'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
Parliament is in recess from mid July to early September.
So what difference does it make if Burnham takes over in mid July or September?
Because if he takes over in mid July he can't actually do anything until September in any case.
By "do anything" I mean actually change anything of substance. Of course he can talk on TV and do photo opportunities and generally go around sounding like a nice person.
He can take the salary, the fancy car with a policeman driving it, and get in the air miles visiting other world leaders on that nice plane they let him use.
Maybe even take some time to think about what he’s actually going to do, relaxing in the rather smart country house that is Chequers.
Just like every other Prime Minister, then?
Not sure what your problem with Burnham is apart from the fact he's a Labour Prime Minister, presumably?
At least @Alanbrooke started sniping at Starmer after he'd been to the Palace and the car had got to Admiralty Arch on the way back to Downing Street.
My only problem with him is that he’s just as much of an empty suit as the guy he’s replacing.
There’s no vision, he’s just Starmer Mk II, but with the remains of a Northern accent left after Cambridge kicked most of it out of him.
Have you read his book? At least he’s taken the time to set something out in writing however much one might disagree. Many criticisms of Burnham can be made but he’s set out his philosophy in a way SKS didn’t
Well the profound thoughts Burnham is currently associated with are his bond markets and waspi comments.
Which rather give the impression that he's insecure, vacuous and with little clue as to what he's talking about.
And you, a fan of Boris Johnson!
Not a fan, a tolerator.
Boris had his uses, I never expected that he would have zero self-control or that the Conservative party would put no controls over him.
That Labour are so enthused about their equivalent of Boris does bring to mind the history repeats itself quote.
Burnham's elevation is not universally endorsed, and for the Johnsonian reasons you suggest.
I suspect Burnham is smart enough to avoid some of the obvious pitfalls Johnson created for himself.
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
I'd be perfectly fine with borrowing to invest (in council housing and other things) if Britain wasn't already borrowing £100+bn to pay debt interest, etc.
£46.3bn so far this year, and we’re only two months in! That’s up more than £9bn on the same two months last year.
Last 12 months’ borrowing is £136.5bn, down from £167bn thanks to a bumper January this year as people bought forward earnings to avoid the tax rises.
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Can anyone explain the key events in Badenoch now being seen positively?
She has picked some fights, sometimes unwisely, she has seen off Starmer without being at all stellar at the despatch box. What memes, what bits of feed, what bot lines are not getting to me here? I'm microsegmented out of the Kemi revival, it seems.
Because it's something of a mystery not just to me, but by the sounds of things to a lot of people on here.
What are you guys seeing that I'm not?
Her conference speech last year was said to be good, but the key moment I think was her response to the budget afterwards.
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
Parliament is in recess from mid July to early September.
So what difference does it make if Burnham takes over in mid July or September?
Because if he takes over in mid July he can't actually do anything until September in any case.
By "do anything" I mean actually change anything of substance. Of course he can talk on TV and do photo opportunities and generally go around sounding like a nice person.
He can take the salary, the fancy car with a policeman driving it, and get in the air miles visiting other world leaders on that nice plane they let him use.
Maybe even take some time to think about what he’s actually going to do, relaxing in the rather smart country house that is Chequers.
Just like every other Prime Minister, then?
Not sure what your problem with Burnham is apart from the fact he's a Labour Prime Minister, presumably?
At least @Alanbrooke started sniping at Starmer after he'd been to the Palace and the car had got to Admiralty Arch on the way back to Downing Street.
My only problem with him is that he’s just as much of an empty suit as the guy he’s replacing.
There’s no vision, he’s just Starmer Mk II, but with the remains of a Northern accent left after Cambridge kicked most of it out of him.
Have you read his book? At least he’s taken the time to set something out in writing however much one might disagree. Many criticisms of Burnham can be made but he’s set out his philosophy in a way SKS didn’t
Well the profound thoughts Burnham is currently associated with are his bond markets and waspi comments.
Which rather give the impression that he's insecure, vacuous and with little clue as to what he's talking about.
That’s not relevant here. The position posited was that he was an “empty suit” like SKS. You’re making value propositions on some positions he has or has not taken, which is a different matter entirely.
Well if its positions that he hasn't taken why was he mouthing off about them ?
Perhaps because he is vacuous, insecure and with little clue as to what he's talking about ?
As a reminder there was absolutely no need for Burnham to talk about bond markets last year yet he chose to do so and there was absolutely no need for Burnham to talk about waspi this month yet he chose to do so.
What makes you think I give a fuck? You’re (probably deliberately) misinterpreting me to goad me into an argument about Burnham’s qualities, when my position was merely that Burnham has a whole book setting out his philosophy, without comment on its quality. This has nothing to do with that. Go find a Burnham acolyte to argue with. I’m not one.
I was merely contrasting the 'Andy Burnham has written a book' idea to what Andy Burnham has been noted for saying in the last year.
Which do not give any impression that he has thought deeply about the issues affecting the country as opposed to mouthing off vacuously about things he doesn't understand.
Those of a Kemi Badenoch sceptic nature will find the polling and the trend difficult to deal with.
On the contrary, I think "Good, determined, useless, strong, unknown, competent Conservative" fits reasonably well.
I rather like the word clouds.
Nigel Farage is a massive racist.
Not the complete story, though.
Nigel Farage is a greedy, massive racist.
And short tempered, petulant and entitled.
Like an angsty teen.
Whatever the politics that’s not the sort of character traits I’d want in a PM.
I’ve been neither pro nor against voting reform but his display over this has deffo pushed me into not voting for them next time.
Human side? He's probably tired and burned out as a party leader. He's done it before. He has a lifespan of just a few years in these roles before he's had enough.
More widely, he's always wanted to be an insurgent into the Establishment rather than a member of it. I think that's what accounts for his self-sabotaging behaviour. He doesn't like the scrutiny. He's terrified by the prospect of actually being in charge.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone else was leading Reform into the next election.
I think Farage absolutely wants to be in the establishment club. I think he wants to be in the room for the accession of the next monarch, for example.
In retrospect, had Johnson made him a Lord to mark Brexit day (at the end of January 2020) then that might have been establishment enough for him, and we'd not have seen the Reform party.
Parliament is in recess from mid July to early September.
So what difference does it make if Burnham takes over in mid July or September?
Because if he takes over in mid July he can't actually do anything until September in any case.
By "do anything" I mean actually change anything of substance. Of course he can talk on TV and do photo opportunities and generally go around sounding like a nice person.
He can take the salary, the fancy car with a policeman driving it, and get in the air miles visiting other world leaders on that nice plane they let him use.
Maybe even take some time to think about what he’s actually going to do, relaxing in the rather smart country house that is Chequers.
Just like every other Prime Minister, then?
Not sure what your problem with Burnham is apart from the fact he's a Labour Prime Minister, presumably?
At least @Alanbrooke started sniping at Starmer after he'd been to the Palace and the car had got to Admiralty Arch on the way back to Downing Street.
My only problem with him is that he’s just as much of an empty suit as the guy he’s replacing.
There’s no vision, he’s just Starmer Mk II, but with the remains of a Northern accent left after Cambridge kicked most of it out of him.
Have you read his book? At least he’s taken the time to set something out in writing however much one might disagree. Many criticisms of Burnham can be made but he’s set out his philosophy in a way SKS didn’t
Well the profound thoughts Burnham is currently associated with are his bond markets and waspi comments.
Which rather give the impression that he's insecure, vacuous and with little clue as to what he's talking about.
And you, a fan of Boris Johnson!
Not a fan, a tolerator.
Boris had his uses, I never expected that he would have zero self-control or that the Conservative party would put no controls over him.
