"Congratulations, Mr. Burnham. The good news is you are the new Prime Minister! The bad news is there's some facile orange twat in a seat of some considerable power in America you have to deal with".
Hopefully at some point Andy Burnham will be able to announce the exit of Donald Trump.
"AI risks triggering ‘catastrophic’ phone network blackouts Ofcom raises alarm over risks linked to use of automation technology for monitoring networks" (£)
There are two main concerns with AI. One is that it can be used to find bugs in the code that can be exploited by hostile states, terrorists or criminals. Last week, the US Government blocked the export (or any use by foreigners) of Anthropic's latest models on these grounds. Effectively, the US Government is treating these AI models as weapons and regulating them accordingly.
The other concern is about cock-ups rather than conspiracies. If AI is used in routine maintenance of networks and spots a fault, it might take actions to rectify the situation faster than any human could react, and thus keep the network up so no-one notices the problem. The fear is that AI might apply the wrong fix and crash the whole network. You may recall seeing examples from other industries where production databases have been deleted or millions of dollars of trading losses.
The latest Anthropic AI, “Mythos” or “Fable 5”, allegedly managed to crack a whole load of US defence systems within hours, which is what led to the export ban and the company pulling the model from production.
Incidentally, the fact that the US Government can block exports of and access to AI models shows how fatuous are British claims to AI leadership. As is our wont with frontier research, British academics are underfunded and British companies sold, including what is now Google Deep Mind. All the AI action is now in America and China.
Yup. A massive opportunity lost with the DeepMind sale, and a chance to cement a Brexit benefit outside the strangulating EU AI regulation.
The US now has most of the West over a barrel, at a time when most of them really don’t like the orange man in the white house.
Haven't you ever wondered why Trump is orange? Like why the hell does he smear his face with orange make-up? Don't you think that's a tad odd?
I believe it’s to do with his cheesy whotsit/cheetos addiction. Eats them by the tonne but then has a paddy when Melania tries to wipe his face after with a wet wipe.
A Labour source says Keir Starmer feels "betrayed"
"He gave everything to Labour, including sacrificing much of his children's teenage years to help make the party electable. He feels deeply betrayed, especially by those he believed were loyal to him"
Has he tried being better at the job?
Going by wikipedia, Lab have led on only 1 UK opinion polling in the last year. They're currently averaging around 20% in the polls, having won 33.7% at the 2024 general election.
The longer he stays in post, the worse Labour prospects for the next general election are. He's also presided over bloodbath elections at the Senedd and Holyrood this year.
His retiring present should be a mirror, so he can reflect on those losses
I feel sad for Starmer but not sad to see him go. He's obviously a decent and hard working man. But he is hamstrung by a lack of political vision and an inability to project warmth. In other words, he is in many respects a bad politician. Maybe he will be one of those PMs that we learn to love more after he leaves office, like John Major (another non Oxford lower middle class striver who the press took against). IMHO despite his obvious flaws he was probably the best Labour leader since Blair. Who knows, maybe we will miss him.
I can pretty much guarantee that within 6 months, in response to some Burnham screw up, there will be at least some lamenting his departure. But they will be wrong.
"AI risks triggering ‘catastrophic’ phone network blackouts Ofcom raises alarm over risks linked to use of automation technology for monitoring networks" (£)
There are two main concerns with AI. One is that it can be used to find bugs in the code that can be exploited by hostile states, terrorists or criminals. Last week, the US Government blocked the export (or any use by foreigners) of Anthropic's latest models on these grounds. Effectively, the US Government is treating these AI models as weapons and regulating them accordingly.
The other concern is about cock-ups rather than conspiracies. If AI is used in routine maintenance of networks and spots a fault, it might take actions to rectify the situation faster than any human could react, and thus keep the network up so no-one notices the problem. The fear is that AI might apply the wrong fix and crash the whole network. You may recall seeing examples from other industries where production databases have been deleted or millions of dollars of trading losses.
The latest Anthropic AI, “Mythos” or “Fable 5”, allegedly managed to crack a whole load of US defence systems within hours, which is what led to the export ban and the company pulling the model from production.
Incidentally, the fact that the US Government can block exports of and access to AI models shows how fatuous are British claims to AI leadership. As is our wont with frontier research, British academics are underfunded and British companies sold, including what is now Google Deep Mind. All the AI action is now in America and China.
Yup. A massive opportunity lost with the DeepMind sale, and a chance to cement a Brexit benefit outside the strangulating EU AI regulation.
The US now has most of the West over a barrel, at a time when most of them really don’t like the orange man in the white house.
Haven't you ever wondered why Trump is orange? Like why the hell does he smear his face with orange make-up? Don't you think that's a tad odd?
I believe it’s to do with his cheesy whotsit/cheetos addiction. Eats them by the tonne but then has a paddy when Melania tries to wipe his face after with a wet wipe.
A particular virulent venereal disease among Moscow prostitutes that means their pee leaves an indelible stain is what I heard.
"AI risks triggering ‘catastrophic’ phone network blackouts Ofcom raises alarm over risks linked to use of automation technology for monitoring networks" (£)
There are two main concerns with AI. One is that it can be used to find bugs in the code that can be exploited by hostile states, terrorists or criminals. Last week, the US Government blocked the export (or any use by foreigners) of Anthropic's latest models on these grounds. Effectively, the US Government is treating these AI models as weapons and regulating them accordingly.
