Skip to content

Where did you come from, where did you go? Where did you come from, Andy Burnham?

SystemSystem Posts: 13,227
edited 7:34AM in General
Where did you come from, where did you go? Where did you come from, Andy Burnham? – politicalbetting.com

This polling isn’t surprising to me, given how Labour’s support under Sir Keir Starmer has splintered and moved to the Greens seeing Andy Burnham doing well with left leaning voters.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,492
    First - amongst equals
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,425
    On the importance of manufacturing in the modern economy.

    Samsung and SK Hynix are each planning to spend well over double the cost of HS2 on building new chip fabs.

    https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/business/companies/20260630/samsung-sk-chip-investment-timelines-leave-room-for-adjustment
    Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix announced a combined 800 trillion won ($516.4 billion) investment commitment to establish advanced chip plants in Gwangju and South Jeolla Province in Korea's southwest, but stopped short of providing a timeline for when the investments will be made or construction will begin, leaving room to adjust their spending plans until the long-term memory chip cycle becomes clearer..

    Astonishing levels of investment, probably financed from cash flow.

    The Hynix chip business was acquired by SK Telecom in 2012 for a mere $3bn...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,376
    edited 7:43AM
    What this polling confirms is the biggest loser from a Burnham premiership will be Polanski and the Greens. Burnham is far more popular amongst leftwingers, both radical and more moderate than Starmer was. Indeed amongst all leftwingers Burnham is even more popular than the Labour party is as a whole. So a Burnham led Labour should squeeze the Green vote significantly back down closer to 2024 levels.

    Amongst centrists though who don't want change to a more leftwing government as the polling shows Starmer still slightly outpolls Burnham. So if a Burnham government shifts in a leftwing tax and spend direction there is an opportunity for the Conservatives and LDs to win over some centrist swing voters who voted Conservative or LD in 2019 but for Starmer and Labour in 2024 but are not keen on Burnham and also hate Farage.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,998
    To be honest, and much as I hate to say this, Andy Burnham sort of has to deliver for his voters - or convince them he is with similarish policies but better Leftie-friendly storytelling and rhetoric - because the alternative is we risk a Polanski/Corbynite ultra-left-wing radical government taking over in the next 20 years, which could attack private property rights at source.

    Think the nationalisation of your pension pot, qualifications on home ownership rights, and price and wage controls.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,593
    I wish him well. I hope he knows the current (large) batch of Labour MPs well enough to be an effective PM. I'd like to see some of the most recent intake MPs starting to make their mark - it may be my lack of interest in MSM that is obscuring them from me so far. I'm not sure that reaching back in time to D Miliband augurs well.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,320

    To be honest, and much as I hate to say this, Andy Burnham sort of has to deliver for his voters - or convince them he is with similarish policies but better Leftie-friendly storytelling and rhetoric - because the alternative is we risk a Polanski/Corbynite ultra-left-wing radical government taking over in the next 20 years, which could attack private property rights at source.

    Think the nationalisation of your pension pot, qualifications on home ownership rights, and price and wage controls.

    If you're quick you might be able to get an adjoining room to Nick Robinson in the adult "soft play" centre.

    More or Less looking at the statistics behind the success of Manchesterism at 9am
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,320
    HYUFD said:

    What this polling confirms is the biggest loser from a Burnham premiership will be Polanski and the Greens. Burnham is far more popular amongst leftwingers, both radical and more moderate than Starmer was. Indeed amongst all leftwingers Burnham is even more popular than the Labour party is as a whole. So a Burnham led Labour should squeeze the Green vote significantly back down closer to 2024 levels.

    Amongst centrists though who don't want change to a more leftwing government as the polling shows Starmer still slightly outpolls Burnham. So if a Burnham government shifts in a leftwing tax and spend direction there is an opportunity for the Conservatives and LDs to win over some centrist swing voters who voted Conservative or LD in 2019 but for Starmer and Labour in 2024 but are not keen on Burnham and also hate Farage.

    He's said his CoS will be Purnell, suggesting Burnhamism will be a presentation not policy change.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,376
    edited 7:52AM
    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    What this polling confirms is the biggest loser from a Burnham premiership will be Polanski and the Greens. Burnham is far more popular amongst leftwingers, both radical and more moderate than Starmer was. Indeed amongst all leftwingers Burnham is even more popular than the Labour party is as a whole. So a Burnham led Labour should squeeze the Green vote significantly back down closer to 2024 levels.

