achievable plan, not this stumbling around in the fucking dark that Starmer is doing
Burnham hasn't done tax and spend in Manchester, but has been nearly universally recognised as a good mayor. Can he do the same trick as PM? Maybe so. Certainly he has much better communication.
I am not particularly a fan, but there are worse options, including carrying on with Starmer.
He has no tax powers (pretty much) in Manchester. So his budget is basically fixed.
And, short of doing a Woking, can’t fiddle the spend part either.
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
Evidence A in my case against the PB Centrist Dork groupthink clusterwank
All of you, get a fucking grip. It's a mass pyschosis
Not me. The next three years are going to be rough as shit economically unless Trump can get some way out of Iran War and PM Burnham will get the blame.
Fair enough. Commendable honesty
The way I see it, this by-election is nearly all downside risk for Labour. I am trying to be objective, but that is what I see
To explain: if Burnham wins - unless he wins massively (highly unlikely) - that's a nice boost for the party, but it will soon be overwhelmed by the grisly reality of the leadership struggle (will Starmer go quietly? Will the Labour right meekly submit?) followed by the blood letting of reshuffles. And then the reality of trying to improve Britain in the midst of all the headwinds
Will a loss be a blow for Farage? Yes, but pretty modest, unless they are idiots. It can be portrayed as a vote against the Labour prime minister, with a very unusual and prominent Labour candidate, on his home turf, etc etc. It means almost nothing for the other 650 seats in the Commons
However, if even Andy Burnham cannot win, against Reform, in a traditionally Labour constituency, in his home town, where he is a popular Labour mayor - well, then Labour really are existentially fucked. And then they still have Starmer in power...
Although I'm sticking with my analysis that I'd be surprised if Burnham loses, I tend more towards your analysis of the longer term import of it. Losing Caerphilly and Gorton and Denton weren't crushing blows for Reform.
Indeed. The idea that Reform voters around the country - outside Manchester - are going to say Oh wow Andy Burnham won Makerfield, I'm changing my vote to Labour - is ridiculous
What Burnham needs is 1. win the by election, then 2. win the Labour leadership and become PM. then 3. make a material difference in the lives of the average Brit, in the next three years, and do it all from a much more left wing pro-migration stance. Can he do this? Maybe. He might win some Green voters. He will be more pro Palestine, tho fuck knows why this matters. I wish it did not matter
My hunch is that, if he becomes PM, he will quickly meet the immovable object of the bond markets, he will quickly reveal he is not an irresistible force, and Labour will be quickly back where they started. Fucked, but with a slightly more charming captain at the helm
My hunch is, assuming 1 and 2 happen for a moment, that not a great deal will change. He's constantly criticised for having changed his positions within the Labour Party. Yet simultaneously asserted he'll be some kind of leftist ideologue in power leading to economic collapse. Well that isn't how he's run Manchester. Quite the opposite, in fact. My sense is that there be a huge change of tone. More upbeat, more optimistic, more open to ideas. More human. So. A great deal of surface change. But not a lot done differently.
To be fair, I think will Labour will benefit quite a lot - at the start - from simply dumping Starmer. Skyr is anti-catnip. The new guy can jettison a lot of Starmer's cranky off putting obsessions (eg Chagos, which however "minor", really matters to the media if not the voter). So I expect a notable bounce, if Burnham wins and then becomes PM
TL;DR: The British public WILL give him a honeymoon, out of sheer relief. But it will not last long
Reform are running buses full of supporters from as many counties as possible up to Makerfield for this weekend, and have hired hotels all over the area. Labour's operation also well underway.
Hiring hotels and those buses count as an election expense and the election has started so all this spending is part of the £180,050 that Reform can spend in total
The Electoral Commission claims the earliest you can become a candidate is the day a vacancy occurs. As Simons's has not taken the Hundreds/Northstead they may argue that it's outside the period. I'm sure the court case will be tedious and well reported.
If the coach trips to Maketfield are personal gifts do they count as election expenses?
What if the passengers are all asked to pay for tickets on the coaches, so that the party doesn't incur any cost for the coach, and all the passengers happen to receive personal gifts from a very generous individual who lives in Thailand - would that count as an election expense then?
On the first, you can’t avoid expenses by having stuff gifted, or even discounted below commercial cost. You have to declare the full market cost.
On the second, I don’t know for sure but would guess the party declares the net cost, if any
All this shows that in GE 2028/9 money will not be an issue for Reform. They are going to try to spend their way into power.
Nobody is going to force a rerun of a general election because a party broke spending limits. The rules are a fiction that the parties have mostly stuck to, most of the time, because no party wants to end up needing to raise £100m to fight a general election.
I remember Crick getting extremely over excited that the Tories had widely overspent, wasnt it something about shipping a load of student activists around the country? He was banging on about every night as scandal of the century
Wasn't that just for the Reckless by-election? I forget.
Anyone, point is that the worst that happens is that a few election agents are sacrificed to the courts, but if the money makes a difference and the election is won as a result no British court is daring to unseat the Prime Minister over it.
Its not about directly overturning the GE as such. Its about forcing a by-election in several constituencies. Whether that is then enough to change the overall GE result depends entirely on the winning party's majority.
Well, there are supposedly limits on national spending too. Which constituencies do you rerun if those are breached?
In that case it is not the Constituency Party Agents who will be sacrificed to the Courts but the Party Treasurer or Campaign Manager as they are legally responsible for campaign spending.
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
3. I have a shelf full of books I want to read before I'd get to their list.
It depresses me a bit to think how short life is in relation to the number of books one could read.
Of making many books there is no end. (Eccles 12:12)
Very true. My wife has just informed me she has read 26, and that most of them weren't worth the bother.
Same for me., I've read about 25-30 of these, and most of them are meh
Honourable exceptions:
Catch 22 - genuine genius
Master and Margarita - wow
A Farewell to Arms - searing
The Rings of Saturn - haunting
The Leopard - enriching
Lolita - magical use of English
Disgrace, The Brothers Karamazov, Things Fall Apart, Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness, Don Quixote all deserve their place on the list amongst the ones that I have read.
I found Nervous Conditions a bit of a slog but enjoyed it at the end. I count Midnights Children as part of my "gave up after 20 pages" list. Rushdies style just annoys me.
Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve an £18 billion increase in defence spending as he faces a battle for political survival
Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, has written to Starmer in recent weeks warning him that Britain would struggle to maintain its position on the world stage without a significant increase in spending, The Times understands
He warned that the armed forces could not afford the jets, munitions and advanced technology that Britain needs to fight a future war without a significant increase to the budget
Dame Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, is also understood to have pushed for a big increase in spending
The prime minister is expected to approve the spending boost as soon as next week, bringing an end to months of delays and internal rows, amid concerns in the Treasury that it would be unaffordable
It is unclear how the increase in spending will be funded, although a Whitehall source insisted it would be “fully affordable”
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
3. I have a shelf full of books I want to read before I'd get to their list.
It depresses me a bit to think how short life is in relation to the number of books one could read.