The other concern is about cock-ups rather than conspiracies. If AI is used in routine maintenance of networks and spots a fault, it might take actions to rectify the situation faster than any human could react, and thus keep the network up so no-one notices the problem. The fear is that AI might apply the wrong fix and crash the whole network. You may recall seeing examples from other industries where production databases have been deleted or millions of dollars of trading losses.
The latest Anthropic AI, “Mythos” or “Fable 5”, allegedly managed to crack a whole load of US defence systems within hours, which is what led to the export ban and the company pulling the model from production.
Incidentally, the fact that the US Government can block exports of and access to AI models shows how fatuous are British claims to AI leadership. As is our wont with frontier research, British academics are underfunded and British companies sold, including what is now Google Deep Mind. All the AI action is now in America and China.
Yup. A massive opportunity lost with the DeepMind sale, and a chance to cement a Brexit benefit outside the strangulating EU AI regulation.
The US now has most of the West over a barrel, at a time when most of them really don’t like the orange man in the white house.
Haven't you ever wondered why Trump is orange? Like why the hell does he smear his face with orange make-up? Don't you think that's a tad odd?
I believe it’s to do with his cheesy whotsit/cheetos addiction. Eats them by the tonne but then has a paddy when Melania tries to wipe his face after with a wet wipe.
A particular virulent venereal disease among Moscow prostitutes that means their pee leaves an indelible stain is what I heard.
Bit stupid of me: I've always liked what I've seen of Mr Burnham , but the means by which he's acquiring the leadership/premiership puts me off quite a lot.
"AI risks triggering ‘catastrophic’ phone network blackouts Ofcom raises alarm over risks linked to use of automation technology for monitoring networks" (£)
There are two main concerns with AI. One is that it can be used to find bugs in the code that can be exploited by hostile states, terrorists or criminals. Last week, the US Government blocked the export (or any use by foreigners) of Anthropic's latest models on these grounds. Effectively, the US Government is treating these AI models as weapons and regulating them accordingly.
The other concern is about cock-ups rather than conspiracies. If AI is used in routine maintenance of networks and spots a fault, it might take actions to rectify the situation faster than any human could react, and thus keep the network up so no-one notices the problem. The fear is that AI might apply the wrong fix and crash the whole network. You may recall seeing examples from other industries where production databases have been deleted or millions of dollars of trading losses.
The latest Anthropic AI, “Mythos” or “Fable 5”, allegedly managed to crack a whole load of US defence systems within hours, which is what led to the export ban and the company pulling the model from production.
Incidentally, the fact that the US Government can block exports of and access to AI models shows how fatuous are British claims to AI leadership. As is our wont with frontier research, British academics are underfunded and British companies sold, including what is now Google Deep Mind. All the AI action is now in America and China.
Yup. A massive opportunity lost with the DeepMind sale, and a chance to cement a Brexit benefit outside the strangulating EU AI regulation.
The US now has most of the West over a barrel, at a time when most of them really don’t like the orange man in the white house.
Haven't you ever wondered why Trump is orange? Like why the hell does he smear his face with orange make-up? Don't you think that's a tad odd?
I believe it’s to do with his cheesy whotsit/cheetos addiction. Eats them by the tonne but then has a paddy when Melania tries to wipe his face after with a wet wipe.
Bit stupid of me: I've always liked what I've seen of Mr Burnham , but the means by which he's acquiring the leadership/premiership puts me off quite a lot.
Some of us still remember his behaviour over Mid Staffordshire. It's not a recommendation.
Of course, it was 17 years ago and he may have changed. I hope he has. But he fitted rather too many of the wrong 'un archetypes that @Cyclefree warns us about over that.
I feel sad for Starmer but not sad to see him go. He's obviously a decent and hard working man. But he is hamstrung by a lack of political vision and an inability to project warmth. In other words, he is in many respects a bad politician. Maybe he will be one of those PMs that we learn to love more after he leaves office, like John Major (another non Oxford lower middle class striver who the press took against). IMHO despite his obvious flaws he was probably the best Labour leader since Blair. Who knows, maybe we will miss him.
I can pretty much guarantee that within 6 months, in response to some Burnham screw up, there will be at least some lamenting his departure. But they will be wrong.
So you think The Burnsiah will last less than 6 months?
:-)
It’s entirely possible, actually. If he turns it into a Starmercrash Part Deux, and the polling doesn’t turn round.
I feel sad for Starmer but not sad to see him go. He's obviously a decent and hard working man. But he is hamstrung by a lack of political vision and an inability to project warmth. In other words, he is in many respects a bad politician. Maybe he will be one of those PMs that we learn to love more after he leaves office, like John Major (another non Oxford lower middle class striver who the press took against). IMHO despite his obvious flaws he was probably the best Labour leader since Blair. Who knows, maybe we will miss him.
I can pretty much guarantee that within 6 months, in response to some Burnham screw up, there will be at least some lamenting his departure. But they will be wrong.
So you think The Burnsiah will last less than 6 months?
:-)
It’s entirely possible, actually. If he turns it into a Starmercrash Part Deux, and the polling doesn’t turn round.