That Labour are so enthused about their equivalent of Boris does bring to mind the history repeats itself quote.
Burnham's elevation is not universally endorsed, and for the Johnsonian reasons you suggest.
I suspect Burnham is smart enough to avoid some of the obvious pitfalls Johnson created for himself.
Well I certainly don't expect Burnham to be as self-destructive as Boris was.
Similarly I doubt he will either as sleazy or as quickly sleazy as Starmer was.
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?
Burnham is about to become PM not merely Labour leader having barely been back as an MP 5 minutes, he at least needs to be tested on his policies and agenda for Britain before entering No 10
Kemi will be pleased she mainly has positive scores as does Burnham. Farage will be concerned 'good' had been replaced by 'racist' as the main attribute given to him, although he is seen as an attribute to his party as is Burnham and Badenoch and as Starmer was not for Labour,
Burnham should give Labour a bounce given Labour, LD and Green and even Tory voters see him as an asset to his party even if Reform voters do not. Kemi will also be encouraged by the fact every party's voters except the Greens see her as an asset. She will also be pleased she polls slightly better with Reform voters at 40% than Farage does with Tory voters at 39%
I don't like Burnham, although I can understand the relief at his ejection of the incapable Starmer. He appears confident and suggests he is capable.
I still don't see Badenoch's attraction to voters. Other than getting bigged up after a disastrous set of locals, what has she done to deserve the adulation?
I think it's largely relief that she hasn't turned out to be quite the disaster many feared.
Kemi will be pleased she mainly has positive scores as does Burnham. Farage will be concerned 'good' had been replaced by 'racist' as the main attribute given to him, although he is seen as an attribute to his party as is Burnham and Badenoch and as Starmer was not for Labour,
Burnham should give Labour a bounce given Labour, LD and Green and even Tory voters see him as an asset to his party even if Reform voters do not. Kemi will also be encouraged by the fact every party's voters except the Greens see her as an asset. She will also be pleased she polls slightly better with Reform voters at 40% than Farage does with Tory voters at 39%
I don't like Burnham, although I can understand the relief at his ejection of the incapable Starmer. He appears confident and suggests he is capable.
I still don't see Badenoch's attraction to voters. Other than getting bigged up after a disastrous set of locals, what has she done to deserve the adulation?
In London the Tories made net gains, in Scotland the Tories have just gained Aberdeen South, in areas Reform are weaker Kemi is helping the party make progress
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?
In order to consider a leadership bid, you still need >80 other Labour MPs to think it is a wizard wheeze, don't you?
An interesting question. I suspect he doesn't, but OTOH there might just be enough pissed off Starmerites to grasp the opportunity of throwing a spanner into the works ?
I think it would be fairly irresponsible at this point, FWIW.
Burnham is facing a pretty steep learning curve as it is.
“There was a strong push from the Burnham camp to be given longer. But why should they tell Keir they want him out, then expect him to manage the ship through a potentially difficult summer? Keir will of course cooperate on transition, but it will be through gritted teeth,” one said.
Some in Burnham’s team were exasperated about the shorter timetable. “The last lot had years to prepare and still fucked it up. We’ll just have to do it in three weeks,” one senior source said. “The length of the transition will focus minds.”.
Parliament is in recess from mid July to early September.
So what difference does it make if Burnham takes over in mid July or September?
Because if he takes over in mid July he can't actually do anything until September in any case.
By "do anything" I mean actually change anything of substance. Of course he can talk on TV and do photo opportunities and generally go around sounding like a nice person.
He can take the salary, the fancy car with a policeman driving it, and get in the air miles visiting other world leaders on that nice plane they let him use.
Maybe even take some time to think about what he’s actually going to do, relaxing in the rather smart country house that is Chequers.
Just like every other Prime Minister, then?
Not sure what your problem with Burnham is apart from the fact he's a Labour Prime Minister, presumably?
At least @Alanbrooke started sniping at Starmer after he'd been to the Palace and the car had got to Admiralty Arch on the way back to Downing Street.
My only problem with him is that he’s just as much of an empty suit as the guy he’s replacing.
There’s no vision, he’s just Starmer Mk II, but with the remains of a Northern accent left after Cambridge kicked most of it out of him.
Have you read his book? At least he’s taken the time to set something out in writing however much one might disagree. Many criticisms of Burnham can be made but he’s set out his philosophy in a way SKS didn’t
Well the profound thoughts Burnham is currently associated with are his bond markets and waspi comments.
Which rather give the impression that he's insecure, vacuous and with little clue as to what he's talking about.
That’s not relevant here. The position posited was that he was an “empty suit” like SKS. You’re making value propositions on some positions he has or has not taken, which is a different matter entirely.
Well if its positions that he hasn't taken why was he mouthing off about them ?
Perhaps because he is vacuous, insecure and with little clue as to what he's talking about ?
As a reminder there was absolutely no need for Burnham to talk about bond markets last year yet he chose to do so and there was absolutely no need for Burnham to talk about waspi this month yet he chose to do so.
What makes you think I give a fuck? You’re (probably deliberately) misinterpreting me to goad me into an argument about Burnham’s qualities, when my position was merely that Burnham has a whole book setting out his philosophy, without comment on its quality. This has nothing to do with that. Go find a Burnham acolyte to argue with. I’m not one.
I was merely contrasting the 'Andy Burnham has written a book' idea to what Andy Burnham has been noted for saying in the last year.
Which do not give any impression that he has thought deeply about the issues affecting the country as opposed to mouthing off vacuously about things he doesn't understand.
His having written a book is not a platonic “idea”. It’s an empirical “fact” - available through all reputable booksellers. Many of his ideas are presumably “noted” in there.
I’m 99.9% certain you’ve not read it. Neither have I. Yet you treat me as a Burnham outrider. I suggest we both do so before you continue to mouth off on your meaningless “impressions” as to his philosophy. It deserves to be considered in any discussion on whether he’s an empty suit. It may be shit, but given he’s going to be PM it deserves (in fact demands) consideration on the topic, as much as the soundbites you’ve picked up on.
'Leader approvals we have someone in the positive! Burnham jumps up to +9, Badenoch is at -1, Davey is at -7, Farage is at -16, Polanski at -21 and Starmer is at -45.'
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Build pairs of council houses in every village in Britain (up to perhaps 2% or 5% of the existing housing stock) and let them to respectable people with 50 years of local roots.
The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:
1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.
Parliament is in recess from mid July to early September.
So what difference does it make if Burnham takes over in mid July or September?
Because if he takes over in mid July he can't actually do anything until September in any case.
By "do anything" I mean actually change anything of substance. Of course he can talk on TV and do photo opportunities and generally go around sounding like a nice person.
He can take the salary, the fancy car with a policeman driving it, and get in the air miles visiting other world leaders on that nice plane they let him use.
Maybe even take some time to think about what he’s actually going to do, relaxing in the rather smart country house that is Chequers.
Just like every other Prime Minister, then?
Not sure what your problem with Burnham is apart from the fact he's a Labour Prime Minister, presumably?
At least @Alanbrooke started sniping at Starmer after he'd been to the Palace and the car had got to Admiralty Arch on the way back to Downing Street.
My only problem with him is that he’s just as much of an empty suit as the guy he’s replacing.
There’s no vision, he’s just Starmer Mk II, but with the remains of a Northern accent left after Cambridge kicked most of it out of him.
Have you read his book? At least he’s taken the time to set something out in writing however much one might disagree. Many criticisms of Burnham can be made but he’s set out his philosophy in a way SKS didn’t
Well the profound thoughts Burnham is currently associated with are his bond markets and waspi comments.
Which rather give the impression that he's insecure, vacuous and with little clue as to what he's talking about.