Of making many books there is no end. (Eccles 12:12)
Very true. My wife has just informed me she has read 26, and that most of them weren't worth the bother.
Same for me., I've read about 25-30 of these, and most of them are meh
Honourable exceptions:
Catch 22 - genuine genius
Master and Margarita - wow
A Farewell to Arms - searing
The Rings of Saturn - haunting
The Leopard - enriching
Lolita - magical use of English
Disgrace, The Brothers Karamazov, Things Fall Apart, Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness, Don Quixote all deserve their place on the list amongst the ones that I have read.
I found Nervous Conditions a bit of a slog but enjoyed it at the end. I count Midnights Children as part of my "gave up after 20 pages list. Rushdies style just annoys me.
I've read all of those - apart from Don Quixote - and they didn't touch me at all. Indeed I can barely remember them, apart from thinking "what is this fucking shit" at the end of Disgrace, and throwing it across a room
Apocalypse Now is a billion times more memorable than Heart of Darkness, as a work of art
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
I would suggest that depends very much on what he then does as PM. Much like Starmer, people may find the reality of a Burnham Government very different from the expectation.
People are definitely projecting a lot of hopes and dreams onto Burnham just as they did in 2024 with Starmer and 2017 with Corbyn. Might be a good idea to wait and see what he's like as PM (if he wins the by election).
There's a very real possibility he becomes Labour's Liz Truss, mortgage rates spike and public opinion sours on him very quickly. Just the fear of him becoming PM has sent our debt yields to the highest in the G7 once again.
If he funds spending with high tax though (and Burnham has promised a land tax, wealth tax and to put the top income tax rate back up to 50%) he will have balanced the books better than Truss. Truss cut tax but not spending so ended up with huge borrowing plans which the markets won't forgive
Breaking Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes will be extremely unpopular. Unless he calls an election to get a new mandate he is still bound to the 2024 manifesto. There's no easy path to having a massive spending splurge that the left wingers are all demanding so either he disappoints them and becomes unpopular, he raises taxes on working people which makes him deeply unpopular or he borrows from money markets and risks precipitating a meltdown.
There's no easy choices for whoever the PM is and all of the options have got clear downsides and risks.
Yes but electorally he can get away with just raising tax on the rich, high earners and wealthy which is where Burnham would focus his tax rises
I just want him to have a coherent vision and an actionable and achievable plan, not this stumbling around in the fucking dark that Starmer is doing
Burnham hasn't done tax and spend in Manchester, but has been nearly universally recognised as a good mayor. Can he do the same trick as PM? Maybe so. Certainly he has much better communication.
I am not particularly a fan, but there are worse options, including carrying on with Starmer.
He has no tax powers (pretty much) in Manchester. So his budget is basically fixed.
And, short of doing a Woking, can’t fiddle the spend part either.
Exactly. To make such an impact with no extra funding is a rare talent.
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve an £18 billion increase in defence spending as he faces a battle for political survival
Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, has written to Starmer in recent weeks warning him that Britain would struggle to maintain its position on the world stage without a significant increase in spending, The Times understands
He warned that the armed forces could not afford the jets, munitions and advanced technology that Britain needs to fight a future war without a significant increase to the budget
Dame Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, is also understood to have pushed for a big increase in spending
The prime minister is expected to approve the spending boost as soon as next week, bringing an end to months of delays and internal rows, amid concerns in the Treasury that it would be unaffordable
It is unclear how the increase in spending will be funded, although a Whitehall source insisted it would be “fully affordable”
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
3. I have a shelf full of books I want to read before I'd get to their list.
It depresses me a bit to think how short life is in relation to the number of books one could read.
Of making many books there is no end. (Eccles 12:12)
Very true. My wife has just informed me she has read 26, and that most of them weren't worth the bother.
Same for me., I've read about 25-30 of these, and most of them are meh
Honourable exceptions:
Catch 22 - genuine genius
Master and Margarita - wow
A Farewell to Arms - searing
The Rings of Saturn - haunting
The Leopard - enriching
Lolita - magical use of English
Very much so on Catch 22. A work of staggering complexity, depth and humanity cunningly disguised as humour.
Also, incredibly and genuinely fucking funny
Very very few books are laugh out loud funny. Martin Amis on peak form could do it, Wodehouse obviously. Catch 22 does it, more than once, AND manages to be a blistering indictment of the lunacy of warfare, at the same time
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
Evidence A in my case against the PB Centrist Dork groupthink clusterwank
All of you, get a fucking grip. It's a mass pyschosis
Not me. The next three years are going to be rough as shit economically unless Trump can get some way out of Iran War and PM Burnham will get the blame.
Fair enough. Commendable honesty
The way I see it, this by-election is nearly all downside risk for Labour. I am trying to be objective, but that is what I see
To explain: if Burnham wins - unless he wins massively (highly unlikely) - that's a nice boost for the party, but it will soon be overwhelmed by the grisly reality of the leadership struggle (will Starmer go quietly? Will the Labour right meekly submit?) followed by the blood letting of reshuffles. And then the reality of trying to improve Britain in the midst of all the headwinds
Will a loss be a blow for Farage? Yes, but pretty modest, unless they are idiots. It can be portrayed as a vote against the Labour prime minister, with a very unusual and prominent Labour candidate, on his home turf, etc etc. It means almost nothing for the other 650 seats in the Commons
However, if even Andy Burnham cannot win, against Reform, in a traditionally Labour constituency, in his home town, where he is a popular Labour mayor - well, then Labour really are existentially fucked. And then they still have Starmer in power...
Although I'm sticking with my analysis that I'd be surprised if Burnham loses, I tend more towards your analysis of the longer term import of it. Losing Caerphilly and Gorton and Denton weren't crushing blows for Reform.
Indeed. The idea that Reform voters around the country - outside Manchester - are going to say Oh wow Andy Burnham won Makerfield, I'm changing my vote to Labour - is ridiculous
What Burnham needs is 1. win the by election, then 2. win the Labour leadership and become PM. then 3. make a material difference in the lives of the average Brit, in the next three years, and do it all from a much more left wing pro-migration stance. Can he do this? Maybe. He might win some Green voters. He will be more pro Palestine, tho fuck knows why this matters. I wish it did not matter
My hunch is that, if he becomes PM, he will quickly meet the immovable object of the bond markets, he will quickly reveal he is not an irresistible force, and Labour will be quickly back where they started. Fucked, but with a slightly more charming captain at the helm
My hunch is, assuming 1 and 2 happen for a moment, that not a great deal will change. He's constantly criticised for having changed his positions within the Labour Party. Yet simultaneously asserted he'll be some kind of leftist ideologue in power leading to economic collapse. Well that isn't how he's run Manchester. Quite the opposite, in fact. My sense is that there be a huge change of tone. More upbeat, more optimistic, more open to ideas. More human. So. A great deal of surface change. But not a lot done differently.