At some point, as with the DfE's endless clusterfucks, you have to accept it's not the leader it's the system.
The trick then is to find a leader who will deal with the system.
The tragedy is usually people instead go for some charlatan who pretends they will deal with the system while nicking millions for themselves and putting their mates in charge of everything.
Bit stupid of me: I've always liked what I've seen of Mr Burnham , but the means by which he's acquiring the leadership/premiership puts me off quite a lot.
Yes, I voted Labour in 2024 in consideration of the steps that Starmer had taken to purge the party of the Corbynites and the unacceptability of the alternatives. There is no way I will be voting for them in their Burnhamite incarnation.
I feel sad for Starmer but not sad to see him go. He's obviously a decent and hard working man. But he is hamstrung by a lack of political vision and an inability to project warmth. In other words, he is in many respects a bad politician. Maybe he will be one of those PMs that we learn to love more after he leaves office, like John Major (another non Oxford lower middle class striver who the press took against). IMHO despite his obvious flaws he was probably the best Labour leader since Blair. Who knows, maybe we will miss him.
I can pretty much guarantee that within 6 months, in response to some Burnham screw up, there will be at least some lamenting his departure. But they will be wrong.
So you think The Burnsiah will last less than 6 months?
:-)
It’s entirely possible, actually. If he turns it into a Starmercrash Part Deux, and the polling doesn’t turn round.
And then they can start looking at how to get David Miliband back into Parliament.
Bit stupid of me: I've always liked what I've seen of Mr Burnham , but the means by which he's acquiring the leadership/premiership puts me off quite a lot.
I don't think that's necessarily stupid.
I think it's fair to criticise Burnham's approach as being self-centred, rather than collegiate. Although it's possible that Starmer would have rebuffed any attempt by Burnham to help fix the direction of the government.
I get the sense that it was one similarity Starmer shared with May. Keeping decision-making to a very small group with the result that senior colleagues felt uninvolved.
I feel sad for Starmer but not sad to see him go. He's obviously a decent and hard working man. But he is hamstrung by a lack of political vision and an inability to project warmth. In other words, he is in many respects a bad politician. Maybe he will be one of those PMs that we learn to love more after he leaves office, like John Major (another non Oxford lower middle class striver who the press took against). IMHO despite his obvious flaws he was probably the best Labour leader since Blair. Who knows, maybe we will miss him.
I can pretty much guarantee that within 6 months, in response to some Burnham screw up, there will be at least some lamenting his departure. But they will be wrong.
So you think The Burnsiah will last less than 6 months?
:-)
It’s entirely possible, actually. If he turns it into a Starmercrash Part Deux, and the polling doesn’t turn round.
At some point, as with the DfE's endless clusterfucks, you have to accept it's not the leader it's the system.
The trick then is to find a leader who will deal with the system.
The tragedy is usually people instead go for some charlatan who pretends they will deal with the system while nicking millions for themselves and putting their mates in charge of everything.
That's how dictators start out.
Sir John “Mad Jack” Fisher has entered the chat, dancing like a fiend, with a huge grin on his face.
I feel sad for Starmer but not sad to see him go. He's obviously a decent and hard working man. But he is hamstrung by a lack of political vision and an inability to project warmth. In other words, he is in many respects a bad politician. Maybe he will be one of those PMs that we learn to love more after he leaves office, like John Major (another non Oxford lower middle class striver who the press took against). IMHO despite his obvious flaws he was probably the best Labour leader since Blair. Who knows, maybe we will miss him.
I can pretty much guarantee that within 6 months, in response to some Burnham screw up, there will be at least some lamenting his departure. But they will be wrong.
So you think The Burnsiah will last less than 6 months?
:-)
It’s entirely possible, actually. If he turns it into a Starmercrash Part Deux, and the polling doesn’t turn round.
At some point, as with the DfE's endless clusterfucks, you have to accept it's not the leader it's the system.
The trick then is to find a leader who will deal with the system.
The tragedy is usually people instead go for some charlatan who pretends they will deal with the system while nicking millions for themselves and putting their mates in charge of everything.
That's how dictators start out.
Sir John “Mad Jack” Fisher has entered the chat, dancing like a fiend, with a huge grin on his face.
I feel sad for Starmer but not sad to see him go. He's obviously a decent and hard working man. But he is hamstrung by a lack of political vision and an inability to project warmth. In other words, he is in many respects a bad politician. Maybe he will be one of those PMs that we learn to love more after he leaves office, like John Major (another non Oxford lower middle class striver who the press took against). IMHO despite his obvious flaws he was probably the best Labour leader since Blair. Who knows, maybe we will miss him.
I can pretty much guarantee that within 6 months, in response to some Burnham screw up, there will be at least some lamenting his departure. But they will be wrong.
So you think The Burnsiah will last less than 6 months?
:-)
It’s entirely possible, actually. If he turns it into a Starmercrash Part Deux, and the polling doesn’t turn round.
Burnham has quite the record on the banned subject too. There’s a suggestion of a victim with a story standing as an independent for Mayor of Manchester.
Personally I have a bit of a soft spot for him for getting the Hillsborough inquiry up and running, but there’s a lot of stuff on the other side too.