That’s not relevant here. The position posited was that he was an “empty suit” like SKS. You’re making value propositions on some positions he has or has not taken, which is a different matter entirely.
Well if its positions that he hasn't taken why was he mouthing off about them ?
Perhaps because he is vacuous, insecure and with little clue as to what he's talking about ?
As a reminder there was absolutely no need for Burnham to talk about bond markets last year yet he chose to do so and there was absolutely no need for Burnham to talk about waspi this month yet he chose to do so.
What makes you think I give a fuck? You’re (probably deliberately) misinterpreting me to goad me into an argument about Burnham’s qualities, when my position was merely that Burnham has a whole book setting out his philosophy, without comment on its quality. This has nothing to do with that. Go find a Burnham acolyte to argue with. I’m not one.
My first question about the Burnham book is - has Burnham read it?
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
As an Aberdonian Conservative, surely the momentum is with Carns. He just needs an endorsement from Kemi and the job's a good un. Alternatively he's a fan dancer high on his own supply of self regard.
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Build pairs of council houses in every village in Britain (up to perhaps 2% or 5% of the existing housing stock) and let them to respectable people with 50 years of local roots.
The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:
1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.
Each village in Northumberland has one street of mostly ex Council properties.
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Build pairs of council houses in every village in Britain (up to perhaps 2% or 5% of the existing housing stock) and let them to respectable people with 50 years of local roots.
The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:
1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Build pairs of council houses in every village in Britain (up to perhaps 2% or 5% of the existing housing stock) and let them to respectable people with 50 years of local roots.
The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:
1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.
3) That the 1940s edge of village council houses are ugly.
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
I do know why they’re laying off people. I say as much in my post.
And the demand isn’t there for flats due to the service charge and leasehold issues.
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?
In order to consider a leadership bid, you still need >80 other Labour MPs to think it is a wizard wheeze, don't you?
An interesting question. I suspect he doesn't, but OTOH there might just be enough pissed off Starmerites to grasp the opportunity of throwing a spanner into the works ?
I think it would be fairly irresponsible at this point, FWIW.
Burnham is facing a pretty steep learning curve as it is.
“There was a strong push from the Burnham camp to be given longer. But why should they tell Keir they want him out, then expect him to manage the ship through a potentially difficult summer? Keir will of course cooperate on transition, but it will be through gritted teeth,” one said.
Some in Burnham’s team were exasperated about the shorter timetable. “The last lot had years to prepare and still fucked it up. We’ll just have to do it in three weeks,” one senior source said. “The length of the transition will focus minds.”.
Yes must be a complete surprise to team Andy that he has become PM.
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Down here in the South after all the pressure to build new homes, Vistry are offering shared ownership on a large 600+ homes development. Normally it would be 50% equity. Then it dropped to 25% equity. Now they are offering 10% which equates to £45K on a £450K 3 bed. Desperate not to cut prices.
'Leader approvals we have someone in the positive! Burnham jumps up to +9, Badenoch is at -1, Davey is at -7, Farage is at -16, Polanski at -21 and Starmer is at -45.'
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?
Burnham is about to become PM not merely Labour leader having barely been back as an MP 5 minutes, he at least needs to be tested on his policies and agenda for Britain before entering No 10
Kemi will be pleased she mainly has positive scores as does Burnham. Farage will be concerned 'good' had been replaced by 'racist' as the main attribute given to him, although he is seen as an attribute to his party as is Burnham and Badenoch and as Starmer was not for Labour,
Burnham should give Labour a bounce given Labour, LD and Green and even Tory voters see him as an asset to his party even if Reform voters do not. Kemi will also be encouraged by the fact every party's voters except the Greens see her as an asset. She will also be pleased she polls slightly better with Reform voters at 40% than Farage does with Tory voters at 39%
Farage's problem is he is a bit too racist for 50% of the country, and not quite racist enough for 10% of the country. Makes it tricky.
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Down here in the South after all the pressure to build new homes, Vistry are offering shared ownership on a large 600+ homes development. Normally it would be 50% equity. Then it dropped to 25% equity. Now they are offering 10% which equates to £45K on a £450K 3 bed. Desperate not to cut prices.
Fifa’s shift from goal difference to head-to-head to decide groups is an inexplicably terrible decision that has needlessly killed or muted loads of final-round group games
Parliament is in recess from mid July to early September.
So what difference does it make if Burnham takes over in mid July or September?
Because if he takes over in mid July he can't actually do anything until September in any case.
By "do anything" I mean actually change anything of substance. Of course he can talk on TV and do photo opportunities and generally go around sounding like a nice person.
He can take the salary, the fancy car with a policeman driving it, and get in the air miles visiting other world leaders on that nice plane they let him use.
Maybe even take some time to think about what he’s actually going to do, relaxing in the rather smart country house that is Chequers.
Just like every other Prime Minister, then?
Not sure what your problem with Burnham is apart from the fact he's a Labour Prime Minister, presumably?
At least @Alanbrooke started sniping at Starmer after he'd been to the Palace and the car had got to Admiralty Arch on the way back to Downing Street.
My only problem with him is that he’s just as much of an empty suit as the guy he’s replacing.
There’s no vision, he’s just Starmer Mk II, but with the remains of a Northern accent left after Cambridge kicked most of it out of him.
Have you read his book? At least he’s taken the time to set something out in writing however much one might disagree. Many criticisms of Burnham can be made but he’s set out his philosophy in a way SKS didn’t
Well the profound thoughts Burnham is currently associated with are his bond markets and waspi comments.
Which rather give the impression that he's insecure, vacuous and with little clue as to what he's talking about.
That’s not relevant here. The position posited was that he was an “empty suit” like SKS. You’re making value propositions on some positions he has or has not taken, which is a different matter entirely.
Well if its positions that he hasn't taken why was he mouthing off about them ?
Perhaps because he is vacuous, insecure and with little clue as to what he's talking about ?
As a reminder there was absolutely no need for Burnham to talk about bond markets last year yet he chose to do so and there was absolutely no need for Burnham to talk about waspi this month yet he chose to do so.
What makes you think I give a fuck? You’re (probably deliberately) misinterpreting me to goad me into an argument about Burnham’s qualities, when my position was merely that Burnham has a whole book setting out his philosophy, without comment on its quality. This has nothing to do with that. Go find a Burnham acolyte to argue with. I’m not one.
I was merely contrasting the 'Andy Burnham has written a book' idea to what Andy Burnham has been noted for saying in the last year.
Which do not give any impression that he has thought deeply about the issues affecting the country as opposed to mouthing off vacuously about things he doesn't understand.
His having written a book is not a platonic “idea”. It’s an empirical “fact” - available through all reputable booksellers. Many of his ideas are presumably “noted” in there.
I’m 99.9% certain you’ve not read it. Neither have I. Yet you treat me as a Burnham outrider. I suggest we both do so before you continue to mouth off on your meaningless “impressions” as to his philosophy. It deserves to be considered in any discussion on whether he’s an empty suit. It may be shit, but given he’s going to be PM it deserves (in fact demands) consideration on the topic, as much as the soundbites you’ve picked up on.
The number of people who have read Burnham's book is minimal whereas the number of people who have heard Burnham's comments about bond markets or waspi are in the millions.
Impressions are created and people judged on what is easily and freely available.
And currently Burnham has created the impression that he is someone who will vacuously spout off on things he knows little about, presumably in an attempt to make himself popular.
Now, when Burnham becomes prime minister he will other opportunities to be judged on his words and deeds to create a move favourable impression.
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Build pairs of council houses in every village in Britain (up to perhaps 2% or 5% of the existing housing stock) and let them to respectable people with 50 years of local roots.
