The trails of Burnham's speech have all been about a register of talk - devolved regional powers, ten year plans - a million miles from the ordinary voter who might want a hospital appointment or good quality social housing in the summer of 2026.
While I don’t especially like Burnham, it is clear that the issues that block improvements are structural.
So structural reform is required to get better housing, for example.
What will do for his localisation agenda is -
1) Giving more power to Reform in local elective offices. 2) Postcode lottery - which is a shibboleth in government.
Heard an anecdote today from a former chauffeur who was driving the chairman of Roche to a meeting with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham. Said he came back from the meeting and said 'that man hasn't got a clue what he is talking about and is out of his depth.'
We will see if there is more to Burnham than the likeable northern chappy image, we must hope the Roche chair was wrong
Was this chauffeur Albanian by chance?
No Jewish ex East End
Isn't Roche a Swiss pharmaceutical company with a Swiss board, based in Switzerland? What is an East End chauffeur doing there? The East End of Geneva?
..was driving the chairman of Roche to a meeting with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham..
Well there we have it then. Anonymous poster quotes anonymous driver’s report of pharmaceutical’s exec’s assessment that Burnham, successful mayor of Britain’s second largest city ‘hasn't got a clue what he is talking about and is out of his depth.'
The leaks so far suggest that is the case, borrow more and increase taxes is a recipe for disaster. We will soon have no billionaires and millionaires left in the country and then the fcukwits who think taxing success and promoting sponging will find out what happens when you F*** about. Then they can tax benefits to pay for the benefits.
For 40 years the country has invested in London to the expense of elsewhere - which means that London is now wealthy than elsewhere and so pays slightly more in tax (argument then goes that wealth could pay more tax).
Burnham's viewpoint is that the regions outside London should have the ability and that the Treasury stops that (he's right there). So given mayors actual money and power (which completely removes the Treasury from blocking things) makes perfect sense.
My test is actually very simple, go around Europe and all cities over 500,000 will have a fixed transport (Tram / Metro) system and most UK cities don't.
However they build them for reasonable sums, in this country the appeals and planning cost more than most transport systems elsewhere. Fine to stop splurging money on London for sure and start to spend it elsewhere, amazing thought and amazing nobody ever thought of it before. Increasing taxes will not help for sure , it needs cuts in wasteful government spending and benefits big time but will not happen.
The trails of Burnham's speech have all been about a register of talk - devolved regional powers, ten year plans - a million miles from the ordinary voter who might want a hospital appointment or good quality social housing in the summer of 2026.
Good morning
Burnham speech around 11.30am is all about devolved powers to the regions and equalising education between university and technical colleges
He is expected to speak for 20 minutes but will not allow questions
I remain fearful Burnham has yet to understand the enormous difference between being a mayor and the Prime Minister
He is likely to be in office on Momday 20th July after Parliament has gone into recess, and then after a short period in September the HOC will go into recess for conference season
It seems bizarre he will only be in the HOC for a couple of weeks between the 20th July and early October
Heard an anecdote today from a former chauffeur who was driving the chairman of Roche to a meeting with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham. Said he came back from the meeting and said 'that man hasn't got a clue what he is talking about and is out of his depth.'
We will see if there is more to Burnham than the likeable northern chappy image, we must hope the Roche chair was wrong
Was this chauffeur Albanian by chance?
No Jewish ex East End
Isn't Roche a Swiss pharmaceutical company with a Swiss board, based in Switzerland? What is an East End chauffeur doing there? The East End of Geneva?
..was driving the chairman of Roche to a meeting with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham..
Well there we have it then. Anonymous poster quotes anonymous driver’s report of pharmaceutical’s exec’s assessment that Burnham, successful mayor of Britain’s second largest city ‘hasn't got a clue what he is talking about and is out of his depth.'
The leaks so far suggest that is the case, borrow more and increase taxes is a recipe for disaster. We will soon have no billionaires and millionaires left in the country and then the fcukwits who think taxing success and promoting sponging will find out what happens when you F*** about. Then they can tax benefits to pay for the benefits.
For 40 years the country has invested in London to the expense of elsewhere - which means that London is now wealthy than elsewhere and so pays slightly more in tax (argument then goes that wealth could pay more tax).
Burnham's viewpoint is that the regions outside London should have the ability and that the Treasury stops that (he's right there). So given mayors actual money and power (which completely removes the Treasury from blocking things) makes perfect sense.