To be fair, I think will Labour will benefit quite a lot - at the start - from simply dumping Starmer. Skyr is anti-catnip. The new guy can jettison a lot of Starmer's cranky off putting obsessions (eg Chagos, which however "minor", really matters to the media if not the voter). So I expect a notable bounce, if Burnham wins and then becomes PM
TL;DR: The British public WILL give him a honeymoon, out of sheer relief. But it will not last long
Yes I think this is about right. I think Labour will pull level with Reform and maybe overtake them for a short period of time if Burnham takes over but then reality will bite and he's going to have to start disappointing people because there really isn't a lot of money to spend unless he's willing to make some very hard decisions on welfare spending, deportations and public sector pay/pensions. I don't see the left allowing any of that.
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
Is that embarrassingly too many or embarrassingly not enough?
I've read nine and I have another five or six in boxes waiting for our bookshelves to be constructed (and to be read). I do like Our Mutual Friend. The Road is harrowing. The Handmaid's Tale was excellent. Wolf Hall was good. I read Great Expectations as a child and wasn't particularly impressed, but might be worth another go. The God of Small Things is very forgettable. I am sure I read it, but I do not recall anything about it. The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie was very disappointing (but at least it wasn't as bad as Middlemarch, which I am sure is in the top 20). Frankenstein I am sure would have been a very different read if I hadn't already been so exposed to the genre it created when I read it. Don Quixote was fun, but about four times longer than it needed to be.
I think the Scholomance trilogy, starting with A Deadly Education, by Naomi Novik has been my favourite read of the decade so far.
There are an impossible number of books being published to keep up with and even a small number of good books each year adds to an impossibly large number of books to read.
One of the main narrative characters in the book I am reading is called "Slaughter" and I can guarantee that it won't be in any such list from the Guardian, but I am enjoying it.
Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve an £18 billion increase in defence spending as he faces a battle for political survival
Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, has written to Starmer in recent weeks warning him that Britain would struggle to maintain its position on the world stage without a significant increase in spending, The Times understands
He warned that the armed forces could not afford the jets, munitions and advanced technology that Britain needs to fight a future war without a significant increase to the budget
Dame Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, is also understood to have pushed for a big increase in spending
The prime minister is expected to approve the spending boost as soon as next week, bringing an end to months of delays and internal rows, amid concerns in the Treasury that it would be unaffordable
It is unclear how the increase in spending will be funded, although a Whitehall source insisted it would be “fully affordable”
Letting Burnham stand rather than be obstinate, signing off the immediate jump in defence spending.
Has Starmer now come to the conclusion this ends with clearing his desk and is doing the needful for his handover?
Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve an £18 billion increase in defence spending as he faces a battle for political survival
Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, has written to Starmer in recent weeks warning him that Britain would struggle to maintain its position on the world stage without a significant increase in spending, The Times understands
He warned that the armed forces could not afford the jets, munitions and advanced technology that Britain needs to fight a future war without a significant increase to the budget
Dame Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, is also understood to have pushed for a big increase in spending
The prime minister is expected to approve the spending boost as soon as next week, bringing an end to months of delays and internal rows, amid concerns in the Treasury that it would be unaffordable
It is unclear how the increase in spending will be funded, although a Whitehall source insisted it would be “fully affordable”
Reform are running buses full of supporters from as many counties as possible up to Makerfield for this weekend, and have hired hotels all over the area. Labour's operation also well underway.
Hiring hotels and those buses count as an election expense and the election has started so all this spending is part of the £180,050 that Reform can spend in total
The Electoral Commission claims the earliest you can become a candidate is the day a vacancy occurs. As Simons's has not taken the Hundreds/Northstead they may argue that it's outside the period. I'm sure the court case will be tedious and well reported.
If the coach trips to Maketfield are personal gifts do they count as election expenses?
What if the passengers are all asked to pay for tickets on the coaches, so that the party doesn't incur any cost for the coach, and all the passengers happen to receive personal gifts from a very generous individual who lives in Thailand - would that count as an election expense then?
On the first, you can’t avoid expenses by having stuff gifted, or even discounted below commercial cost. You have to declare the full market cost.
On the second, I don’t know for sure but would guess the party declares the net cost, if any
All this shows that in GE 2028/9 money will not be an issue for Reform. They are going to try to spend their way into power.
Nobody is going to force a rerun of a general election because a party broke spending limits. The rules are a fiction that the parties have mostly stuck to, most of the time, because no party wants to end up needing to raise £100m to fight a general election.
I remember Crick getting extremely over excited that the Tories had widely overspent, wasnt it something about shipping a load of student activists around the country? He was banging on about every night as scandal of the century
Was even more otiose. He was complaining that the Tories had allocated the expenses to centralists rather than dividing them between the constituencies they visited
"Everyone knows what Starmer is. Smug. Bloodless. Lawyerly. A bore. Sanctimonious. Managerial. The human embodiment of a compliance seminar. The sort of man who looks as if he’d report you to HR for making a joke about the biscuits in the office kitchen.
The internet has already assembled the composite caricature: the thin smile; the prosecutorial cadence; the air of someone permanently explaining the terms and conditions. He is mocked as robotic, evasive, insincere, priggish, “North London” despite not being from North London, simultaneously too posh and too petit-bourgeois, too cautious to inspire and too ambitious to trust. Everybody knows Starmer is unbearable.
And that is precisely why everybody is misunderstanding him.
Because the important thing about Starmer is not that he is uniquely unpleasant, nor uniquely managerial, nor uniquely hollow. The important thing is that he is the long historical result of a society that has proceduralised itself to the point where procedure no longer mediates trust but replaces it. Starmer is not an aberration within contemporary Britain. He is one of its purest expressions."
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
3. I have a shelf full of books I want to read before I'd get to their list.
It depresses me a bit to think how short life is in relation to the number of books one could read.
Of making many books there is no end. (Eccles 12:12)
Very true. My wife has just informed me she has read 26, and that most of them weren't worth the bother.
Same for me., I've read about 25-30 of these, and most of them are meh
Honourable exceptions:
Catch 22 - genuine genius
Master and Margarita - wow
A Farewell to Arms - searing
The Rings of Saturn - haunting
The Leopard - enriching
Lolita - magical use of English
Disgrace, The Brothers Karamazov, Things Fall Apart, Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness, Don Quixote all deserve their place on the list amongst the ones that I have read.
I found Nervous Conditions a bit of a slog but enjoyed it at the end. I count Midnights Children as part of my "gave up after 20 pages" list. Rushdies style just annoys me.
It annoyed the hell out of me, too. But I ploughed through it. I must have had more energy back then; I doubt I'd do so today..
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve an £18 billion increase in defence spending as he faces a battle for political survival
Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, has written to Starmer in recent weeks warning him that Britain would struggle to maintain its position on the world stage without a significant increase in spending, The Times understands
He warned that the armed forces could not afford the jets, munitions and advanced technology that Britain needs to fight a future war without a significant increase to the budget
Dame Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, is also understood to have pushed for a big increase in spending
The prime minister is expected to approve the spending boost as soon as next week, bringing an end to months of delays and internal rows, amid concerns in the Treasury that it would be unaffordable
It is unclear how the increase in spending will be funded, although a Whitehall source insisted it would be “fully affordable”
How are we going to pay for that?