The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:
1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.
3) That the 1940s edge of village council houses are ugly.
Can we do better this time?
But building social housing as punch-in-the-face-ugly is a moral duty.
Two things the next Chancellor should immediately promise are:
1) No more increases in business taxation 2) No more increases in pension taxation
Reeves twice allowing months of speculation about increases in business and pension taxation had detrimental effects on business investment and pension planning.
I'm a pensioner, and most of my friends are now pensioners. It's eccentric to suggest that we should be exempt from tax increases (especially as pensioners tend to vote Tory or Reform anyway). A means-tested increase, including abolition of the right to a state pension if one's already got ample private pension, would meet widespread approval. I appreciate that this would go against promises made in ca. 1945 but really one needs to revisit these things sometimes - someone getting £80K in private pension really doesn't need the national pension.
Those of a Kemi Badenoch sceptic nature will find the polling and the trend difficult to deal with.
On the contrary, I think "Good, determined, useless, strong, unknown, competent Conservative" fits reasonably well.
I rather like the word clouds.
Nigel Farage is a massive racist.
Not the complete story, though.
Nigel Farage is a greedy, massive racist.
And short tempered, petulant and entitled.
Like an angsty teen.
Whatever the politics that’s not the sort of character traits I’d want in a PM.
I’ve been neither pro nor against voting reform but his display over this has deffo pushed me into not voting for them next time.
Human side? He's probably tired and burned out as a party leader. He's done it before. He has a lifespan of just a few years in these roles before he's had enough.
More widely, he's always wanted to be an insurgent into the Establishment rather than a member of it. I think that's what accounts for his self-sabotaging behaviour. He doesn't like the scrutiny. He's terrified by the prospect of actually being in charge.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone else was leading Reform into the next election.
The problem with that is Farage is Reform, if Tice returned to lead Reform or Yusuf or Jenrick or Braverman did their support would likely collapse to the Tories and Restore with a few even going to Burnham Labour
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?
In order to consider a leadership bid, you still need >80 other Labour MPs to think it is a wizard wheeze, don't you?
An interesting question. I suspect he doesn't, but OTOH there might just be enough pissed off Starmerites to grasp the opportunity of throwing a spanner into the works ?
I think it would be fairly irresponsible at this point, FWIW.
Burnham is facing a pretty steep learning curve as it is.
“There was a strong push from the Burnham camp to be given longer. But why should they tell Keir they want him out, then expect him to manage the ship through a potentially difficult summer? Keir will of course cooperate on transition, but it will be through gritted teeth,” one said.
Some in Burnham’s team were exasperated about the shorter timetable. “The last lot had years to prepare and still fucked it up. We’ll just have to do it in three weeks,” one senior source said. “The length of the transition will focus minds.”.
Yes must be a complete surprise to team Andy that he has become PM.
TBF, that's not really the point. No doubt he has at least some idea of what he wants to do (at least I hope so), but developing detailed policy that can quickly be implemented at government level requires civil service resources.
'Leader approvals we have someone in the positive! Burnham jumps up to +9, Badenoch is at -1, Davey is at -7, Farage is at -16, Polanski at -21 and Starmer is at -45.'
Two things the next Chancellor should immediately promise are:
1) No more increases in business taxation 2) No more increases in pension taxation
Reeves twice allowing months of speculation about increases in business and pension taxation had detrimental effects on business investment and pension planning.
I'm a pensioner, and most of my friends are now pensioners. It's eccentric to suggest that we should be exempt from tax increases (especially as pensioners tend to vote Tory or Reform anyway). A means-tested increase, including abolition of the right to a state pension if one's already got ample private pension, would meet widespread approval. I appreciate that this would go against promises made in ca. 1945 but really one needs to revisit these things sometimes - someone getting £80K in private pension really doesn't need the national pension.
It absolutely would not. The polling on WFP was insane, even people my age were against it.
The one thing I can just about bring palatable is excluding landlords from it, and perhaps removing the triple lock. Anything else would be deeply, fatally unpopular across the electorate.
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Build pairs of council houses in every village in Britain (up to perhaps 2% or 5% of the existing housing stock) and let them to respectable people with 50 years of local roots.
The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:
1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.
3) That the 1940s edge of village council houses are ugly.
Can we do better this time?
Fair point.
Although private housing of that era also tended to be estates of identical houses.
At least the ability to vary houses in size, shape and style has been achieved since then.
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?
In order to consider a leadership bid, you still need >80 other Labour MPs to think it is a wizard wheeze, don't you?
An interesting question. I suspect he doesn't, but OTOH there might just be enough pissed off Starmerites to grasp the opportunity of throwing a spanner into the works ?
I think it would be fairly irresponsible at this point, FWIW.
Burnham is facing a pretty steep learning curve as it is.
“There was a strong push from the Burnham camp to be given longer. But why should they tell Keir they want him out, then expect him to manage the ship through a potentially difficult summer? Keir will of course cooperate on transition, but it will be through gritted teeth,” one said.
Some in Burnham’s team were exasperated about the shorter timetable. “The last lot had years to prepare and still fucked it up. We’ll just have to do it in three weeks,” one senior source said. “The length of the transition will focus minds.”.
Yes must be a complete surprise to team Andy that he has become PM.
TBF, that's not really the point. No doubt he has at least some idea of what he wants to do (at least I hope so), but developing detailed policy that can quickly be implemented at government level requires civil service resources.
I think that point is overblown and a cheap excuse from politicians. The reason for inertia in government is not a lack of policy options but a lack of political will, money and consensus. I doubt Burnham will change much.
Two things the next Chancellor should immediately promise are:
1) No more increases in business taxation 2) No more increases in pension taxation
Reeves twice allowing months of speculation about increases in business and pension taxation had detrimental effects on business investment and pension planning.
I'm a pensioner, and most of my friends are now pensioners. It's eccentric to suggest that we should be exempt from tax increases (especially as pensioners tend to vote Tory or Reform anyway). A means-tested increase, including abolition of the right to a state pension if one's already got ample private pension, would meet widespread approval. I appreciate that this would go against promises made in ca. 1945 but really one needs to revisit these things sometimes - someone getting £80K in private pension really doesn't need the national pension.
Tax (for example merging IT and NI, and applying it to pensioners) would probably a better way of addressing that, though, wouldn't it ? Means testing always implies ongoing administrative costs.
'Leader approvals we have someone in the positive! Burnham jumps up to +9, Badenoch is at -1, Davey is at -7, Farage is at -16, Polanski at -21 and Starmer is at -45.'
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?
In order to consider a leadership bid, you still need >80 other Labour MPs to think it is a wizard wheeze, don't you?
An interesting question. I suspect he doesn't, but OTOH there might just be enough pissed off Starmerites to grasp the opportunity of throwing a spanner into the works ?
I think it would be fairly irresponsible at this point, FWIW.
Burnham is facing a pretty steep learning curve as it is.
“There was a strong push from the Burnham camp to be given longer. But why should they tell Keir they want him out, then expect him to manage the ship through a potentially difficult summer? Keir will of course cooperate on transition, but it will be through gritted teeth,” one said.
Some in Burnham’s team were exasperated about the shorter timetable. “The last lot had years to prepare and still fucked it up. We’ll just have to do it in three weeks,” one senior source said. “The length of the transition will focus minds.”.
Stand back a minute. Burnham's team briefed they'd like a longer transition and it was unfair Starmer would be gone in July. In that case, Carns or AN Other running against Burnham would not be a Starmerite spanner in the works. Indeed, it might be that Burnham would arrange it himself. (On the other hand, Burnham does seem to be reverse ferreting on the idea he is not ready and needs the whole summer.)