My test is actually very simple, go around Europe and all cities over 500,000 will have a fixed transport (Tram / Metro) system and most UK cities don't.
London also attracts, as a consequence, young people from all over the country. So the regions pay to educate young people only for them to move.
London paying more tax helps redress that.
Having a metro is fine, as in the case of the North East, but the development of it has been poor and the rolling stock flogged to death before being replaced yet London has had new rolling stock on most of the underground.
London's Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines are still running trains built before the North East Metro even opened. But yes, that does not mean new rolling stock is not needed.
It would be nice if Burnham's plans include new towns away from London, as well as just increasing regional budgets. His overall direction is correct though. Britain is centralised around London to a degree unparalleled in any of our peer nations. This is absurd and unsustainable.
New rolling stock is being produced for the Piccadilly line.
Never short of cash for London projects , £35Billion on Elizabeth line to save them walking a few hundred yards to the nearest cross london rail station. Rest of the country , GTF we are skint.
The majority is too big to probably be overturned in one go. Could be wrong, but it seems probable they will get another turn.
10 would require two more GE victories and that is far less likely than 1 more.
Starmer overturned a Boris mini-landslide with an even bigger one of his own in one parliament. Labour could easily drop 150-200+ seats in one hit.
There are no rules.
They could, agreed. I said as much.
What could happen and what is probable are not necessarily the same though.
Losing a majority of this size in one term is possible, but not likely, IMHO.
Nuneaton is, roughly speaking, the tipping-point seat that gives Labour a majority. The 2024GE result in Nuneaton was:
Labour 15,216 36.9% Conservatives 11,737 28.5% Reform 9,059 22.0% Green 2,894 7.0% Lib Dems 1,340 3.3% Workers Party 967 2.3% Majority 3,479 8.4% Turnout 41,213 58.7% -6.3pp
What this result shows us is that the Labour majority is very broad, but very shallow. A modest swing wipes it out. Labour start with a low vote, on a low turnout, so not much disillusionment or tactical voting determination is required to vote them out, if the voters are so minded.
It's really not hard to see Labour losing seats like Nuneaton, even if the election is not that bad with not a huge swing against.
A very bad election result for Labour would see them finish fourth in seats like Nuneaton.
The majority is too big to probably be overturned in one go. Could be wrong, but it seems probable they will get another turn.
10 would require two more GE victories and that is far less likely than 1 more.
Starmer overturned a Boris mini-landslide with an even bigger one of his own in one parliament. Labour could easily drop 150-200+ seats in one hit.
There are no rules.
But Labour are in far better shape than the Tories were going into the last GE. Currently favourites for most seats, and that's mid-term with Starmer as leader
Heard an anecdote today from a former chauffeur who was driving the chairman of Roche to a meeting with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham. Said he came back from the meeting and said 'that man hasn't got a clue what he is talking about and is out of his depth.'
We will see if there is more to Burnham than the likeable northern chappy image, we must hope the Roche chair was wrong
Was this chauffeur Albanian by chance?
No Jewish ex East End
Isn't Roche a Swiss pharmaceutical company with a Swiss board, based in Switzerland? What is an East End chauffeur doing there? The East End of Geneva?
..was driving the chairman of Roche to a meeting with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham..
Well there we have it then. Anonymous poster quotes anonymous driver’s report of pharmaceutical’s exec’s assessment that Burnham, successful mayor of Britain’s second largest city ‘hasn't got a clue what he is talking about and is out of his depth.'
The leaks so far suggest that is the case, borrow more and increase taxes is a recipe for disaster. We will soon have no billionaires and millionaires left in the country and then the fcukwits who think taxing success and promoting sponging will find out what happens when you F*** about. Then they can tax benefits to pay for the benefits.
For 40 years the country has invested in London to the expense of elsewhere - which means that London is now wealthy than elsewhere and so pays slightly more in tax (argument then goes that wealth could pay more tax).
Burnham's viewpoint is that the regions outside London should have the ability and that the Treasury stops that (he's right there). So given mayors actual money and power (which completely removes the Treasury from blocking things) makes perfect sense.
My test is actually very simple, go around Europe and all cities over 500,000 will have a fixed transport (Tram / Metro) system and most UK cities don't.
However they build them for reasonable sums, in this country the appeals and planning cost more than most transport systems elsewhere. Fine to stop splurging money on London for sure and start to spend it elsewhere, amazing thought and amazing nobody ever thought of it before. Increasing taxes will not help for sure , it needs cuts in wasteful government spending and benefits big time but will not happen.