Bit stupid of me: I've always liked what I've seen of Mr Burnham , but the means by which he's acquiring the leadership/premiership puts me off quite a lot.
However, all politics is both relative and also the art of the possible. Suppose I thought Burnham the best available leader, and the present leader one who ran the risk of handing our nice country over to Reform and its fellow travellers; then the question is : By what means should Burnham acquire the leadership instead?
I feel sad for Starmer but not sad to see him go. He's obviously a decent and hard working man. But he is hamstrung by a lack of political vision and an inability to project warmth. In other words, he is in many respects a bad politician. Maybe he will be one of those PMs that we learn to love more after he leaves office, like John Major (another non Oxford lower middle class striver who the press took against). IMHO despite his obvious flaws he was probably the best Labour leader since Blair. Who knows, maybe we will miss him.
I can pretty much guarantee that within 6 months, in response to some Burnham screw up, there will be at least some lamenting his departure. But they will be wrong.
So you think The Burnsiah will last less than 6 months?
:-)
It’s entirely possible, actually. If he turns it into a Starmercrash Part Deux, and the polling doesn’t turn round.
I think any boost he gets will be short term unless he acts in the way I have suggested (which I must confess is very similar to what I thought the Tories should focus on a couple of days ago). We need competent administration. It really should not be too much to ask.
Bit stupid of me: I've always liked what I've seen of Mr Burnham , but the means by which he's acquiring the leadership/premiership puts me off quite a lot.
Yes, I voted Labour in 2024 in consideration of the steps that Starmer had taken to purge the party of the Corbynites and the unacceptability of the alternatives. There is no way I will be voting for them in their Burnhamite incarnation.
How should Labour be dealing with the electoral liability of Starmer's leadership instead in such a way as to keep your vote?
I feel sad for Starmer but not sad to see him go. He's obviously a decent and hard working man. But he is hamstrung by a lack of political vision and an inability to project warmth. In other words, he is in many respects a bad politician. Maybe he will be one of those PMs that we learn to love more after he leaves office, like John Major (another non Oxford lower middle class striver who the press took against). IMHO despite his obvious flaws he was probably the best Labour leader since Blair. Who knows, maybe we will miss him.
I can pretty much guarantee that within 6 months, in response to some Burnham screw up, there will be at least some lamenting his departure. But they will be wrong.
So you think The Burnsiah will last less than 6 months?
:-)
It’s entirely possible, actually. If he turns it into a Starmercrash Part Deux, and the polling doesn’t turn round.
I think any boost he gets will be short term unless he acts in the way I have suggested (which I must confess is very similar to what I thought the Tories should focus on a couple of days ago). We need competent administration. It really should not be too much to ask.
The curious thing is that we are told that Starmer's approach (being too scared of the voters to tackle the country's big problems) is the only way that politicians can be successful, but the last politician to win two elections was one who came to the voters with a message of difficult times ahead - and even he gave undone because of making a promise to the voters he felt forced to make to appease the voters.
Maybe a Prime Minister who takes a different approach would be more successful?
Regarding Starmer's departure date, if I were him I would push for an exit plan with Burnham taking over sometime between the end of July and early September. That way, on the outside chance that England win the World Cup he'd have the enjoyable honour of welcoming the team back. It may seem a petty thing but Starmer is a committed genuine football fan, I think it would mean a lot to him.
If I were Burnham, I'd let Starmer have the honour, and focus during July on developing a big impacting plan for my Premiership, to hit the ground running.
Better not to leave anything to chance, he needs to get in as soon as he can
Today's hot offering from Rawnsley, obviously on topic:
It would be unwise to leap to the assumption that the King In The North will now sweep southwards to effortlessly seize the crown jewels of Downing Street.
For his devotees, this was a “proof-of-concept” byelection. Get on with it and put the messiah of Manchester in Downing Street. That will be the siren song of the Burnhamites. [But] Bar superglueing the front door of Number 10, the incumbent has done everything he can to indicate that he will only be dragged out of the building by his fingernails.
Sir Keir has already suggested that, if there is to be a contest for the top job, the battle should not be joined before the people of Greater Manchester have decided who will be their next mayor in the byelection for the vacancy which will now ensue. That can’t be resolved before the very end of July, which is surely one of the reasons for making this suggestion. Sir Keir buys himself more time at Number 10 while increasing the chance that some of the shine will come off his rival as Mr Burnham is subject to elevated scrutiny.
This presents Team Andy with a dilemma. Press on with a near-immediate challenge for Number 10 and his enemies will portray him as a man who is entirely self-centred and too consumed by personal ambition to care what happens to the city he was running five minutes ago.
Camp Burnham would much prefer Sir Keir to agree to set a departure date. It is widely believed that Mr Burnham will urge the prime minister to take this course when they have what will surely be an excruciatingly awkward conversation with each other. Quite a lot of the cabinet favour this way forward. If he continues to spurn that advice, the test...will be whether they are prepared to resign from the government, with all the chaos that would entail, to attempt to bend him to their will. Others in the cabinet fume in opposition to the idea that Mr Burnham should be simply gifted the top job without a proper contest.