"Empty suit" "Starmer with a northern accent" "Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
Two things the next Chancellor should immediately promise are:
1) No more increases in business taxation 2) No more increases in pension taxation
Reeves twice allowing months of speculation about increases in business and pension taxation had detrimental effects on business investment and pension planning.
I'm a pensioner, and most of my friends are now pensioners. It's eccentric to suggest that we should be exempt from tax increases (especially as pensioners tend to vote Tory or Reform anyway). A means-tested increase, including abolition of the right to a state pension if one's already got ample private pension, would meet widespread approval. I appreciate that this would go against promises made in ca. 1945 but really one needs to revisit these things sometimes - someone getting £80K in private pension really doesn't need the national pension.
By pension taxation I meant changing the taxation on pension contributions for current workers.
Although I think you're very wrong that the electorate would accept abolishing the state pension for any individual who had paid their 35+ years of national insurance contributions.
"Empty suit" "Starmer with a northern accent" "Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
It's what makes us special.
Plenty on PB will have bet on Burnham becoming Prime Minister. *That* is what makes us special.
Two things the next Chancellor should immediately promise are:
1) No more increases in business taxation 2) No more increases in pension taxation
Reeves twice allowing months of speculation about increases in business and pension taxation had detrimental effects on business investment and pension planning.
I'm a pensioner, and most of my friends are now pensioners. It's eccentric to suggest that we should be exempt from tax increases (especially as pensioners tend to vote Tory or Reform anyway). A means-tested increase, including abolition of the right to a state pension if one's already got ample private pension, would meet widespread approval. I appreciate that this would go against promises made in ca. 1945 but really one needs to revisit these things sometimes - someone getting £80K in private pension really doesn't need the national pension.
Tax (for example merging IT and NI, and applying it to pensioners) would probably a better way of addressing that, though, wouldn't it ? Means testing always implies ongoing administrative costs.
Merging employee NI into Income Tax should be a no-brainer for the Treasury, yet for some reason there’s significant institutional inertia towards the idea.
You could give a higher personal allowance to pensioners if you wanted to smooth the transition.
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Build pairs of council houses in every village in Britain (up to perhaps 2% or 5% of the existing housing stock) and let them to respectable people with 50 years of local roots.
The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:
1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.
Each village in Northumberland has one street of mostly ex Council properties.
Which is clearly how to do it. I'm not too bothered if they get RTB'd over a couple of decades. The important things are:
1 Building in bulk will be cheaper than the one-at-a time model (because builders won't hold what they can't sell) we have at the moment.
2 There's a glaring market failure if builders aren't building.
3 We currently spend a fortune each month subsidising private rental through housing benefit.
"Empty suit" "Starmer with a northern accent" "Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
It's what makes us special.
Plenty on PB will have bet on Burnham becoming Prime Minister. *That* is what makes us special.
I was one of those special people who bet on him. However I clicked the lay button instead of back......
A Burnham story before they become overwhelming......
A friend just told me that she went to an art gallery in Manchester on a motor scooter and parked on a bit of waste ground and got a parking ticket. She was so pissed off that she wrote to new Mayor Andy B and told him he should introduce motor bike parking like they have everywhere in France. He replied that sounded like good idea and could she elaborate which she did and apparently Manchester now has a plethora of bike and motor bike parking.
"Empty suit" "Starmer with a northern accent" "Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
It's what makes us special.
Plenty on PB will have bet on Burnham becoming Prime Minister. *That* is what makes us special.
Yet no-one had him down as PM at the end of this year in the PB competition. Only five (of 66 entries) even thought he’d be an MP in 2026.
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Build pairs of council houses in every village in Britain (up to perhaps 2% or 5% of the existing housing stock) and let them to respectable people with 50 years of local roots.
The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:
1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.
3) That the 1940s edge of village council houses are ugly.
Can we do better this time?
Fair point.
Although private housing of that era also tended to be estates of identical houses.
At least the ability to vary houses in size, shape and style has been achieved since then.
My stance has been for years (probably 20 years now) that villages should be able to grow at 1% per annum as of right - as a background to other policies. It probably could do with local links, needed local workers, being prioritised.
But I think the principle fits in with both history and current needs.
I adopted that view when a particular village was unable to do a small development in a piece of local land for sweeping national policy "NOPE" reasons.
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?
In order to consider a leadership bid, you still need >80 other Labour MPs to think it is a wizard wheeze, don't you?
An interesting question. I suspect he doesn't, but OTOH there might just be enough pissed off Starmerites to grasp the opportunity of throwing a spanner into the works ?
I think it would be fairly irresponsible at this point, FWIW.
Burnham is facing a pretty steep learning curve as it is.
“There was a strong push from the Burnham camp to be given longer. But why should they tell Keir they want him out, then expect him to manage the ship through a potentially difficult summer? Keir will of course cooperate on transition, but it will be through gritted teeth,” one said.
Some in Burnham’s team were exasperated about the shorter timetable. “The last lot had years to prepare and still fucked it up. We’ll just have to do it in three weeks,” one senior source said. “The length of the transition will focus minds.”.
Stand back a minute. Burnham's team briefed they'd like a longer transition and it was unfair Starmer would be gone in July. In that case, Carns or AN Other running against Burnham would not be a Starmerite spanner in the works. Indeed, it might be that Burnham would arrange it himself. (On the other hand, Burnham does seem to be reverse ferreting on the idea he is not ready and needs the whole summer.)
Fair point - but I very much doubt he wants to spend a month or so debating his policies with Carns, not least because it would give time for opposition to them to develop before he presented them to Parliament.
A contest against a no hoper wanting to make a mark carries only downside.
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?
In order to consider a leadership bid, you still need >80 other Labour MPs to think it is a wizard wheeze, don't you?
An interesting question. I suspect he doesn't, but OTOH there might just be enough pissed off Starmerites to grasp the opportunity of throwing a spanner into the works ?
I think it would be fairly irresponsible at this point, FWIW.
Burnham is facing a pretty steep learning curve as it is.
“There was a strong push from the Burnham camp to be given longer. But why should they tell Keir they want him out, then expect him to manage the ship through a potentially difficult summer? Keir will of course cooperate on transition, but it will be through gritted teeth,” one said.
Some in Burnham’s team were exasperated about the shorter timetable. “The last lot had years to prepare and still fucked it up. We’ll just have to do it in three weeks,” one senior source said. “The length of the transition will focus minds.”.
Stand back a minute. Burnham's team briefed they'd like a longer transition and it was unfair Starmer would be gone in July. In that case, Carns or AN Other running against Burnham would not be a Starmerite spanner in the works. Indeed, it might be that Burnham would arrange it himself. (On the other hand, Burnham does seem to be reverse ferreting on the idea he is not ready and needs the whole summer.)
Really doesn't bode well given what we discussed here about Presidential v Collegiate that Burnham already has his "Team".
Yet another Great Leader with his close circle of friends and advisers and dare we say it, sycophants?
Two things the next Chancellor should immediately promise are:
1) No more increases in business taxation 2) No more increases in pension taxation
Reeves twice allowing months of speculation about increases in business and pension taxation had detrimental effects on business investment and pension planning.
I'm a pensioner, and most of my friends are now pensioners. It's eccentric to suggest that we should be exempt from tax increases (especially as pensioners tend to vote Tory or Reform anyway). A means-tested increase, including abolition of the right to a state pension if one's already got ample private pension, would meet widespread approval. I appreciate that this would go against promises made in ca. 1945 but really one needs to revisit these things sometimes - someone getting £80K in private pension really doesn't need the national pension.
Tax (for example merging IT and NI, and applying it to pensioners) would probably a better way of addressing that, though, wouldn't it ? Means testing always implies ongoing administrative costs.