    Amongst centrists though who don't want change to a more leftwing government as the polling shows Starmer still slightly outpolls Burnham. So if a Burnham government shifts in a leftwing tax and spend direction there is an opportunity for the Conservatives and LDs to win over some centrist swing voters who voted Conservative or LD in 2019 but for Starmer and Labour in 2024 but are not keen on Burnham and also hate Farage.

    He's said his CoS will be Purnell, suggesting Burnhamism will be a presentation not policy change.
    Has he? When, Ed Miliband is now favourite for the job

    https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-chancellor-of-the-exchequer
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 28,242
    algarkirk said:

    R4 Today misses out coverage of the real defence issue. They have focussed on the the question of this and that bit of magical performance in grafting together the alleged funding for defence, with easily framed gotcha questions They have done this to the exclusion of the actual question which is: Do the present and new plans provide proper and effective defence of the realm and also play our part in NATO?

    The issue of where this or that billion comes from is secondary. Primary is: Is our defence secure, and if not, how not?

    Everyone has a different take on what the real defence issues are.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,320
    HYUFD said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    What this polling confirms is the biggest loser from a Burnham premiership will be Polanski and the Greens. Burnham is far more popular amongst leftwingers, both radical and more moderate than Starmer was. Indeed amongst all leftwingers Burnham is even more popular than the Labour party is as a whole. So a Burnham led Labour should squeeze the Green vote significantly back down closer to 2024 levels.

    Amongst centrists though who don't want change to a more leftwing government as the polling shows Starmer still slightly outpolls Burnham. So if a Burnham government shifts in a leftwing tax and spend direction there is an opportunity for the Conservatives and LDs to win over some centrist swing voters who voted Conservative or LD in 2019 but for Starmer and Labour in 2024 but are not keen on Burnham and also hate Farage.

    He's said his CoS will be Purnell, suggesting Burnhamism will be a presentation not policy change.
    Has he? When, Ed Miliband is now favourite for the job
    CoS (chief of staff) not CoE.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,642
    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,642

    algarkirk said:

    R4 Today misses out coverage of the real defence issue. They have focussed on the the question of this and that bit of magical performance in grafting together the alleged funding for defence, with easily framed gotcha questions They have done this to the exclusion of the actual question which is: Do the present and new plans provide proper and effective defence of the realm and also play our part in NATO?

    The issue of where this or that billion comes from is secondary. Primary is: Is our defence secure, and if not, how not?

    Everyone has a different take on what the real defence issues are.
    Which makes for a more valuable discussion than traditional gotcha knockabout as we had this morning. And it can begin by expert evaluation of current facts and policy, preferably not only from retired senior forces chaps. There is very substantial expertise around outside and even within the BBC.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,852
    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Doesn't include Restore who got 7% in Makerfield despite being squeezed by Reform.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,296
    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Kemi fans please explain.

    Also, Sir Keir Starmer should cancel his resignation.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,635
    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,296

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,038

    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Kemi fans please explain.

    Also, Sir Keir Starmer should cancel his resignation.
    Looks mostly like noise at this point.

    How many people are really paying attention to politics - is this enough to give Burnham much of a bounce before he gets the job?

    The interesting bit will be if Burnham manages to cut through on the Green vote.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,642
    The polling confirms that the hard/radical left are invariably disappointed by the past (Starmer, Labour) but have eternal optimism about some new messiah's ability to alter the laws of maths and human nature (in this case Burnham, but not for long.)
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,492
    edited 8:06AM
    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Doesn't include Restore who got 7% in Makerfield despite being squeezed by Reform.
    Isn't Restore following the LibDem policy of concentrating their resources in key areas which are

    * Great Yarmouth








  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 11,153
    edited 8:13AM
    Mornimg, P.B.

    Interesting; parties usually lose ground in the polls during changes of leadership, because of the perception of internal division and incoherence, etc.
    Maybe Burnham is actually significantly more popular enough to have counteracted this.
    Labour MP's will be pleased with that M.I.C poll.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,831
    Thanks for the piece, @TSE .

    Your title reminds me of an appropriate song:

    "Oh where are you going, and can I come with you?
    And what is your method for keeping alive:
    no pack or possessions, no clothing or shelter,
    no food to sustain you - how can you survive?"