[Makerfield voters] have propelled Andy Burnham in the direction of Number 10, but that is not in itself enough to get him over the threshold. What happens next will depend on the feverish calculations made down in Westminster by the most senior politicians in the land.
If Labour want to win the Mayoral election - they can't have SKS leading the campaign - they need Burnham sat in No 10..
The Manchester by election for Mayor is on Thursday 30th July.
So I stick with my forecast that Burnham will become PM on Thursday 17th July, the day before recess.
This allows Burnham to campaign in the Manchester by election as PM with no parliamentary business to distract him. The only date in his diary will be the EU Summit in Brussels on 22nd July.
It took six weeks for Brown to replace Blair in 2007, how do we think the party can truncate the process down to less than four weeks now?
If Burnham can get 330 nominations by Friday then nobody else can stand.
Brown was the same. There were five weeks between Brown having all of the nominations and him being formally elected leader.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown On 11 May 2007, after months of speculation, Brown formally announced his bid for the Labour leadership. He launched his campaign website the same day as formally announcing his bid for leadership, titled "Gordon Brown for Britain".[86] On 16 May, Channel 4 News announced that Andrew MacKinlay had nominated Brown, giving him 308 nominations—enough to avoid a leadership contest. A BBC report states that the decisive nomination was made by Tony Wright with MacKinlay yet to nominate at that point.[87] Brown replaced Blair as Leader of the Labour Party on 24 June 2007.
Because Blair set himself a fairly long resignation timetable, not because it needs to be that long.
Starmer will take matters into his own hands to avoid the challenge by resigning tomorrow and give himself long enough to hit his second anniversary, which Burnham will be OK with as it avoids any unpleasantness, but there's no need for it to take as long Blair/Brown took.
But there’s a process involving constituency parties and trade union affiliates.
I don’t see how the party can get what was a six-week process down to less than four weeks, with the added complication that Starmer has a right be included if he wishes to be, which triggers a full contest expected to take three months.
The rules have changed many times since Brown became leader - and it did not go as quick as it could even then.
Starmer has the right to be included if he wishes to be, but he's not going to be, he's going to accept the inevitable. Whether he wants to, or not, he's not utterly delusional and his time is up.
I would run and feck them over regardless of having any chance.
It's quite something that in just two years Labour's gone from "let's learn the lessons from Tory misrule" to "we'll give our Boris a go". I can only assume that this is because the Labour parliamentary party is full of backbenchers who are wet behind the ears, easily frightened, and politically inept. God help us.
Good point, and there is an element of that. According the the Google AI[1], in the 2024 election there were 335 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons who were newly elected to their positions, representing over half of the 650 total seats, and three new ones were elected in 2026.
The House is full of newbies who don't know what Parliament is *for* , and the "socialworkerisation" - to coin a phrase - of this cohort, who see themselves as ambassadors to Parliament to carry out their constituency's wishes instead of representatives who carry out their own judgement, breaks Parliament. The Burkean formulation of Parliament isn't working and they don't get that.
So yes: nobody's flying the plane and the passengers are panicking.
Edmund Burke argued that Members of Parliament are "trustees" rather than "delegates". In his famous 1774 Speech to the Electors of Bristol, he asserted that an MP owes their constituents not just hard work, but their unbiased judgment and conscience. He contended that sacrificing this independent reason to public opinion betrays the representative role.
Key Pillars of Burke's Theory
Trustee Model: Representatives are elected to exercise their mature, enlightened judgment for the national good, rather than blindly following the immediate, localized demands of voters.
National Interest: Burke stated that Parliament is not a "congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests". Instead, it is a deliberative assembly where all MPs work for the interest of the whole nation.
Accountability via Elections: While an MP should listen to and respect the opinions of their constituents, they are not bound by them. The ultimate accountability to voters comes at the next general election.
Yes. But Burke existed before the Great Reform Act. Not entirely sure why his opinion on a system that didn't exist then is of any relevance to today. Certainly the accountability to a tiny proportion of the population via elections isn't. They weren't elections of any kind in the way we would understand them.
It has to be the absolute peak of Trump Derangement Syndrome, that people are now vandalising national monuments in Washington because they don’t like the man in the big White House who’s trying to clean up the city for the 250th celebrations, egged on by a mainstream media who think that it’s the biggest news story in the world this week.
I can't see any corroboration of Trump's claims of vandalism, just the arrest of an innocent cyclist. It has to be absolute peak of embarrassment to mindlessly repeat Trump's lies and propaganda.
As I said, peak TDS, people totally losing their minds because they don’t like the guy who’s trying to clean up the city.
This is how the fake news spreads. That picture of the reflecting pool full of algae is from 2022.
The other pictures show the ballroom construction that’s ongoing, and the teardown from the UFC event last week, that the UFC paid for entirely and includes restoration of the grass in their budget.
This pool has been a nightmare for decades, it’s not a new thing, just people starting with OrangeManBad and working backwards. The pool workers now need to have police protection from the idiots trying to cause disruption.
the difference is your man is the only president who is having a melt down over it
He’s mad because people are vandalising a pool that just got renovated, just because they don’t like him.
Everyone used to agree that cleaning up a city is a good thing, now there’s thousands of people who would prefer it dirty because they don’t like the president.