Merging employee NI into Income Tax should be a no-brainer for the Treasury, yet for some reason there’s significant institutional inertia towards the idea.
You could give a higher personal allowance to pensioners if you wanted to smooth the transition.
If there is institutional inertia then it can hardly be a no-brainer. One problem might be that NI is the mechanism by which we qualify for pensions in the first place. Now, obviously this could be changed but that might take some thinking about and probably some cross-departmental committees so beloved of Sir Humphrey.
ETA another might be that to avoid swamping HMRC in paperwork, pensions would change to PAYE. Again, doable but would take time to set up.
Quite striking that Farage whose bird is called Ferrari was on Nick Ferrari’s show going on about buying Ferraris.
Is there something on your mind, Nigel?
Big Nige does not strike me as the Ferrari owning type. More like any JLR product if forced to speculate.
I was in my not so local Ferrari dealer the other day picking up old new stock 575M GTC brakes and calipers (7 grand LOL) and they reported they've sold out their 2026 and 2027 allocation of Luces despite the ludicrous price. Looks like Ferrari's executive team knew better than the Pistonheads Forum dickheads about what punters want and what they'll pay.
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Build pairs of council houses in every village in Britain (up to perhaps 2% or 5% of the existing housing stock) and let them to respectable people with 50 years of local roots.
The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:
1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.
3) That the 1940s edge of village council houses are ugly.
Can we do better this time?
Fair point.
Although private housing of that era also tended to be estates of identical houses.
At least the ability to vary houses in size, shape and style has been achieved since then.
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Build pairs of council houses in every village in Britain (up to perhaps 2% or 5% of the existing housing stock) and let them to respectable people with 50 years of local roots.
The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:
1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.
3) That the 1940s edge of village council houses are ugly.
Can we do better this time?
Fair point.
Although private housing of that era also tended to be estates of identical houses.
At least the ability to vary houses in size, shape and style has been achieved since then.
"Empty suit" "Starmer with a northern accent" "Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
It's what makes us special.
Plenty on PB will have bet on Burnham becoming Prime Minister. *That* is what makes us special.
For sure. Althoigh my sense is the net PB punting position on Burnham was short.
Many many headers and posts over the last few months saying he was a sell because he wasn't an MP.
Badenoch - Sesame Street Oscar the Grouch. Anderson - Adams Family "Lurch".
I'm struggling for a Farage (is there a suitable Mr Man?), but I'm sure there are matches for "Roobarb" and "Custard", and "Brian the Snail" and "Zebedee" and "Florence", and "Hector" and "Zsa-Zsa" his neighbour.
"Empty suit" "Starmer with a northern accent" "Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
It's what makes us special.
Plenty on PB will have bet on Burnham becoming Prime Minister. *That* is what makes us special.
Yet no-one had him down as PM at the end of this year in the PB competition. Only five (of 66 entries) even thought he’d be an MP in 2026.
Yep. The critical mass 'we' did not call this at all. We got it wrong.
Proof if it were needed than PBers are on the money. They have been in the vanguard of the Kemi Badenoch renaissance since the Rayner defenestration.
I still can't see it myself, but proof if needed, that I am wrong and you are all correct.
Despite rising public approval for the gap toothed goddess, there doesn’t seem to be the slightest shift in the public opinion that the Tory party is shit. The settled conclusion might suggest that the Tory party is indeed shit.
That Aberdeen by-election sticking in your throat.....
The tombstone of the death of the Tory Party around 2031 as Labour re enter the EU will have
"Empty suit" "Starmer with a northern accent" "Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
It's what makes us special.
Plenty on PB will have bet on Burnham becoming Prime Minister. *That* is what makes us special.
Yet no-one had him down as PM at the end of this year in the PB competition. Only five (of 66 entries) even thought he’d be an MP in 2026.
Yep. The critical mass 'we' did not call this at all. We got it wrong.
I don't believe we imagined the Starmer collapse would be so comprehensive and so swift.
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?
In order to consider a leadership bid, you still need >80 other Labour MPs to think it is a wizard wheeze, don't you?
An interesting question. I suspect he doesn't, but OTOH there might just be enough pissed off Starmerites to grasp the opportunity of throwing a spanner into the works ?
I think it would be fairly irresponsible at this point, FWIW.
Burnham is facing a pretty steep learning curve as it is.
“There was a strong push from the Burnham camp to be given longer. But why should they tell Keir they want him out, then expect him to manage the ship through a potentially difficult summer? Keir will of course cooperate on transition, but it will be through gritted teeth,” one said.
Some in Burnham’s team were exasperated about the shorter timetable. “The last lot had years to prepare and still fucked it up. We’ll just have to do it in three weeks,” one senior source said. “The length of the transition will focus minds.”.
Yes must be a complete surprise to team Andy that he has become PM.
TBF, that's not really the point. No doubt he has at least some idea of what he wants to do (at least I hope so), but developing detailed policy that can quickly be implemented at government level requires civil service resources.
I think that point is overblown and a cheap excuse from politicians. The reason for inertia in government is not a lack of policy options but a lack of political will, money and consensus. I doubt Burnham will change much.
Ah the lack of Will. What was it Reagan said;
"There are simple answers to the nation's problems, but not easy ones. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right."
He was of course wrong.
What he offered weren't simple solutions but simpistic ones.
He put the practical difficulties of implimenting policy down to it being the governments fault and red tape. Take that away and we'll be fine. They weren't.
All of this from "Drain the Swamp!" to the "Blob" just comes down to peoples frustrations about how challenging Government and change are, and that they can't just decree change and make it happen.
"Empty suit" "Starmer with a northern accent" "Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
It's what makes us special.
Plenty on PB will have bet on Burnham becoming Prime Minister. *That* is what makes us special.
"Empty suit" "Starmer with a northern accent" "Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
It's what makes us special.
Plenty on PB will have bet on Burnham becoming Prime Minister. *That* is what makes us special.
I was one of those special people who bet on him. However I clicked the lay button instead of back......
Lol. I didn't lay him but I've nevertheless lost having backed others. Ah well. What can you do. Life has to be unpredictable to keep it interesting.
"Empty suit" "Starmer with a northern accent" "Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
It's what makes us special.
Plenty on PB will have bet on Burnham becoming Prime Minister. *That* is what makes us special.
Yet no-one had him down as PM at the end of this year in the PB competition. Only five (of 66 entries) even thought he’d be an MP in 2026.
Yep. The critical mass 'we' did not call this at all. We got it wrong.
If a week’s a long time in politics, then our predictions from five months ago…
'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?
In order to consider a leadership bid, you still need >80 other Labour MPs to think it is a wizard wheeze, don't you?
An interesting question. I suspect he doesn't, but OTOH there might just be enough pissed off Starmerites to grasp the opportunity of throwing a spanner into the works ?
I think it would be fairly irresponsible at this point, FWIW.
Burnham is facing a pretty steep learning curve as it is.
“There was a strong push from the Burnham camp to be given longer. But why should they tell Keir they want him out, then expect him to manage the ship through a potentially difficult summer? Keir will of course cooperate on transition, but it will be through gritted teeth,” one said.
Some in Burnham’s team were exasperated about the shorter timetable. “The last lot had years to prepare and still fucked it up. We’ll just have to do it in three weeks,” one senior source said. “The length of the transition will focus minds.”.
Stand back a minute. Burnham's team briefed they'd like a longer transition and it was unfair Starmer would be gone in July. In that case, Carns or AN Other running against Burnham would not be a Starmerite spanner in the works. Indeed, it might be that Burnham would arrange it himself. (On the other hand, Burnham does seem to be reverse ferreting on the idea he is not ready and needs the whole summer.)