    That is an Iona Community Holy Week song, sung to the tune of The Streets of Laredo, or more prosaically to the Irish Song "The Unfortunate Rake" (presumably he left his iPad connected by mistake). One of their traditions is to recover 'secular' and 'popular' songs and tunes.

    If he gets the job, we will find out - I hope.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,642

    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Kemi fans please explain.

    Also, Sir Keir Starmer should cancel his resignation.
    Looks mostly like noise at this point.

    How many people are really paying attention to politics - is this enough to give Burnham much of a bounce before he gets the job?

    The interesting bit will be if Burnham manages to cut through on the Green vote.
    Slightly more than noise. Reform continue to lose their special place way out in front of the pack, as they continue to lose the elections that really form forks in the road like Makerfield.

    The future of Farage truly is now a matter of timing. His time is over, though, as Yeats said, what rough beast slouches towards Clacton to be born remains known only to God.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,296
    MattW said:

    Thanks for the piece, @TSE .

    Your title reminds me of an appropriate song:

    "Oh where are you going, and can I come with you?
    And what is your method for keeping alive:
    no pack or possessions, no clothing or shelter,
    no food to sustain you - how can you survive?"

    That is an Iona Community Holy Week song, sung to the tune of The Streets of Laredo, or more prosaically to the Irish Song "The Unfortunate Rake" (presumably he left his iPad connected by mistake). One of their traditions is to recover 'secular' and 'popular' songs and tunes.

    If he gets the job, we will find out - I hope.

    The title are from the lyrics of a seminal 90s song.

    Cotton Eye Joe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYZaiDZ7BM
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,376
    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    What this polling confirms is the biggest loser from a Burnham premiership will be Polanski and the Greens. Burnham is far more popular amongst leftwingers, both radical and more moderate than Starmer was. Indeed amongst all leftwingers Burnham is even more popular than the Labour party is as a whole. So a Burnham led Labour should squeeze the Green vote significantly back down closer to 2024 levels.

    Amongst centrists though who don't want change to a more leftwing government as the polling shows Starmer still slightly outpolls Burnham. So if a Burnham government shifts in a leftwing tax and spend direction there is an opportunity for the Conservatives and LDs to win over some centrist swing voters who voted Conservative or LD in 2019 but for Starmer and Labour in 2024 but are not keen on Burnham and also hate Farage.

    He's said his CoS will be Purnell, suggesting Burnhamism will be a presentation not policy change.
    Has he? When, Ed Miliband is now favourite for the job
    CoS (chief of staff) not CoE.
    It will be the CoE setting economic policy though not the CoS
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,852
    Battlebus said:

    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Doesn't include Restore who got 7% in Makerfield despite being squeezed by Reform.
    Isn't Restore following the LibDem policy of concentrating their resources in key areas which are

    * Great Yarmouth








    My point is the poll won't be accurate if it doesn't include a choice people are voting for in large numbers *in actual elections*
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,635

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    This century, yes.

    Last few years, no.

    Big, shiny buildings can look impressive but what else is there to the Manchester economy which is different to that of Leeds, Liverpool or even Sheffield ?

    I notice that the Manchester constituencies have more people claiming unemployment benefits than the equivalent Sheffield constituencies:

    https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8748/CBP-8748.pdf
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,618
    Battlebus said:

    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Doesn't include Restore who got 7% in Makerfield despite being squeezed by Reform.
    Isn't Restore following the LibDem policy of concentrating their resources in key areas which are

    * Great Yarmouth








    I once attended a hard rock cover bands festival at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth. It was a lot of fun. I didn't see a whole lot of the town itself, although the whole weekend had a kind of 'deep England' feel to it, which I imagine Restore taps into effectively.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,376

    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Kemi fans please explain.

    Also, Sir Keir Starmer should cancel his resignation.
    'Burnham remains in positive territory on +5 though down slightly.
    Badenoch at -2, followed by Davey -7, Farage -17, Polanski -22 and Starmer up slightly from his lows at -44.

    Brits now overwhelmingly think Starmer was right to resign by more than a 3 to 1 margin. Even Labour voters are almost 20pts more likely than not to say Starmer was right to resign.'

    https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2072222448301322527?s=20

    https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2072223257655206204?s=20
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,618

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the piece, @TSE .

    Your title reminds me of an appropriate song:

    "Oh where are you going, and can I come with you?
    And what is your method for keeping alive:
    no pack or possessions, no clothing or shelter,
    no food to sustain you - how can you survive?"