If Lefties worried about trivial details like that, they wouldn't be Lefties.
The Magic Money Tree will always come to the rescue.
It is appropriate for the Guardian to hype a list of fiction (in my not entirely humble opinion). Though I will reserve final comment until the top 20 are out.
(For the record: I have read some of the books in the list.)
"Everyone knows what Starmer is. Smug. Bloodless. Lawyerly. A bore. Sanctimonious. Managerial. The human embodiment of a compliance seminar. The sort of man who looks as if he’d report you to HR for making a joke about the biscuits in the office kitchen.
The internet has already assembled the composite caricature: the thin smile; the prosecutorial cadence; the air of someone permanently explaining the terms and conditions. He is mocked as robotic, evasive, insincere, priggish, “North London” despite not being from North London, simultaneously too posh and too petit-bourgeois, too cautious to inspire and too ambitious to trust. Everybody knows Starmer is unbearable.
And that is precisely why everybody is misunderstanding him.
Because the important thing about Starmer is not that he is uniquely unpleasant, nor uniquely managerial, nor uniquely hollow. The important thing is that he is the long historical result of a society that has proceduralised itself to the point where procedure no longer mediates trust but replaces it. Starmer is not an aberration within contemporary Britain. He is one of its purest expressions."
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
3. I have a shelf full of books I want to read before I'd get to their list.
It depresses me a bit to think how short life is in relation to the number of books one could read.
Of making many books there is no end. (Eccles 12:12)
Very true. My wife has just informed me she has read 26, and that most of them weren't worth the bother.
Same for me., I've read about 25-30 of these, and most of them are meh
Honourable exceptions:
Catch 22 - genuine genius
Master and Margarita - wow
A Farewell to Arms - searing
The Rings of Saturn - haunting
The Leopard - enriching
Lolita - magical use of English
Disgrace, The Brothers Karamazov, Things Fall Apart, Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness, Don Quixote all deserve their place on the list amongst the ones that I have read.
I found Nervous Conditions a bit of a slog but enjoyed it at the end. I count Midnights Children as part of my "gave up after 20 pages list. Rushdies style just annoys me.
I've read all of those - apart from Don Quixote - and they didn't touch me at all. Indeed I can barely remember them, apart from thinking "what is this fucking shit" at the end of Disgrace, and throwing it across a room
Apocalypse Now is a billion times more memorable than Heart of Darkness, as a work of art
Yes, I am not surprised that they didn't touch you at all.
Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve an £18 billion increase in defence spending as he faces a battle for political survival
Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, has written to Starmer in recent weeks warning him that Britain would struggle to maintain its position on the world stage without a significant increase in spending, The Times understands
He warned that the armed forces could not afford the jets, munitions and advanced technology that Britain needs to fight a future war without a significant increase to the budget
Dame Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, is also understood to have pushed for a big increase in spending
The prime minister is expected to approve the spending boost as soon as next week, bringing an end to months of delays and internal rows, amid concerns in the Treasury that it would be unaffordable
It is unclear how the increase in spending will be funded, although a Whitehall source insisted it would be “fully affordable”
How are we going to pay for that?
If Lefties worried about trivial details like that, they wouldn't be Lefties.
The Magic Money Tree will always come to the rescue.
Umm the righties were in power while the national debt ballooned out of control
An interesting fact from Google AI, assuming it's correct.
"Based on recent data through 2024–2025, the UK population has been increasing at a faster percentage rate than the USA, driven almost entirely by high net international migration rather than natural change. While both countries have shown similar long-term growth trends since 2006, the UK's recent annual growth rates (e.g., 1.0% in 2023) have outpaced the US"
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
3. I have a shelf full of books I want to read before I'd get to their list.
It depresses me a bit to think how short life is in relation to the number of books one could read.
Of making many books there is no end. (Eccles 12:12)
Very true. My wife has just informed me she has read 26, and that most of them weren't worth the bother.
Same for me., I've read about 25-30 of these, and most of them are meh
Honourable exceptions:
Catch 22 - genuine genius
Master and Margarita - wow
A Farewell to Arms - searing
The Rings of Saturn - haunting
The Leopard - enriching
Lolita - magical use of English
Disgrace, The Brothers Karamazov, Things Fall Apart, Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness, Don Quixote all deserve their place on the list amongst the ones that I have read.
I found Nervous Conditions a bit of a slog but enjoyed it at the end. I count Midnights Children as part of my "gave up after 20 pages list. Rushdies style just annoys me.
I've read all of those - apart from Don Quixote - and they didn't touch me at all. Indeed I can barely remember them, apart from thinking "what is this fucking shit" at the end of Disgrace, and throwing it across a room
Apocalypse Now is a billion times more memorable than Heart of Darkness, as a work of art
Yes, I am not surprised that they didn't touch you at all.
Devastating. I will do my best to recover, somewhat blooded and shuddering, from this brutal, searing and profound intellectual demolition job, delivered by a retired GP in Leicester
Here's a novel I have recommended more than once: The Man Who Sold The Moon, by Robert Heinlein. Some time ago, I did a search and found that both Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos said they had been influenced by the book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon
Bonus for guys: I have found that most stylists like the Heinlein story, "Delilah and the Space Rigger". It is short enough so you can tell it while you are getting your hair cut. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delilah_and_the_Space_Rigger
Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve an £18 billion increase in defence spending as he faces a battle for political survival
Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, has written to Starmer in recent weeks warning him that Britain would struggle to maintain its position on the world stage without a significant increase in spending, The Times understands
He warned that the armed forces could not afford the jets, munitions and advanced technology that Britain needs to fight a future war without a significant increase to the budget
Dame Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, is also understood to have pushed for a big increase in spending
The prime minister is expected to approve the spending boost as soon as next week, bringing an end to months of delays and internal rows, amid concerns in the Treasury that it would be unaffordable
It is unclear how the increase in spending will be funded, although a Whitehall source insisted it would be “fully affordable”
Letting Burnham stand rather than be obstinate, signing off the immediate jump in defence spending.
Has Starmer now come to the conclusion this ends with clearing his desk and is doing the needful for his handover?
"Everyone knows what Starmer is. Smug. Bloodless. Lawyerly. A bore. Sanctimonious. Managerial. The human embodiment of a compliance seminar. The sort of man who looks as if he’d report you to HR for making a joke about the biscuits in the office kitchen.
The internet has already assembled the composite caricature: the thin smile; the prosecutorial cadence; the air of someone permanently explaining the terms and conditions. He is mocked as robotic, evasive, insincere, priggish, “North London” despite not being from North London, simultaneously too posh and too petit-bourgeois, too cautious to inspire and too ambitious to trust. Everybody knows Starmer is unbearable.
And that is precisely why everybody is misunderstanding him.