Really doesn't bode well given what we discussed here about Presidential v Collegiate that Burnham already has his "Team".
Yet another Great Leader with his close circle of friends and advisers and dare we say it, sycophants?
Sadly they are imbued, especially in Officer ranks with a sense of entitlement, position and rank. You don't answer them back, that's in subordinate.
The armed forces, and this goes double for the RN/Marines, teach you to lead in a very specific and structured way on the assumption you'll be dealing with childlike morons who will get everyone killed if they make a mistake. This is a very hands on and direct style that's difficult to shake after years of intense psychological conditioning.
It's just one more reason why nobody who's had significant armed forces experience should be anywhere near high political office.
"Empty suit" "Starmer with a northern accent" "Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
It's what makes us special.
Plenty on PB will have bet on Burnham becoming Prime Minister. *That* is what makes us special.
For sure. Althoigh my sense is the net PB punting position on Burnham was short.
Many many headers and posts over the last few months saying he was a sell because he wasn't an MP.
Even so, it means PBers (or at least the ones who bet) have considered the options and mechanisms necessary. The quality of MSM punditry might be enhanced if ‘experts’ had to invest even a tenner in their forecasts coming to pass.
Parliament is in recess from mid July to early September.
So what difference does it make if Burnham takes over in mid July or September?
Because if he takes over in mid July he can't actually do anything until September in any case.
By "do anything" I mean actually change anything of substance. Of course he can talk on TV and do photo opportunities and generally go around sounding like a nice person.
He can take the salary, the fancy car with a policeman driving it, and get in the air miles visiting other world leaders on that nice plane they let him use.
Maybe even take some time to think about what he’s actually going to do, relaxing in the rather smart country house that is Chequers.
Just like every other Prime Minister, then?
Not sure what your problem with Burnham is apart from the fact he's a Labour Prime Minister, presumably?
At least @Alanbrooke started sniping at Starmer after he'd been to the Palace and the car had got to Admiralty Arch on the way back to Downing Street.
My only problem with him is that he’s just as much of an empty suit as the guy he’s replacing.
There’s no vision, he’s just Starmer Mk II, but with the remains of a Northern accent left after Cambridge kicked most of it out of him.
Have you read his book? At least he’s taken the time to set something out in writing however much one might disagree. Many criticisms of Burnham can be made but he’s set out his philosophy in a way SKS didn’t
Well the profound thoughts Burnham is currently associated with are his bond markets and waspi comments.
Which rather give the impression that he's insecure, vacuous and with little clue as to what he's talking about.
And you, a fan of Boris Johnson!
Not a fan, a tolerator.
Boris had his uses, I never expected that he would have zero self-control or that the Conservative party would put no controls over him.
That Labour are so enthused about their equivalent of Boris does bring to mind the history repeats itself quote.
Burnham's elevation is not universally endorsed, and for the Johnsonian reasons you suggest.
I suspect Burnham is smart enough to avoid some of the obvious pitfalls Johnson created for himself.
Well I certainly don't expect Burnham to be as self-destructive as Boris was.
Similarly I doubt he will either as sleazy or as quickly sleazy as Starmer was.
I am not sure having a Labour Peer donating spectacles and clothing for an election matches a £5m donation from a crypto billionaire to a politician promoting crypto is "sleaze". Unwise, but "sleazy"?
Free food parcels for the Johnson family from Lady Bamford don't constitute "sleaze" in my book either.
Badenoch - Sesame Street Oscar the Grouch. Anderson - Adams Family "Lurch".
I'm struggling for a Farage...
Any more for any more?
Waldorf? Mr Curry in Paddington ?
For Mr Starmer I want a TV character who would match the Planet Earth being "mostly harmless" in Hitch Hiker, so decent and careful but perceived as a little ineffectual and who will much far more appreciated later, a little like John Major - and I'm speculating about children's TV policemen as in PC Dibble or PC Copper from Bod, or someone from Trumpton or Chigley or Camberwick Green.
"Empty suit" "Starmer with a northern accent" "Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
It's what makes us special.
Plenty on PB will have bet on Burnham becoming Prime Minister. *That* is what makes us special.
Yet no-one had him down as PM at the end of this year in the PB competition. Only five (of 66 entries) even thought he’d be an MP in 2026.
Yep. The critical mass 'we' did not call this at all. We got it wrong.
I don't believe we imagined the Starmer collapse would be so comprehensive and so swift.
Indeed. The 2nd 'hero to zero' PM in 4 years - from newly elected with a big majority to ousted by his own party within half a parliament. Amazing. It must be saying something about where our politics is atm.
Kemi will be pleased she mainly has positive scores as does Burnham. Farage will be concerned 'good' had been replaced by 'racist' as the main attribute given to him, although he is seen as an attribute to his party as is Burnham and Badenoch and as Starmer was not for Labour,
Burnham should give Labour a bounce given Labour, LD and Green and even Tory voters see him as an asset to his party even if Reform voters do not. Kemi will also be encouraged by the fact every party's voters except the Greens see her as an asset. She will also be pleased she polls slightly better with Reform voters at 40% than Farage does with Tory voters at 39%
I don't like Burnham, although I can understand the relief at his ejection of the incapable Starmer. He appears confident and suggests he is capable.
I still don't see Badenoch's attraction to voters. Other than getting bigged up after a disastrous set of locals, what has she done to deserve the adulation?
In London the Tories made net gains, in Scotland the Tories have just gained Aberdeen South, in areas Reform are weaker Kemi is helping the party make progress
Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.
Council house building.
Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.
And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.
Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.
There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off
If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.
Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Build pairs of council houses in every village in Britain (up to perhaps 2% or 5% of the existing housing stock) and let them to respectable people with 50 years of local roots.
The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:
1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.
3) That the 1940s edge of village council houses are ugly.
Can we do better this time?
Fair point.
Although private housing of that era also tended to be estates of identical houses.
At least the ability to vary houses in size, shape and style has been achieved since then.
Building identical houses isn’t the problem
It is affected by who lives in them and the wider socioeconomic conditions.
There were elegant Georgian terraces in Notting Hill which had become slums in the 1960s.
One might speculate that anyone Western still working in Russia probably needs to GTFO ASAP.
Brave man.
I think the order has gone out from GCHQ, it’s all starting to go wrong very quickly in Russia.
There’s going to be very few left there, perhaps a few academics and people married to Russians. Almost all Western businesses have been subject to sanctions for four years, there might be a few deniable subcontractors in the O&G industry who need to be on the next plane out to the Middle East.
Excluding Liz Truss who is Scottish, Andy Burnham is first bona fide Northerner to become PM in 50 years.
Jessica Elgot @jessicaelgot · 58m I’m really sorry to do this but the last Northern PM was actually Roundhay’s Liz Truss - as much as she tried to disown our great city.
Comments
Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.
As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.
Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."
He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwyewjpwgk9t
If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?
Burnham - indifferent
Farage - fraud
Badenoch - inane
Starmer - purposeless
I suspect Burnham is smart enough to avoid some of the obvious pitfalls Johnson created for himself.
(Bloomberg hotel TV, the only time I watch it. No web link.)
That’s up more than £9bn on the same two months last year.
Last 12 months’ borrowing is £136.5bn, down from £167bn thanks to a bumper January this year as people bought forward earnings to avoid the tax rises.
Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/dzls/pusf
Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.
Which do not give any impression that he has thought deeply about the issues affecting the country as opposed to mouthing off vacuously about things he doesn't understand.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants
➡️ REF UK 28% (-1) 🌳CON 22% (+1) 🌹 LAB 21% (-1) 🔶 LIB DEM 12% (-1) 🌍 GREEN 10% (+1) ❓ OTH 3% (nc) 🟡 SNP 3% (+1)
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2069701247242768767
https://conservativehome.com/2026/06/24/liz-truss-theres-no-political-party-at-present-in-britain-that-represents-exactly-what-i-think/
For this much thanks.