    That is an Iona Community Holy Week song, sung to the tune of The Streets of Laredo, or more prosaically to the Irish Song "The Unfortunate Rake" (presumably he left his iPad connected by mistake). One of their traditions is to recover 'secular' and 'popular' songs and tunes.

    If he gets the job, we will find out - I hope.

    The title are from the lyrics of a seminal 90s song.

    Cotton Eye Joe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYZaiDZ7BM
    More semenal than seminal.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,492
    MattW said:

    Thanks for the piece, @TSE .

    Your title reminds me of an appropriate song:

    "Oh where are you going, and can I come with you?
    And what is your method for keeping alive:
    no pack or possessions, no clothing or shelter,
    no food to sustain you - how can you survive?"

    That is an Iona Community Holy Week song, sung to the tune of The Streets of Laredo, or more prosaically to the Irish Song "The Unfortunate Rake" (presumably he left his iPad connected by mistake). One of their traditions is to recover 'secular' and 'popular' songs and tunes.

    If he gets the job, we will find out - I hope.

    Are we doing American Folk and Gospel musical roots based on Scots-Irish psalm singing?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_psalm_singing
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,286
    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Doesn't include Restore who got 7% in Makerfield despite being squeezed by Reform.
    Is that because MIC don't prompt for Restore?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,296
    FF43 said:

    Battlebus said:

    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Doesn't include Restore who got 7% in Makerfield despite being squeezed by Reform.
    Isn't Restore following the LibDem policy of concentrating their resources in key areas which are

    * Great Yarmouth








    My point is the poll won't be accurate if it doesn't include a choice people are voting for in large numbers *in actual elections*
    Restore are included in the 3% voting for others.

    Some pollsters prompt for Restore on the first screen, others on the second screen but this poll gives the opportunity for people to say they are voting Restore.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,320

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,831
    edited 8:25AM

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the piece, @TSE .

    Your title reminds me of an appropriate song:

    "Oh where are you going, and can I come with you?
    And what is your method for keeping alive:
    no pack or possessions, no clothing or shelter,
    no food to sustain you - how can you survive?"

    That is an Iona Community Holy Week song, sung to the tune of The Streets of Laredo, or more prosaically to the Irish Song "The Unfortunate Rake" (presumably he left his iPad connected by mistake). One of their traditions is to recover 'secular' and 'popular' songs and tunes.

    If he gets the job, we will find out - I hope.

    The title are from the lyrics of a seminal 90s song.

    Cotton Eye Joe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYZaiDZ7BM
    Thanks.

    Checking, Cotton Eye Joe is a folk song with origins from the USA Deep South from around the early 1800s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton-Eyed_Joe
  • PeterCairnsPeterCairns Posts: 263
    On the basis of this polling Burnhams first big test will be Israel. If he changes tactics and takes action against Israel he'll keep these people on board, if not they will feel betrayed.

    I'd like to seem teh same groups polled on what labour and Burnham's israel policy should be and then seehow the two match up.

    Peter.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 1,405

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the piece, @TSE .

    Your title reminds me of an appropriate song:

    "Oh where are you going, and can I come with you?
    And what is your method for keeping alive:
    no pack or possessions, no clothing or shelter,
    no food to sustain you - how can you survive?"

    That is an Iona Community Holy Week song, sung to the tune of The Streets of Laredo, or more prosaically to the Irish Song "The Unfortunate Rake" (presumably he left his iPad connected by mistake). One of their traditions is to recover 'secular' and 'popular' songs and tunes.

    If he gets the job, we will find out - I hope.

    The title are from the lyrics of a seminal 90s song.

    Cotton Eye Joe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYZaiDZ7BM
    The best UK number 1 about syphilis ever.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,831
    Battlebus said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the piece, @TSE .

    Your title reminds me of an appropriate song:

    "Oh where are you going, and can I come with you?
    And what is your method for keeping alive:
    no pack or possessions, no clothing or shelter,
    no food to sustain you - how can you survive?"

    That is an Iona Community Holy Week song, sung to the tune of The Streets of Laredo, or more prosaically to the Irish Song "The Unfortunate Rake" (presumably he left his iPad connected by mistake). One of their traditions is to recover 'secular' and 'popular' songs and tunes.

    If he gets the job, we will find out - I hope.