Because the important thing about Starmer is not that he is uniquely unpleasant, nor uniquely managerial, nor uniquely hollow. The important thing is that he is the long historical result of a society that has proceduralised itself to the point where procedure no longer mediates trust but replaces it. Starmer is not an aberration within contemporary Britain. He is one of its purest expressions."
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
Cabinet ministers are calling for Andy Burnham to be given a “coronation” as Labour’s next leader if he can return to Westminster by beating Reform UK in the Makerfield by-election
Senior figures in the party have warned that Labour would descend into “months of factional warfare” if Wes Streeting challenged Burnham for the leadership, calling for the two men to strike a deal to prevent a contest
Cabinet ministers are calling for Andy Burnham to be given a “coronation” as Labour’s next leader if he can return to Westminster by beating Reform UK in the Makerfield by-election
Senior figures in the party have warned that Labour would descend into “months of factional warfare” if Wes Streeting challenged Burnham for the leadership, calling for the two men to strike a deal to prevent a contest
Sir Keir Starmer is also under pressure from allies in the cabinet not to stand in Burnham’s way and to announce his resignation either before or immediately after the by-election result
The prime minister was said to be considering his position this weekend and had privately acknowledged that he would not be able to see off a challenge from Burnham if the mayor of Greater Manchester won in Makerfield
One cabinet minister said Streeting would also be under huge pressure to stand aside for Burnham, saying there was “no way” he would be able to win a leadership battle in the wake of a victory in Makerfield
“If Andy wins Makerfield, he will be carried aloft into the Westminster tea rooms on the shoulders of Labour MPs,” they said.
“Wes needs to realise that he will lose to Andy and back down gracefully in a way that allows the party to move forward.
“The alternative is months of factional warfare which will create a schism in the parliamentary party that cannot be repaired.”
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
3. I have a shelf full of books I want to read before I'd get to their list.
It depresses me a bit to think how short life is in relation to the number of books one could read.
Of making many books there is no end. (Eccles 12:12)
Very true. My wife has just informed me she has read 26, and that most of them weren't worth the bother.
Same for me., I've read about 25-30 of these, and most of them are meh
Honourable exceptions:
Catch 22 - genuine genius
Master and Margarita - wow
A Farewell to Arms - searing
The Rings of Saturn - haunting
The Leopard - enriching
Lolita - magical use of English
Disgrace, The Brothers Karamazov, Things Fall Apart, Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness, Don Quixote all deserve their place on the list amongst the ones that I have read.
I found Nervous Conditions a bit of a slog but enjoyed it at the end. I count Midnights Children as part of my "gave up after 20 pages list. Rushdies style just annoys me.
I've read all of those - apart from Don Quixote - and they didn't touch me at all. Indeed I can barely remember them, apart from thinking "what is this fucking shit" at the end of Disgrace, and throwing it across a room
Apocalypse Now is a billion times more memorable than Heart of Darkness, as a work of art
Yes, I am not surprised that they didn't touch you at all.
Devastating. I will do my best to recover, somewhat blooded and shuddering, from this brutal, searing and profound intellectual demolition job, delivered by a retired GP in Leicester
I've read one of that list. Catch 22.
Generally with books - or film, or telly - my view is if it isn't true and it isn't funny, what's the point? Though I will make an exception for crime fiction and some science fiction.
Don't give me that shit about fiction revealing a deeper truth. It doesn't. It reveals the prejudices of one author. You get to the end of it and think "but that didn't actually happen".
Cabinet ministers are calling for Andy Burnham to be given a “coronation” as Labour’s next leader if he can return to Westminster by beating Reform UK in the Makerfield by-election
Senior figures in the party have warned that Labour would descend into “months of factional warfare” if Wes Streeting challenged Burnham for the leadership, calling for the two men to strike a deal to prevent a contest
Sir Keir Starmer is also under pressure from allies in the cabinet not to stand in Burnham’s way and to announce his resignation either before or immediately after the by-election result
The prime minister was said to be considering his position this weekend and had privately acknowledged that he would not be able to see off a challenge from Burnham if the mayor of Greater Manchester won in Makerfield
One cabinet minister said Streeting would also be under huge pressure to stand aside for Burnham, saying there was “no way” he would be able to win a leadership battle in the wake of a victory in Makerfield
“If Andy wins Makerfield, he will be carried aloft into the Westminster tea rooms on the shoulders of Labour MPs,” they said.
“Wes needs to realise that he will lose to Andy and back down gracefully in a way that allows the party to move forward.
“The alternative is months of factional warfare which will create a schism in the parliamentary party that cannot be repaired.”
Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve an £18 billion increase in defence spending as he faces a battle for political survival
Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, has written to Starmer in recent weeks warning him that Britain would struggle to maintain its position on the world stage without a significant increase in spending, The Times understands
He warned that the armed forces could not afford the jets, munitions and advanced technology that Britain needs to fight a future war without a significant increase to the budget
Dame Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, is also understood to have pushed for a big increase in spending
The prime minister is expected to approve the spending boost as soon as next week, bringing an end to months of delays and internal rows, amid concerns in the Treasury that it would be unaffordable
It is unclear how the increase in spending will be funded, although a Whitehall source insisted it would be “fully affordable”
Letting Burnham stand rather than be obstinate, signing off the immediate jump in defence spending.
Has Starmer now come to the conclusion this ends with clearing his desk and is doing the needful for his handover?
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
3. I have a shelf full of books I want to read before I'd get to their list.
It depresses me a bit to think how short life is in relation to the number of books one could read.
Of making many books there is no end. (Eccles 12:12)
Very true. My wife has just informed me she has read 26, and that most of them weren't worth the bother.
Same for me., I've read about 25-30 of these, and most of them are meh
Honourable exceptions:
Catch 22 - genuine genius
Master and Margarita - wow
A Farewell to Arms - searing
The Rings of Saturn - haunting
The Leopard - enriching
Lolita - magical use of English
Disgrace, The Brothers Karamazov, Things Fall Apart, Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness, Don Quixote all deserve their place on the list amongst the ones that I have read.
I found Nervous Conditions a bit of a slog but enjoyed it at the end. I count Midnights Children as part of my "gave up after 20 pages list. Rushdies style just annoys me.
I've read all of those - apart from Don Quixote - and they didn't touch me at all. Indeed I can barely remember them, apart from thinking "what is this fucking shit" at the end of Disgrace, and throwing it across a room
Apocalypse Now is a billion times more memorable than Heart of Darkness, as a work of art
Yes, I am not surprised that they didn't touch you at all.
Devastating. I will do my best to recover, somewhat blooded and shuddering, from this brutal, searing and profound intellectual demolition job, delivered by a retired GP in Leicester
I've read one of that list. Catch 22.
Generally with books - or film, or telly - my view is if it isn't true and it isn't funny, what's the point? Though I will make an exception for crime fiction and some science fiction.
Don't give me that shit about fiction revealing a deeper truth. It doesn't. It reveals the prejudices of one author. You get to the end of it and think "but that didn't actually happen".
Hmmm... Do you take the same approach to TV, films and theatre?