What it actually needs is people skilled in procurement and contract control.
The same issues occur in the private sector when companies contract out, without knowing how to manage projects.
Hilariously, we get the two things mashed together - the government contracts for mega project x. They foul up the project management. The selected mega contractor fouls up some of its contracts. All down the pyramid.
You’re hopecasting here. If Burnham can unite the left he could conceivably win another election against a divided right without performing brilliantly.
Burnham has gone silent.
If he had a plan theme what would be happening now is he would be touring the country communicating the basis of his plan, alongside local MPs, to the public. He would be building a sense of optimism and purpose, and understanding of what needed to be done to turn the country around.
Instead he's disappeared, apparently because he has to work out what to do when he does become PM.
I think it's fair to make the judgement from this that by the time of the next election the voters will conclude that he has failed, that he will continue to fail, and so they need to turn elsewhere for answers.
I've heard lots of people complaining that he's moving too quickly, but this is the first to complain that he's moving too slowly. I think it's reasonable.
Heard an anecdote today from a former chauffeur who was driving the chairman of Roche to a meeting with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham. Said he came back from the meeting and said 'that man hasn't got a clue what he is talking about and is out of his depth.'
We will see if there is more to Burnham than the likeable northern chappy image, we must hope the Roche chair was wrong
Was this chauffeur Albanian by chance?
No Jewish ex East End
Isn't Roche a Swiss pharmaceutical company with a Swiss board, based in Switzerland? What is an East End chauffeur doing there? The East End of Geneva?
..was driving the chairman of Roche to a meeting with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham..
Well there we have it then. Anonymous poster quotes anonymous driver’s report of pharmaceutical’s exec’s assessment that Burnham, successful mayor of Britain’s second largest city ‘hasn't got a clue what he is talking about and is out of his depth.'
The leaks so far suggest that is the case, borrow more and increase taxes is a recipe for disaster. We will soon have no billionaires and millionaires left in the country and then the fcukwits who think taxing success and promoting sponging will find out what happens when you F*** about. Then they can tax benefits to pay for the benefits.
For 40 years the country has invested in London to the expense of elsewhere - which means that London is now wealthy than elsewhere and so pays slightly more in tax (argument then goes that wealth could pay more tax).
Burnham's viewpoint is that the regions outside London should have the ability and that the Treasury stops that (he's right there). So given mayors actual money and power (which completely removes the Treasury from blocking things) makes perfect sense.
My test is actually very simple, go around Europe and all cities over 500,000 will have a fixed transport (Tram / Metro) system and most UK cities don't.
London also attracts, as a consequence, young people from all over the country. So the regions pay to educate young people only for them to move.
London paying more tax helps redress that.
Having a metro is fine, as in the case of the North East, but the development of it has been poor and the rolling stock flogged to death before being replaced yet London has had new rolling stock on most of the underground.
London's Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines are still running trains built before the North East Metro even opened. But yes, that does not mean new rolling stock is not needed.
It would be nice if Burnham's plans include new towns away from London, as well as just increasing regional budgets. His overall direction is correct though. Britain is centralised around London to a degree unparalleled in any of our peer nations. This is absurd and unsustainable.
Depends who you count as a peer nation. Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland, Czechia, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark, Norway etc. are all similarly or more centralised around their capital cities. But, OK, they’re all smaller countries. However, then there’s Japan, which has a similar concentration in Tokyo and is a considerably bigger population than the UK.
Public spending in the regions, though, is highly devolved in Japan; it is more centralised in the UK than in just about any other developed western economy.
The majority is too big to probably be overturned in one go. Could be wrong, but it seems probable they will get another turn.
10 would require two more GE victories and that is far less likely than 1 more.
Starmer overturned a Boris mini-landslide with an even bigger one of his own in one parliament. Labour could easily drop 150-200+ seats in one hit.
There are no rules.
They could, agreed. I said as much.
What could happen and what is probable are not necessarily the same though.
Losing a majority of this size in one term is possible, but not likely, IMHO.
Nuneaton is, roughly speaking, the tipping-point seat that gives Labour a majority. The 2024GE result in Nuneaton was:
Labour 15,216 36.9% Conservatives 11,737 28.5% Reform 9,059 22.0% Green 2,894 7.0% Lib Dems 1,340 3.3% Workers Party 967 2.3% Majority 3,479 8.4% Turnout 41,213 58.7% -6.3pp
What this result shows us is that the Labour majority is very broad, but very shallow. A modest swing wipes it out. Labour start with a low vote, on a low turnout, so not much disillusionment or tactical voting determination is required to vote them out, if the voters are so minded.