    Are we doing American Folk and Gospel musical roots based on Scots-Irish psalm singing?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_psalm_singing
    Example of said Psalm-singing.

    https://youtu.be/tZ72md88J28?t=47
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,296
    Stereodog said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the piece, @TSE .

    Your title reminds me of an appropriate song:

    "Oh where are you going, and can I come with you?
    And what is your method for keeping alive:
    no pack or possessions, no clothing or shelter,
    no food to sustain you - how can you survive?"

    That is an Iona Community Holy Week song, sung to the tune of The Streets of Laredo, or more prosaically to the Irish Song "The Unfortunate Rake" (presumably he left his iPad connected by mistake). One of their traditions is to recover 'secular' and 'popular' songs and tunes.

    If he gets the job, we will find out - I hope.

    The title are from the lyrics of a seminal 90s song.

    Cotton Eye Joe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYZaiDZ7BM
    The best UK number 1 about syphilis ever.
    Indeed but what's your second best UK number 1 about syphilis?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,457

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the piece, @TSE .

    Your title reminds me of an appropriate song:

    "Oh where are you going, and can I come with you?
    And what is your method for keeping alive:
    no pack or possessions, no clothing or shelter,
    no food to sustain you - how can you survive?"

    That is an Iona Community Holy Week song, sung to the tune of The Streets of Laredo, or more prosaically to the Irish Song "The Unfortunate Rake" (presumably he left his iPad connected by mistake). One of their traditions is to recover 'secular' and 'popular' songs and tunes.

    If he gets the job, we will find out - I hope.

    The title are from the lyrics of a seminal 90s song.

    Cotton Eye Joe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYZaiDZ7BM
    More semenal than seminal.
    That's literally the other meaning of seminal...

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/seminal
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,376

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Kemi fans please explain.

    Also, Sir Keir Starmer should cancel his resignation.
    'Burnham remains in positive territory on +5 though down slightly.
    Badenoch at -2, followed by Davey -7, Farage -17, Polanski -22 and Starmer up slightly from his lows at -44.

    Brits now overwhelmingly think Starmer was right to resign by more than a 3 to 1 margin. Even Labour voters are almost 20pts more likely than not to say Starmer was right to resign.'

    https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2072222448301322527?s=20

    https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2072223257655206204?s=20
    Johnson taught us that being an effective communicator isn't a sufficient skill for the role of PM. Starmer taught us that it is a necessary one.
    It is certainly a necessary one for winning a general election majority in most cases, Starmer only won in 2024 as the Tories lost it basically.

    Starmer probably did the admin executive side of being PM a bit better though Burnham has his experience as Manchester Mayor
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,635
    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,320

    Battlebus said:

    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Doesn't include Restore who got 7% in Makerfield despite being squeezed by Reform.
    Isn't Restore following the LibDem policy of concentrating their resources in key areas which are

    * Great Yarmouth








    I once attended a hard rock cover bands festival at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth. It was a lot of fun. I didn't see a whole lot of the town itself, although the whole weekend had a kind of 'deep England' feel to it, which I imagine Restore taps into effectively.
    Made the mistake of looking for fish n chips on the seafront a decade or so ago when we were camping nearby.
    A lot of adult gaming centres on the ground floor of the seafront with signage for adult cabaret and other venues above along with a large number of overweight, poorly dressed tourists with buckets of shrapnel which didn't seem to equate with the revenue expectations of the upper floor businesses.

    When we eventually found a chippy, it wasn't great.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 9,130
    edited 8:44AM

    Stereodog said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the piece, @TSE .

    Your title reminds me of an appropriate song:

    "Oh where are you going, and can I come with you?
    And what is your method for keeping alive:
    no pack or possessions, no clothing or shelter,
    no food to sustain you - how can you survive?"

    That is an Iona Community Holy Week song, sung to the tune of The Streets of Laredo, or more prosaically to the Irish Song "The Unfortunate Rake" (presumably he left his iPad connected by mistake). One of their traditions is to recover 'secular' and 'popular' songs and tunes.

    If he gets the job, we will find out - I hope.

    The title are from the lyrics of a seminal 90s song.

    Cotton Eye Joe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYZaiDZ7BM
    The best UK number 1 about syphilis ever.
    Indeed but what's your second best UK number 1 about syphilis?
    “Down at Club S” by S Club 7.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,425
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    R4 Today misses out coverage of the real defence issue. They have focussed on the the question of this and that bit of magical performance in grafting together the alleged funding for defence, with easily framed gotcha questions They have done this to the exclusion of the actual question which is: Do the present and new plans provide proper and effective defence of the realm and also play our part in NATO?