"Everyone knows what Starmer is. Smug. Bloodless. Lawyerly. A bore. Sanctimonious. Managerial. The human embodiment of a compliance seminar. The sort of man who looks as if he’d report you to HR for making a joke about the biscuits in the office kitchen.
The internet has already assembled the composite caricature: the thin smile; the prosecutorial cadence; the air of someone permanently explaining the terms and conditions. He is mocked as robotic, evasive, insincere, priggish, “North London” despite not being from North London, simultaneously too posh and too petit-bourgeois, too cautious to inspire and too ambitious to trust. Everybody knows Starmer is unbearable.
And that is precisely why everybody is misunderstanding him.
Because the important thing about Starmer is not that he is uniquely unpleasant, nor uniquely managerial, nor uniquely hollow. The important thing is that he is the long historical result of a society that has proceduralised itself to the point where procedure no longer mediates trust but replaces it. Starmer is not an aberration within contemporary Britain. He is one of its purest expressions."
"The human embodiment of a compliance seminar" is brilliant.
For me the sentence is: "The important thing is that he is the long historical result of a society that has proceduralised itself to the point where procedure no longer mediates trust but replaces it."
Almost everything that is wrong in modern Britain (and much of the western world) in a single sentence.
Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve an £18 billion increase in defence spending as he faces a battle for political survival
Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, has written to Starmer in recent weeks warning him that Britain would struggle to maintain its position on the world stage without a significant increase in spending, The Times understands
He warned that the armed forces could not afford the jets, munitions and advanced technology that Britain needs to fight a future war without a significant increase to the budget
Dame Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, is also understood to have pushed for a big increase in spending
The prime minister is expected to approve the spending boost as soon as next week, bringing an end to months of delays and internal rows, amid concerns in the Treasury that it would be unaffordable
It is unclear how the increase in spending will be funded, although a Whitehall source insisted it would be “fully affordable”
Letting Burnham stand rather than be obstinate, signing off the immediate jump in defence spending.
Has Starmer now come to the conclusion this ends with clearing his desk and is doing the needful for his handover?
Obviously hypothetical polling has to be taken with a pinch of salt but back in January we found that Burnham was worth roughly ~5 extra points to Labour nationally compared to the VI at the time.
Labour will be back up to 30% no trouble, I’m going to bet on it.
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
3. I have a shelf full of books I want to read before I'd get to their list.
It depresses me a bit to think how short life is in relation to the number of books one could read.
Of making many books there is no end. (Eccles 12:12)
Very true. My wife has just informed me she has read 26, and that most of them weren't worth the bother.
Same for me., I've read about 25-30 of these, and most of them are meh
Honourable exceptions:
Catch 22 - genuine genius
Master and Margarita - wow
A Farewell to Arms - searing
The Rings of Saturn - haunting
The Leopard - enriching
Lolita - magical use of English
Disgrace, The Brothers Karamazov, Things Fall Apart, Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness, Don Quixote all deserve their place on the list amongst the ones that I have read.
I found Nervous Conditions a bit of a slog but enjoyed it at the end. I count Midnights Children as part of my "gave up after 20 pages list. Rushdies style just annoys me.
I've read all of those - apart from Don Quixote - and they didn't touch me at all. Indeed I can barely remember them, apart from thinking "what is this fucking shit" at the end of Disgrace, and throwing it across a room
Apocalypse Now is a billion times more memorable than Heart of Darkness, as a work of art
Yes, I am not surprised that they didn't touch you at all.
Devastating. I will do my best to recover, somewhat blooded and shuddering, from this brutal, searing and profound intellectual demolition job, delivered by a retired GP in Leicester
I've read one of that list. Catch 22.
Generally with books - or film, or telly - my view is if it isn't true and it isn't funny, what's the point? Though I will make an exception for crime fiction and some science fiction.
Don't give me that shit about fiction revealing a deeper truth. It doesn't. It reveals the prejudices of one author. You get to the end of it and think "but that didn't actually happen".
If Burnham wins it strongly suggests a 10 year Labour government.
I would suggest that depends very much on what he then does as PM. Much like Starmer, people may find the reality of a Burnham Government very different from the expectation.
People are definitely projecting a lot of hopes and dreams onto Burnham just as they did in 2024 with Starmer and 2017 with Corbyn. Might be a good idea to wait and see what he's like as PM (if he wins the by election).
There's a very real possibility he becomes Labour's Liz Truss, mortgage rates spike and public opinion sours on him very quickly. Just the fear of him becoming PM has sent our debt yields to the highest in the G7 once again.
If he funds spending with high tax though (and Burnham has promised a land tax, wealth tax and to put the top income tax rate back up to 50%) he will have balanced the books better than Truss. Truss cut tax but not spending so ended up with huge borrowing plans which the markets won't forgive
Breaking Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes will be extremely unpopular. Unless he calls an election to get a new mandate he is still bound to the 2024 manifesto. There's no easy path to having a massive spending splurge that the left wingers are all demanding so either he disappoints them and becomes unpopular, he raises taxes on working people which makes him deeply unpopular or he borrows from money markets and risks precipitating a meltdown.
There's no easy choices for whoever the PM is and all of the options have got clear downsides and risks.
Yes but electorally he can get away with just raising tax on the rich, high earners and wealthy which is where Burnham would focus his tax rises
Electorally, possibly. It's unlikely to raise anything much, so won't be much cop for a spending spree.
It's worth noting that trying to pick the pockets of employers via NI has cut through as pretty unpopular, despite it being a tax on fairly faceless employers in many cases (the incidence is actually almost entirely on employees, but that's not something the man in the street really understands).
If your promise was not to increase taxes on working people, it was always going to be a tough to persuade people you’ve kept your promise because instead you increased taxes on people working.
The BBC still bigging up a leadership challenge after Burnham wins the by-election with Rayner , Streeting and possibly Starmer .
Rayner isn’t going to go up against Burnham and it will end up a coronation anyway .
Yes, it’s striking that neither commentators nor some in Labour don’t seem to see that if Burnham does land a significant win in the by-election, the pressure for a quick coronation in the summer will be unstoppable.
CHERNIHIV, Ukraine — On a cool evening last month, 12-year-old Anatolii Prokhorenko was up in a pear tree, cutting off a damaged branch for a neighbor, when he heard the buzz of a drone.
A soldier had told him what to do, and he did it, disabling the drone, very likely saving lives.
Some Russians weren't happy:
Anatolii was feted as a hero in Ukraine, but more as a target by commenters on Russian Telegram channels, so his family of seven have moved for now to a borrowed two-room apartment in Chernihiv, the regional capital, two hours south.
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
3. I have a shelf full of books I want to read before I'd get to their list.
It depresses me a bit to think how short life is in relation to the number of books one could read.
Of making many books there is no end. (Eccles 12:12)
Very true. My wife has just informed me she has read 26, and that most of them weren't worth the bother.