I'm not sure that they can stand that up ie "vandalism" and "tools". Here's the photo. AIUI bits of the swimming pool lining have been breaking off and floating around.
To me this looks like normal Trump overreach, and he will run away as soon as challenged on it, as per usual.
Professional swimming pool types are not impressed. This is Swimming Pool Steve. The problem is suggested as being inadequate surface prep, which sounds a very Trumpish thing to do. Like not prepping a floor properly before you tile or paint it.
..Asked a contractor pal about the $13M paint job peeling off the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Him: I knew that'd happen. Me: How? Him: You can't rush that kind of job. The pool bottom has to be really dry or it'll exude water. And you have to clean it like a mofo first... https://x.com/CharlesCMann/status/2068491523017110000
And Sandpit is going with Trump's midnight ravings.
In the greater scheme of this administrations crimes and blunders, this is comparatively trivial, but it's also a clear illustration of a movement in denial.
What MAGA has learned is that the truth doesn’t matter. What matters is you get your narrative out there quickly and get your tame media to repeat it. Then the rubes will also repeat it. Then it just becomes us versus them again.
Also, in that photo, of the guy who supposedly vandalised the pool, if he’d vandalised the pool, he’d’ve had to swim down to the bottom of it rather than being bone dry, as he appears to be there.
Also need fingers of steel rip out a piece like that, just garbage. Shoddy work for sure.
Bit unfair. The immigration things was mostly the intentional fault of Britain Trump and Sir Keir was starting to get a grip of it.
Is it just me, or is Trump desperately wanting the North Sea opened up more because he thinks he and his family can *get something out of it* (especially under a Farage government)?
A Labour source says Keir Starmer feels "betrayed"
"He gave everything to Labour, including sacrificing much of his children's teenage years to help make the party electable. He feels deeply betrayed, especially by those he believed were loyal to him"
Sad but this forgets three things: The political truism that it's essential to remember the voters are never wrong.
And Andrew Marvell's crisp advice about Cromwell in his Horatian Ode:
The same arts that did gain A pow’r, must it maintain.
And thirdly, if you want a friend in politics, get a dog.
A Labour source says Keir Starmer feels "betrayed"
"He gave everything to Labour, including sacrificing much of his children's teenage years to help make the party electable. He feels deeply betrayed, especially by those he believed were loyal to him"
Sad but this forgets three things: The political truism that it's essential to remember the voters are never wrong.
And Andrew Marvell's crisp advice about Cromwell in his Horatian Ode:
The same arts that did gain A pow’r, must it maintain.
And thirdly, if you want a friend in politics, get a dog.
Appropriate, but surely the chief aim of a politician is to sell a pup?
It's quite something that in just two years Labour's gone from "let's learn the lessons from Tory misrule" to "we'll give our Boris a go". I can only assume that this is because the Labour parliamentary party is full of backbenchers who are wet behind the ears, easily frightened, and politically inept. God help us.
Good point, and there is an element of that. According the the Google AI[1], in the 2024 election there were 335 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons who were newly elected to their positions, representing over half of the 650 total seats, and three new ones were elected in 2026.
The House is full of newbies who don't know what Parliament is *for* , and the "socialworkerisation" - to coin a phrase - of this cohort, who see themselves as ambassadors to Parliament to carry out their constituency's wishes instead of representatives who carry out their own judgement, breaks Parliament. The Burkean formulation of Parliament isn't working and they don't get that.
So yes: nobody's flying the plane and the passengers are panicking.
Edmund Burke argued that Members of Parliament are "trustees" rather than "delegates". In his famous 1774 Speech to the Electors of Bristol, he asserted that an MP owes their constituents not just hard work, but their unbiased judgment and conscience. He contended that sacrificing this independent reason to public opinion betrays the representative role.
Key Pillars of Burke's Theory
Trustee Model: Representatives are elected to exercise their mature, enlightened judgment for the national good, rather than blindly following the immediate, localized demands of voters.
National Interest: Burke stated that Parliament is not a "congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests". Instead, it is a deliberative assembly where all MPs work for the interest of the whole nation.
Accountability via Elections: While an MP should listen to and respect the opinions of their constituents, they are not bound by them. The ultimate accountability to voters comes at the next general election.
Yes. But Burke existed before the Great Reform Act. Not entirely sure why his opinion on a system that didn't exist then is of any relevance to today. Certainly the accountability to a tiny proportion of the population via elections isn't. They weren't elections of any kind in the way we would understand them.
I think Burke was right then and is right now. What theory would improve on his? BTW the GRA didn't produce vastly more electors than before.
Bit stupid of me: I've always liked what I've seen of Mr Burnham , but the means by which he's acquiring the leadership/premiership puts me off quite a lot.
Yes, I voted Labour in 2024 in consideration of the steps that Starmer had taken to purge the party of the Corbynites and the unacceptability of the alternatives. There is no way I will be voting for them in their Burnhamite incarnation.
How should Labour be dealing with the electoral liability of Starmer's leadership instead in such a way as to keep your vote?
The way I look at it is that Labour MPs are thinking solely about their own survival, rather than what is in the best interests of the country. Just at the point at which the economic indicators are beginning to look more positive they've taken their eye off the ball, and as Lord Case has pointed out that is going to cost us all. This whole episode is about presentation rather than substance. Frankly, I find it unforgivable. I don't know how I will vote next time, but it's very unlikely to be Labour again.