In retrospect, had Johnson made him a Lord to mark Brexit day (at the end of January 2020) then that might have been establishment enough for him, and we'd not have seen the Reform party.
Similarly I doubt he will either as sleazy or as quickly sleazy as Starmer was.
I suspect he doesn't, but OTOH there might just be enough pissed off Starmerites to grasp the opportunity of throwing a spanner into the works ?
I think it would be fairly irresponsible at this point, FWIW.
Burnham is facing a pretty steep learning curve as it is.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/23/burnham-and-starmer-hold-frosty-meeting-to-thrash-out-transition-of-power
...Allies of Starmer said that although he was serious about an orderly handover, he had no qualms in denying Burnham – who had initially hoped to take over in September – a long coronation in order to prepare for government.
“There was a strong push from the Burnham camp to be given longer. But why should they tell Keir they want him out, then expect him to manage the ship through a potentially difficult summer? Keir will of course cooperate on transition, but it will be through gritted teeth,” one said.
Some in Burnham’s team were exasperated about the shorter timetable. “The last lot had years to prepare and still fucked it up. We’ll just have to do it in three weeks,” one senior source said. “The length of the transition will focus minds.”.
I’m 99.9% certain you’ve not read it. Neither have I. Yet you treat me as a Burnham outrider. I suggest we both do so before you continue to mouth off on your meaningless “impressions” as to his philosophy. It deserves to be considered in any discussion on whether he’s an empty suit. It may be shit, but given he’s going to be PM it deserves (in fact demands) consideration on the topic, as much as the soundbites you’ve picked up on.
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2069701255002239185?s=20
The nimbyism against council housing is based upon:
1) What the council housing of the 1970s had become - edge of conurbation sink estates or slums in the sky or slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
2) The suspicion that new council housing will be given to immigrants or undesirables.
(With apologies to that fine party!)
Alternatively he's a fan dancer high on his own supply of self regard.
Can we do better this time?
And the demand isn’t there for flats due to the service charge and leasehold issues.
Farage-racist
Badenoch-graceless
Starmer-excruciating
USA-Turkey would have tonnes on it, for one
Now it’s a needless dead rubber
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup-2026-group-stage-format-tie-breaker-b3001771.html
Impressions are created and people judged on what is easily and freely available.
And currently Burnham has created the impression that he is someone who will vacuously spout off on things he knows little about, presumably in an attempt to make himself popular.
Now, when Burnham becomes prime minister he will other opportunities to be judged on his words and deeds to create a move favourable impression.
All going very well.
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/2069504034843627675?s=61
No doubt he has at least some idea of what he wants to do (at least I hope so), but developing detailed policy that can quickly be implemented at government level requires civil service resources.
Wait until he actually becomes PM.
The one thing I can just about bring palatable is excluding landlords from it, and perhaps removing the triple lock. Anything else would be deeply, fatally unpopular across the electorate.
Although private housing of that era also tended to be estates of identical houses.
At least the ability to vary houses in size, shape and style has been achieved since then.
Means testing always implies ongoing administrative costs.
Rayner eyeing up education
https://x.com/jackelsom/status/2069696965613363370?s=61
"Starmer with a northern accent"
"Vacuous and weak"
Well this is impressive, I must say. I've been reading elsewhere that the big problem with Andy Burnham PM is that few outside Manchester know what he's all about. But plenty on PB have sussed him already, even before he starts.
It's what makes us special.
Although I think you're very wrong that the electorate would accept abolishing the state pension for any individual who had paid their 35+ years of national insurance contributions.
You could give a higher personal allowance to pensioners if you wanted to smooth the transition.
1 Building in bulk will be cheaper than the one-at-a time model (because builders won't hold what they can't sell) we have at the moment.
2 There's a glaring market failure if builders aren't building.
3 We currently spend a fortune each month subsidising private rental through housing benefit.
A friend just told me that she went to an art gallery in Manchester on a motor scooter and parked on a bit of waste ground and got a parking ticket. She was so pissed off that she wrote to new Mayor Andy B and told him he should introduce motor bike parking like they have everywhere in France. He replied that sounded like good idea and could she elaborate which she did and apparently Manchester now has a plethora of bike and motor bike parking.
Only five (of 66 entries) even thought he’d be an MP in 2026.
But I think the principle fits in with both history and current needs.
I adopted that view when a particular village was unable to do a small development in a piece of local land for sweeping national policy "NOPE" reasons.
A contest against a no hoper wanting to make a mark carries only downside.
Is he hoping for Def Sec?
Yet another Great Leader with his close circle of friends and advisers and dare we say it, sycophants?
Peter.
ETA another might be that to avoid swamping HMRC in paperwork, pensions would change to PAYE. Again, doable but would take time to set up.
I was in my not so local Ferrari dealer the other day picking up old new stock 575M GTC brakes and calipers (7 grand LOL) and they reported they've sold out their 2026 and 2027 allocation of Luces despite the ludicrous price. Looks like Ferrari's executive team knew better than the Pistonheads Forum dickheads about what punters want and what they'll pay.
Don't doubt bravery and passion for thevFlag
Sadly they are imbued, especially in Officer ranks with a sense of entitlement, position and rank. You don't answer them back, that's in subordinate.
He does come over a a political novice with a huge chip on his shoulder.
Johnny Mercer Mark 2
Many many headers and posts over the last few months saying he was a sell because he wasn't an MP.
I much prefer children's TV characters.
Badenoch - Sesame Street Oscar the Grouch.
Anderson - Adams Family "Lurch".
I'm struggling for a Farage (is there a suitable Mr Man?), but I'm sure there are matches for "Roobarb" and "Custard", and "Brian the Snail" and "Zebedee" and "Florence", and "Hector" and "Zsa-Zsa" his neighbour.
Any more for any more?
Aberdeen 2026
As the last minor skirmish won
https://x.com/bbcstever/status/2069704065961857524
One might speculate that anyone Western still working in Russia probably needs to GTFO ASAP.
France reports first Ebola case after doctor returning from DR Congo tests positive
https://news.sky.com/story/france-reports-first-ebola-case-after-doctor-returning-from-dr-congo-tests-positive-13556940
My four and a bit long week holiday starts tomorrow.
"There are simple answers to the nation's problems, but not easy ones. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right."
He was of course wrong.
What he offered weren't simple solutions but simpistic ones.
He put the practical difficulties of implimenting policy down to it being the governments fault and red tape. Take that away and we'll be fine. They weren't.
All of this from "Drain the Swamp!" to the "Blob" just comes down to peoples frustrations about how challenging Government and change are, and that they can't just decree change and make it happen.
Peter.
Mr Curry in Paddington ?
It's just one more reason why nobody who's had significant armed forces experience should be anywhere near high political office.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/driving-bans-for-those-who-refuse-to-repay-benefit-debts-as-new-dwp-powers-come-into-force
Free food parcels for the Johnson family from Lady Bamford don't constitute "sleaze" in my book either.
There were elegant Georgian terraces in Notting Hill which had become slums in the 1960s.
There’s going to be very few left there, perhaps a few academics and people married to Russians. Almost all Western businesses have been subject to sanctions for four years, there might be a few deniable subcontractors in the O&G industry who need to be on the next plane out to the Middle East.
Jessica Elgot
@jessicaelgot
·
58m
I’m really sorry to do this but the last Northern PM was actually Roundhay’s Liz Truss - as much as she tried to disown our great city.
https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/2069701020280561709