Same for me., I've read about 25-30 of these, and most of them are meh
Honourable exceptions:
Catch 22 - genuine genius
Master and Margarita - wow
A Farewell to Arms - searing
The Rings of Saturn - haunting
The Leopard - enriching
Lolita - magical use of English
Disgrace, The Brothers Karamazov, Things Fall Apart, Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness, Don Quixote all deserve their place on the list amongst the ones that I have read.
I found Nervous Conditions a bit of a slog but enjoyed it at the end. I count Midnights Children as part of my "gave up after 20 pages list. Rushdies style just annoys me.
I've read all of those - apart from Don Quixote - and they didn't touch me at all. Indeed I can barely remember them, apart from thinking "what is this fucking shit" at the end of Disgrace, and throwing it across a room
Apocalypse Now is a billion times more memorable than Heart of Darkness, as a work of art
Yes, I am not surprised that they didn't touch you at all.
Devastating. I will do my best to recover, somewhat blooded and shuddering, from this brutal, searing and profound intellectual demolition job, delivered by a retired GP in Leicester
I've read one of that list. Catch 22.
Generally with books - or film, or telly - my view is if it isn't true and it isn't funny, what's the point? Though I will make an exception for crime fiction and some science fiction.
Don't give me that shit about fiction revealing a deeper truth. It doesn't. It reveals the prejudices of one author. You get to the end of it and think "but that didn't actually happen".
Just done a rundown and discussed the list with my daughter and wife who, it's a girl thing, chewed the fat over week over a dozen, where as I am done with Catch-22, Dracula (read to kids on a holiday in Whitby), and Don Quixote. Not any kind of badge of pride, just one of those things. Hope I have some more success within the top 20.
The Guardian has published their top 100 novels of all time, entries 21 to 100. Embarassingly I think I've read 6 and a half of them, with Midnight's Children being the half. The 6 are White Teeth, Half of a Yellow Sun, Never Let Me Go, Disgrace, Frankenstein, The Remains of the Day.
3. I have a shelf full of books I want to read before I'd get to their list.
It depresses me a bit to think how short life is in relation to the number of books one could read.
Of making many books there is no end. (Eccles 12:12)
Very true. My wife has just informed me she has read 26, and that most of them weren't worth the bother.
Same for me., I've read about 25-30 of these, and most of them are meh
Honourable exceptions:
Catch 22 - genuine genius
Master and Margarita - wow
A Farewell to Arms - searing
The Rings of Saturn - haunting
The Leopard - enriching
Lolita - magical use of English
None of them are Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNabb, which gets better on every read
I think I've read nine of them.
The Road (though I barely remember it) Disgrace Lolita The Remains Of The Day The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie A Farewell To Arms The Line Of Beauty (which felt very proto Cameron) The End Of The Affair The Talented Mr Ripley
I've probably started at least half and given up on them.
More interesting is to wonder which ones you can guarantee being in the top 20.
Middlemarch War and Peace Anna Karenina 1984 Pride and Prejudice Ulysses Remembrance Of Time Passed The Great Gatsby Moby Dick
Comments
Today, the term has evolved beyond its historical context. It is now used informally to describe anyone who presumptuously seeks success or a position in a new locality—essentially, an outsider moving into an area to take advantage of a situation for personal gain.
There's no easy choices for whoever the PM is and all of the options have got clear downsides and risks.
https://conservativehome.com/2026/05/15/our-survey-tories-expect-burnham-to-lead-labour-to-the-next-election-but-would-prefer-starmer-did/
What Burnham needs is 1. win the by election, then 2. win the Labour leadership and become PM. then 3. make a material difference in the lives of the average Brit, in the next three years, and do it all from a much more left wing pro-migration stance. Can he do this? Maybe. He might win some Green voters. He will be more pro Palestine, tho fuck knows why this matters. I wish it did not matter
My hunch is that, if he becomes PM, he will quickly meet the immovable object of the bond markets, he will quickly reveal he is not an irresistible force, and Labour will be quickly back where they started. Fucked, but with a slightly more charming captain at the helm
I am not particularly a fan, but there are worse options, including carrying on with Starmer.
Honourable exceptions:
Catch 22 - genuine genius
Master and Margarita - wow
A Farewell to Arms - searing
The Rings of Saturn - haunting
The Leopard - enriching
Lolita - magical use of English
Although that now seems highly unlikely.
He's constantly criticised for having changed his positions within the Labour Party. Yet simultaneously asserted he'll be some kind of leftist ideologue in power leading to economic collapse.
Well that isn't how he's run Manchester. Quite the opposite, in fact.
My sense is that there be a huge change of tone. More upbeat, more optimistic, more open to ideas.
More human.
So. A great deal of surface change. But not a lot done differently.
They have to dump Starmer. Just because the alternatives aren't great doesn't mean Labour are making the wrong decision
Starmer is like a gangrenous limb. For whatever reasons, however irrational - he is that hated and he is that bad. He is threatening to poison the entire body, and prove fatal. Saw him off. It won't be nice, but that's where we are
It's worth noting that trying to pick the pockets of employers via NI has cut through as pretty unpopular, despite it being a tax on fairly faceless employers in many cases (the incidence is actually almost entirely on employees, but that's not something the man in the street really understands).
None of them are Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNabb, which gets better on every read
"German chancellor warns young people against moving to US
Friedrich Merz tells Catholic gathering in Würzburg that ‘even the best educated in America have great difficulty in finding a job’" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/05/15/german-chancellor-warns-young-people-moving-us/
1. He spends loads extra by raising tens of billions in extra tax by breaking Labour's manifesto pledge. Just recently over 60% of voters said taxes are already too high, I don't think this is feasible, if he does it then he alienates millions of voters.
2. He spends loads extra by cutting spending elsewhere, realistically this has to come from welfare and pensions. I don't think the left will allow this and it will make him extremely unpopular with left wingers, old people and public sector workers.
3. He spends loads by borrowing loads from the markets. Risking a sovereign debt crisis and surging bond yields pissing off every single person who has a mortgage and bringing back the ghost of Liz Truss. Very high risk and ultimately probably not going to happen once he's briefed by the BoE and Treasury on just how bad things actually are and how little headroom there is for additional borrowing
4. He changes very little maybe a token tax rise on the "rich" that doesn't raise very much money, doesn't commit to any real extra spending, runs a very similar fiscal plan to now and lefties hate him for it.
Of these options the fourth is the most likely and the third the least likely. Two and three probably about the same.
Anyone talking about 10 years for Labour because Burnham will walk the next election is caught up in the moment. Lots of unpopular decisions await him, not least energy prices, jet fuel supplies in the run up to summer holidays and petrol prices in the very short term.
And, short of doing a Woking, can’t fiddle the spend part either.
I'd be interested to see what the top picks are; there's an awful lot which isn't on that list.
I'm reading history rather than fiction at the moment, but Life and Fate is near the top of my to do pile.
TL;DR: The British public WILL give him a honeymoon, out of sheer relief. But it will not last long
I found Nervous Conditions a bit of a slog but enjoyed it at the end. I count Midnights Children as part of my "gave up after 20 pages" list. Rushdies style just annoys me.