Bit stupid of me: I've always liked what I've seen of Mr Burnham , but the means by which he's acquiring the leadership/premiership puts me off quite a lot.
Yes, I voted Labour in 2024 in consideration of the steps that Starmer had taken to purge the party of the Corbynites and the unacceptability of the alternatives. There is no way I will be voting for them in their Burnhamite incarnation.
How should Labour be dealing with the electoral liability of Starmer's leadership instead in such a way as to keep your vote?
The way I look at it is that Labour MPs are thinking solely about their own survival, rather than what is in the best interests of the country. Just at the point at which the economic indicators are beginning to look more positive they've taken their eye off the ball, and as Lord Case has pointed out that is going to cost us all. This whole episode is about presentation rather than substance. Frankly, I find it unforgivable. I don't know how I will vote next time, but it's very unlikely to be Labour again.
I'm not sure that answers the question. The massive unpopularity of Starmer may be irrational but it is also real. and it isn't based on him pursuing a tough policy that really hurts in order to get stuff better in time. Much of the criticism is the opposite of that - he isn't clear about direction and scared of his own MPs and makes pledges (boats, gangs) that he can't keep.
I am not suggesting Burnham is the answer; though a better one has not emerged as a possible.
Bit stupid of me: I've always liked what I've seen of Mr Burnham , but the means by which he's acquiring the leadership/premiership puts me off quite a lot.
Yes, I voted Labour in 2024 in consideration of the steps that Starmer had taken to purge the party of the Corbynites and the unacceptability of the alternatives. There is no way I will be voting for them in their Burnhamite incarnation.
How should Labour be dealing with the electoral liability of Starmer's leadership instead in such a way as to keep your vote?
A Labour source says Keir Starmer feels "betrayed"
"He gave everything to Labour, including sacrificing much of his children's teenage years to help make the party electable. He feels deeply betrayed, especially by those he believed were loyal to him"
Sad but this forgets three things: The political truism that it's essential to remember the voters are never wrong.
And Andrew Marvell's crisp advice about Cromwell in his Horatian Ode:
The same arts that did gain A pow’r, must it maintain.
And thirdly, if you want a friend in politics, get a dog.
“When the people complain, said Mirabeau, the people are always right.”
The problem is really that politicians have largely adopted a system of vibe politicking, with ever faster pivots to where they think the public is. The faster they chase public opinion, the further away they end up.
Bit stupid of me: I've always liked what I've seen of Mr Burnham , but the means by which he's acquiring the leadership/premiership puts me off quite a lot.
Yes, I voted Labour in 2024 in consideration of the steps that Starmer had taken to purge the party of the Corbynites and the unacceptability of the alternatives. There is no way I will be voting for them in their Burnhamite incarnation.
How should Labour be dealing with the electoral liability of Starmer's leadership instead in such a way as to keep your vote?
The way I look at it is that Labour MPs are thinking solely about their own survival, rather than what is in the best interests of the country. Just at the point at which the economic indicators are beginning to look more positive they've taken their eye off the ball, and as Lord Case has pointed out that is going to cost us all. This whole episode is about presentation rather than substance. Frankly, I find it unforgivable. I don't know how I will vote next time, but it's very unlikely to be Labour again.
I'm not sure that answers the question. The massive unpopularity of Starmer may be irrational but it is also real. and it isn't based on him pursuing a tough policy that really hurts in order to get stuff better in time. Much of the criticism is the opposite of that - he isn't clear about direction and scared of his own MPs and makes pledges (boats, gangs) that he can't keep.
I am not suggesting Burnham is the answer; though a better one has not emerged as a possible.
So my strategy would have been 100% focus on economic growth, the NHS and housing targets with the aim of there being tangible, defensible improvements by 2029. And if people still hated Starmer despite it all, then yes install a more voter-friendly leader, but do it within one year of the election.
A Labour source says Keir Starmer feels "betrayed"
"He gave everything to Labour, including sacrificing much of his children's teenage years to help make the party electable. He feels deeply betrayed, especially by those he believed were loyal to him"
Sad but this forgets three things: The political truism that it's essential to remember the voters are never wrong.
And Andrew Marvell's crisp advice about Cromwell in his Horatian Ode:
The same arts that did gain A pow’r, must it maintain.
And thirdly, if you want a friend in politics, get a dog.
“When the people complain, said Mirabeau, the people are always right.”
The problem is really that politicians have largely adopted a system of vibe politicking, with ever faster pivots to where they think the public is. The faster they chase public opinion, the further away they end up.
Then they blame the public for being fickle.
Yes, it's not easy but they need to have more confidence on when to stay the course.
I couldn't care less how nice Burnham is. It's Labour's rubbish policies which are the problem. If Burnham keeps on with the digital ID/VPN banning and jury trial nonsense, for instance, there's no point changing leader.
I think I agree with you on most of those issues but they are not, frankly, where the success or failure of Burnham's administration is going to be determined. When Reeves was appointed she claimed she was going to be focused like a laser on growth but then introduced a whole range of policies that were inimical to growth, employment and investment in the UK. That is what needs to change.