It's really not hard to see Labour losing seats like Nuneaton, even if the election is not that bad with not a huge swing against.
A very bad election result for Labour would see them finish fourth in seats like Nuneaton.
Nuneaton is a great seat to watch, because it’s a bellwether Lab/Con marginal that counts quickly, is in the first dozen or so seats to declare the result around 1am.
Alls well with the world . Wimbledon starts tomorrow !
There’s nothing quite like it. Im tuning out of politics and the news in general and am going into my happy tennis bubble!
Always brilliant. Absolutely in my top 5 annual sports events along with the Open, the Arc, the Crucible, and Boxing Day football.
I'd like to see Novak do 25.
Forgive my stupidity, but what's the Arc?
I've got Noah idea.
So you can't give me the genesis of an idea?
Too much punning and we risk seeing an Exodus from PB.
I'm just going through the Numbers
Rain it in please.
Are we going to get a flood of puns?
No, just two by two at a time.
What about the animals that went in seven by seven?
It's seven pairs I think, so 14 by 14. Which works less well in children's songs.
PS Found it. It's Genesis 7.2. One of the bible's many overlooked verses.
Counting females?
How date you !!
They will soon be an element of a household vote controlled by their spouse, at least in the Greatest Country in the World, and according to Penis Pete.
Alls well with the world . Wimbledon starts tomorrow !
There’s nothing quite like it. Im tuning out of politics and the news in general and am going into my happy tennis bubble!
Always brilliant. Absolutely in my top 5 annual sports events along with the Open, the Arc, the Crucible, and Boxing Day football.
I'd like to see Novak do 25.
Forgive my stupidity, but what's the Arc?
I've got Noah idea.
So you can't give me the genesis of an idea?
Too much punning and we risk seeing an Exodus from PB.
I'm just going through the Numbers
Rain it in please.
Are we going to get a flood of puns?
No, just two by two at a time.
What about the animals that went in seven by seven?
It's seven pairs I think, so 14 by 14. Which works less well in children's songs.
PS Found it. It's Genesis 7.2. One of the bible's many overlooked verses.
Counting females?
How date you !!
They will soon be an element of a household vote controlled by their spouse, at least in the Greatest Country in the World, and according to Penis Pete.
Ooops obvious typo.
That's the first time I've accidentally propositioned one of the PB Ladies.
Comments
NEW THREAD
So structural reform is required to get better housing, for example.
What will do for his localisation agenda is -
1) Giving more power to Reform in local elective offices.
2) Postcode lottery - which is a shibboleth in government.
Fine to stop splurging money on London for sure and start to spend it elsewhere, amazing thought and amazing nobody ever thought of it before. Increasing taxes will not help for sure , it needs cuts in wasteful government spending and benefits big time but will not happen.
Burnham speech around 11.30am is all about devolved powers to the regions and equalising education between university and technical colleges
He is expected to speak for 20 minutes but will not allow questions
I remain fearful Burnham has yet to understand the enormous difference between being a mayor and the Prime Minister
He is likely to be in office on Momday 20th July after Parliament has gone into recess, and then after a short period in September the HOC will go into recess for conference season
It seems bizarre he will only be in the HOC for a couple of weeks between the 20th July and early October
Labour 15,216 36.9%
Conservatives 11,737 28.5%
Reform 9,059 22.0%
Green 2,894 7.0%
Lib Dems 1,340 3.3%
Workers Party 967 2.3%
Majority 3,479 8.4%
Turnout 41,213 58.7% -6.3pp
What this result shows us is that the Labour majority is very broad, but very shallow. A modest swing wipes it out. Labour start with a low vote, on a low turnout, so not much disillusionment or tactical voting determination is required to vote them out, if the voters are so minded.
It's really not hard to see Labour losing seats like Nuneaton, even if the election is not that bad with not a huge swing against.
A very bad election result for Labour would see them finish fourth in seats like Nuneaton.
The same issues occur in the private sector when companies contract out, without knowing how to manage projects.
Hilariously, we get the two things mashed together - the government contracts for mega project x. They foul up the project management. The selected mega contractor fouls up some of its contracts. All down the pyramid.
How date you !!
They will soon be an element of a household vote controlled by their spouse, at least in the Greatest Country in the World, and according to Penis Pete.
That's the first time I've accidentally propositioned one of the PB Ladies.