    The issue of where this or that billion comes from is secondary. Primary is: Is our defence secure, and if not, how not?

    Everyone has a different take on what the real defence issues are.
    Which makes for a more valuable discussion than traditional gotcha knockabout as we had this morning. And it can begin by expert evaluation of current facts and policy, preferably not only from retired senior forces chaps. There is very substantial expertise around outside and even within the BBC.

    I missed the knockabout.
    But the real discussion only starts when Burnham takes office anyway.

    Burnham has said that he won't rewrite the DiP, but so much of it is undefined that he'll be writing most of it anyway (or his SecDef will).

    We know for sure that (eg) GCAP development is funded (£2bn a year for the next four years); the nuclear plans continue (AUKUS details totally unclear), but details of forces spending; the future of various armoured vehicle programs; numbers and timing of aircraft delivery etc are undefined.

    Also undefined are "efficiency savings" (aka programme cuts), and cuts in other departments to pay for the extra £15bn, which is otherwise essentially unfunded.

    In sum, almost a hospital pass from Starmer.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,198
    edited 8:46AM
    'Left Minimalist' - this is an interesting term I haven't come across before. There's a touch of that in me. I'm certainly 'left' but at the same time I tend to be put off by politicians promising radical change (even of the sort that in theory appeals to me).

    I think this is because I realise that radical change is very difficult to bring about. Positive change, I mean. Radical negative change (aka vandalism) is easy peasy. But big beneficial change (to a country) without lots of negative unforeseen consequences is difficult. To pull it off requires great application and ability.

    Few politicians have this to a sufficient degree and therefore my feeling is that it's on the whole better for the country if they rein in the grand ambitions and concentrate on keeping the show on the road, avoid serious missteps, improve a few things, leave the place a little bit better for their time in charge.

    So, yes, I guess I am (at least when feeling this way which I do most of the time) a Left Minimalist. I'm pleased there's a nice-sounding name for it.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,145

    Battlebus said:

    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    Doesn't include Restore who got 7% in Makerfield despite being squeezed by Reform.
    Isn't Restore following the LibDem policy of concentrating their resources in key areas which are

    * Great Yarmouth








    I once attended a hard rock cover bands festival at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth. It was a lot of fun. I didn't see a whole lot of the town itself, although the whole weekend had a kind of 'deep England' feel to it, which I imagine Restore taps into effectively.
    La France Profonde.
    Except not France, on the coast and not very profound.
  • PeterCairnsPeterCairns Posts: 263

    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
    Isn't the real test of Manchesterism (?) to compare it with the four or five other Mayorial areas created around the same time to see how each performed and what the differences are.

    The "It worked in Manchester lets do it everywhere!" arguement really only works if it has worked the other places it's been tried.

    Rather than question if Machester really has delivered or delivered the right things, even with growth, isn't it better to see if the system has worked elsewhere before we roll it out to everywhere.

    I have a feeling that Manchester success and it has attracted huge investement might be like the Docklands or globalisation, overall growth but uneven and concentrated, central Manchester being to the wider area what London is to teh South East.

    Is the counterweight to London, lots of little Londons?

    Peter.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,425
    Also a hospital pass are the steel tariffs (50% !) just announced.
    The government is risking 100k+ jobs in manufacturing to save a few thousand in primary steel production. Absolutely insane.

    If steelmaking is a strategic necessity (arguable either way) then government should subsidise it directly. Doing so via imposing another crippling burden on UK manufacturing is an act of national self-harm.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,712

    To be honest, and much as I hate to say this, Andy Burnham sort of has to deliver for his voters - or convince them he is with similarish policies but better Leftie-friendly storytelling and rhetoric - because the alternative is we risk a Polanski/Corbynite ultra-left-wing radical government taking over in the next 20 years, which could attack private property rights at source.

    Think the nationalisation of your pension pot, qualifications on home ownership rights, and price and wage controls.

    The gameplan must surely be to develop and set out in the 2028/9 manifesto a radical plan to change our politics for good - electoral reform, replacement of the Lords, devolution and strengthened local government - and then to see off the right, who won't have a response other than knee-jerk opposition (and for Reform an interesting conundrum regarding its prior positioning) and will hopefully remain divided while moderate and left-leaning voters organise themselves efficiently behind the best party to win in each seat (and a LibDem MP incoming in your own).