My understanding, and it is pretty vague on the details to be honest, is that in Manchester Burnham has at the very least not got in the way of growth and seems to have been a benign influence. That is what we need from him, a government that is joined up enough to recognise that making it more expensive to employ people costs jobs (duh), that we need to exploit our own resources in the North Sea, that we need to use our tax system to encourage investment in the UK, that makes sure (as I believe he did) that there is good coordination between our educational establishments and growing businesses, that makes London a better place to float businesses, that our transportation system actually facilitates getting people to work, that houses actually get built, I could go on most of the afternoon.
If Burnham delivers on even some of this I would be delighted for the country and I would expect him to get a second term. If he spends his time on culture wars and social issues he will do almost as badly as Starmer has.
Agree - but they are stupid ineffective distractions, illiberal and authoritarian. There are others like this I could name. He should scrape these barnacles off the boat pronto.
If he does what you suggest, I'll be pleasantly surprised. I am not holding my breath.
It's quite something that in just two years Labour's gone from "let's learn the lessons from Tory misrule" to "we'll give our Boris a go". I can only assume that this is because the Labour parliamentary party is full of backbenchers who are wet behind the ears, easily frightened, and politically inept. God help us.
Good point, and there is an element of that. According the the Google AI[1], in the 2024 election there were 335 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons who were newly elected to their positions, representing over half of the 650 total seats, and three new ones were elected in 2026.
The House is full of newbies who don't know what Parliament is *for* , and the "socialworkerisation" - to coin a phrase - of this cohort, who see themselves as ambassadors to Parliament to carry out their constituency's wishes instead of representatives who carry out their own judgement, breaks Parliament. The Burkean formulation of Parliament isn't working and they don't get that.
So yes: nobody's flying the plane and the passengers are panicking.
Edmund Burke argued that Members of Parliament are "trustees" rather than "delegates". In his famous 1774 Speech to the Electors of Bristol, he asserted that an MP owes their constituents not just hard work, but their unbiased judgment and conscience. He contended that sacrificing this independent reason to public opinion betrays the representative role.
Key Pillars of Burke's Theory
Trustee Model: Representatives are elected to exercise their mature, enlightened judgment for the national good, rather than blindly following the immediate, localized demands of voters.
National Interest: Burke stated that Parliament is not a "congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests". Instead, it is a deliberative assembly where all MPs work for the interest of the whole nation.
Accountability via Elections: While an MP should listen to and respect the opinions of their constituents, they are not bound by them. The ultimate accountability to voters comes at the next general election.
Yes. But Burke existed before the Great Reform Act. Not entirely sure why his opinion on a system that didn't exist then is of any relevance to today. Certainly the accountability to a tiny proportion of the population via elections isn't. They weren't elections of any kind in the way we would understand them.
Acknowledged, but the principle still holds. MPs aren't social workers. They work from the UK, not their constituency.
Comments
Going by wikipedia, Lab have led on only 1 UK opinion polling in the last year. They're currently averaging around 20% in the polls, having won 33.7% at the 2024 general election.
The longer he stays in post, the worse Labour prospects for the next general election are. He's also presided over bloodbath elections at the Senedd and Holyrood this year.
His retiring present should be a mirror, so he can reflect on those losses
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/eFbGBWhGgGM
https://x.com/the_real_itdude/status/2068682257984856233
Of course, it was 17 years ago and he may have changed. I hope he has. But he fitted rather too many of the wrong 'un archetypes that @Cyclefree warns us about over that.
:-)
It’s entirely possible, actually. If he turns it into a Starmercrash Part Deux, and the polling doesn’t turn round.
The trick then is to find a leader who will deal with the system.
The tragedy is usually people instead go for some charlatan who pretends they will deal with the system while nicking millions for themselves and putting their mates in charge of everything.
That's how dictators start out.
I think it's fair to criticise Burnham's approach as being self-centred, rather than collegiate. Although it's possible that Starmer would have rebuffed any attempt by Burnham to help fix the direction of the government.
I get the sense that it was one similarity Starmer shared with May. Keeping decision-making to a very small group with the result that senior colleagues felt uninvolved.
The fewer people there are to supply with food, fuel, electricity and water the easier it will be for Russia to stabilise the situation.
Personally I have a bit of a soft spot for him for getting the Hillsborough inquiry up and running, but there’s a lot of stuff on the other side too.
Maybe a Prime Minister who takes a different approach would be more successful?
Not entirely sure why his opinion on a system that didn't exist then is of any relevance to today.
Certainly the accountability to a tiny proportion of the population via elections isn't.
They weren't elections of any kind in the way we would understand them.
And Andrew Marvell's crisp advice about Cromwell in his Horatian Ode:
The same arts that did gain
A pow’r, must it maintain.
And thirdly, if you want a friend in politics, get a dog.
https://x.com/ifindretards/status/2068690399028183145
Lay the favourites…
I am not suggesting Burnham is the answer; though a better one has not emerged as a possible.
The problem is really that politicians have largely adopted a system of vibe politicking, with ever faster pivots to where they think the public is. The faster they chase public opinion, the further away they end up.
Then they blame the public for being fickle.
NEW THREAD
If he does what you suggest, I'll be pleasantly surprised. I am not holding my breath.