Exclusive with
@larisamlbrown
Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve an £18 billion increase in defence spending as he faces a battle for political survival
Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, has written to Starmer in recent weeks warning him that Britain would struggle to maintain its position on the world stage without a significant increase in spending, The Times understands
He warned that the armed forces could not afford the jets, munitions and advanced technology that Britain needs to fight a future war without a significant increase to the budget
Dame Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, is also understood to have pushed for a big increase in spending
The prime minister is expected to approve the spending boost as soon as next week, bringing an end to months of delays and internal rows, amid concerns in the Treasury that it would be unaffordable
It is unclear how the increase in spending will be funded, although a Whitehall source insisted it would be “fully affordable”
Apocalypse Now is a billion times more memorable than Heart of Darkness, as a work of art
Very very few books are laugh out loud funny. Martin Amis on peak form could do it, Wodehouse obviously. Catch 22 does it, more than once, AND manages to be a blistering indictment of the lunacy of warfare, at the same time
It would be in my top 10
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgqp4nev13qo
I've read nine and I have another five or six in boxes waiting for our bookshelves to be constructed (and to be read). I do like Our Mutual Friend. The Road is harrowing. The Handmaid's Tale was excellent. Wolf Hall was good. I read Great Expectations as a child and wasn't particularly impressed, but might be worth another go. The God of Small Things is very forgettable. I am sure I read it, but I do not recall anything about it. The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie was very disappointing (but at least it wasn't as bad as Middlemarch, which I am sure is in the top 20). Frankenstein I am sure would have been a very different read if I hadn't already been so exposed to the genre it created when I read it. Don Quixote was fun, but about four times longer than it needed to be.
I think the Scholomance trilogy, starting with A Deadly Education, by Naomi Novik has been my favourite read of the decade so far.
There are an impossible number of books being published to keep up with and even a small number of good books each year adds to an impossibly large number of books to read.
One of the main narrative characters in the book I am reading is called "Slaughter" and I can guarantee that it won't be in any such list from the Guardian, but I am enjoying it.
Has Starmer now come to the conclusion this ends with clearing his desk and is doing the needful for his handover?
"Everyone knows what Starmer is. Smug. Bloodless. Lawyerly. A bore. Sanctimonious. Managerial. The human embodiment of a compliance seminar. The sort of man who looks as if he’d report you to HR for making a joke about the biscuits in the office kitchen.
The internet has already assembled the composite caricature: the thin smile; the prosecutorial cadence; the air of someone permanently explaining the terms and conditions. He is mocked as robotic, evasive, insincere, priggish, “North London” despite not being from North London, simultaneously too posh and too petit-bourgeois, too cautious to inspire and too ambitious to trust. Everybody knows Starmer is unbearable.
And that is precisely why everybody is misunderstanding him.
Because the important thing about Starmer is not that he is uniquely unpleasant, nor uniquely managerial, nor uniquely hollow. The important thing is that he is the long historical result of a society that has proceduralised itself to the point where procedure no longer mediates trust but replaces it. Starmer is not an aberration within contemporary Britain. He is one of its purest expressions."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/15/understanding-the-entity-known-as-starmer/
But I ploughed through it. I must have had more energy back then; I doubt I'd do so today..
It reminds me of someone saying to Ricky Gervais - "do you think you peaked too early with The Office?", to which he replied "well, at least I peaked"
The Magic Money Tree will always come to the rescue.
(For the record: I have read some of the books in the list.)
Oh no, because of cause fantasy doesn’t get awards, unlike magical fecking realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon
Bonus for guys: I have found that most stylists like the Heinlein story, "Delilah and the Space Rigger". It is short enough so you can tell it while you are getting your hair cut.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delilah_and_the_Space_Rigger
The BBC still bigging up a leadership challenge after Burnham wins the by-election with Rayner , Streeting and possibly Starmer .
Rayner isn’t going to go up against Burnham and it will end up a coronation anyway .
@Steven_Swinford
Exclusive from
@oliver_wright
Cabinet ministers are calling for Andy Burnham to be given a “coronation” as Labour’s next leader if he can return to Westminster by beating Reform UK in the Makerfield by-election
Senior figures in the party have warned that Labour would descend into “months of factional warfare” if Wes Streeting challenged Burnham for the leadership, calling for the two men to strike a deal to prevent a contest
Cabinet ministers are calling for Andy Burnham to be given a “coronation” as Labour’s next leader if he can return to Westminster by beating Reform UK in the Makerfield by-election
Senior figures in the party have warned that Labour would descend into “months of factional warfare” if Wes Streeting challenged Burnham for the leadership, calling for the two men to strike a deal to prevent a contest
Sir Keir Starmer is also under pressure from allies in the cabinet not to stand in Burnham’s way and to announce his resignation either before or immediately after the by-election result
The prime minister was said to be considering his position this weekend and had privately acknowledged that he would not be able to see off a challenge from Burnham if the mayor of Greater Manchester won in Makerfield
One cabinet minister said Streeting would also be under huge pressure to stand aside for Burnham, saying there was “no way” he would be able to win a leadership battle in the wake of a victory in Makerfield
“If Andy wins Makerfield, he will be carried aloft into the Westminster tea rooms on the shoulders of Labour MPs,” they said.
“Wes needs to realise that he will lose to Andy and back down gracefully in a way that allows the party to move forward.
“The alternative is months of factional warfare which will create a schism in the parliamentary party that cannot be repaired.”
Generally with books - or film, or telly - my view is if it isn't true and it isn't funny, what's the point? Though I will make an exception for crime fiction and some science fiction.
Don't give me that shit about fiction revealing a deeper truth. It doesn't. It reveals the prejudices of one author. You get to the end of it and think "but that didn't actually happen".
Streeting won’t run in exchange for a cabinet position.
Almost everything that is wrong in modern Britain (and much of the western world) in a single sentence.
Obviously hypothetical polling has to be taken with a pinch of salt but back in January we found that Burnham was worth roughly ~5 extra points to Labour nationally compared to the VI at the time.
Labour will be back up to 30% no trouble, I’m going to bet on it.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6AXXd-YbjkY
Ian M Banks ?
Philip K Dick ?
Ray Bradbury ?
After four bloody years, the war on Ukraine might be turning into Putin’s undoing
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/15/russia-war-ukraine-vladimir-putin-economy-casualties
Some Russians weren't happy: source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/05/15/russian-drones-hunt-ukrainians-human-safari-boy-fought-back/
The Road (though I barely remember it)
Disgrace
Lolita
The Remains Of The Day
The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie
A Farewell To Arms
The Line Of Beauty (which felt very proto Cameron)
The End Of The Affair
The Talented Mr Ripley
I've probably started at least half and given up on them.
More interesting is to wonder which ones you can guarantee being in the top 20.
Middlemarch
War and Peace
Anna Karenina
1984
Pride and Prejudice
Ulysses
Remembrance Of Time Passed
The Great Gatsby
Moby Dick