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,145
    edited 8:52AM

    On the basis of this polling Burnhams first big test will be Israel. If he changes tactics and takes action against Israel he'll keep these people on board, if not they will feel betrayed.

    I'd like to seem teh same groups polled on what labour and Burnham's israel policy should be and then seehow the two match up.

    Peter.

    Let's face it, if anything it'll be a presentational sleight of hand that will take action on Israel without actually taking action on Israel. I suppose shutting down the ridiculous arrest of Palestine Action pensioners might be something..
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,712
    Latest from Freedman (£):

    If, last year, you had told people that Badenoch would get significantly more popular, while Reform slipped back, they would reasonably have assumed the Tories would be doing better. But they aren’t. Understanding why is critical to thinking through how British politics will play out over the next few years.

    This is the same strategic problem the Tories have had since Reform emerged as a serious threat. It is extremely difficult to win those voters back, as they have soured on the Conservative brand and like Farage. Badenoch has done nothing to structurally improve the Tory position. There is no policy agenda beyond pledges to undo Labour taxes rises by cutting welfare. Reform could see a further deterioration in its position. But so far those who have switched away from the party seem either to be going further rightwards, by supporting Restore, or telling pollsters they won’t vote. Which is why the Tories have not seen any improvement in their numbers.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,635
    Nigelb said:

    Also a hospital pass are the steel tariffs (50% !) just announced.
    The government is risking 100k+ jobs in manufacturing to save a few thousand in primary steel production. Absolutely insane.

    If steelmaking is a strategic necessity (arguable either way) then government should subsidise it directly. Doing so via imposing another crippling burden on UK manufacturing is an act of national self-harm.

    I wonder how much it would cost for the government to simply buy up all the output of whatever UK steel plants it wants to keep running and then sell / store that steel .

    Have a strategic reserve of specialist steels if that is required.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,618
    carnforth said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the piece, @TSE .

    Your title reminds me of an appropriate song:

    "Oh where are you going, and can I come with you?
    And what is your method for keeping alive:
    no pack or possessions, no clothing or shelter,
    no food to sustain you - how can you survive?"

    That is an Iona Community Holy Week song, sung to the tune of The Streets of Laredo, or more prosaically to the Irish Song "The Unfortunate Rake" (presumably he left his iPad connected by mistake). One of their traditions is to recover 'secular' and 'popular' songs and tunes.

    If he gets the job, we will find out - I hope.

    The title are from the lyrics of a seminal 90s song.

    Cotton Eye Joe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYZaiDZ7BM
    More semenal than seminal.
    That's literally the other meaning of seminal...

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/seminal
    Every day's a school day on pb.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,302
    edited 9:02AM

    On the basis of this polling Burnhams first big test will be Israel. If he changes tactics and takes action against Israel he'll keep these people on board, if not they will feel betrayed.

    I'd like to seem teh same groups polled on what labour and Burnham's israel policy should be and then seehow the two match up.

    Peter.

    I entirely agree and yes some polling would be informative here.

    Starmer seemed overly willing to conflate any meaningful as opposed to token opposition to the actions of Israel with tendencies towards antisemitism. They should be regarded as entirely separate and that represents Burnham's opportunity. A robust approach to antisemitism can still be taken.

    Taking actions which seriously piss off Netanyahu is an essential step. For example, in the absence of a change of Israeli policy there should be measures which would impact on Israel's economy. OK, the UK alone can't have too much of an effect, but if the UK joins other smaller nations like Spain in taking a lead others are more likely to follow, building up a critical mass. And limiting criminal sanctions against Gaza protesters to laws other than terrorism law (e.g. criminal damage) would also send a meaningful signal, as would dropping the appeal against the court ruling which has already outlawed such action. Israeli opinion will also be sensitive to once reliable allies turning on Israel as a result of Netanyahu's actions.

    The political benefits for Burnham will be tangible. Alternatively, if Burnham sticks to token tut tutting and sanctions that don't extend beyond a handful of individuals alone, then attitudes to him on the radical or even left won't in time differ much from those towards Starmer.

    PS. Phil
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,498

    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
    Construction of dense residential
    /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.

    You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 22,144
    kinabalu said:

    'Left Minimalist' - this is an interesting term I haven't come across before. There's a touch of that in me. I'm certainly 'left' but at the same time I tend to be put off by politicians promising radical change (even of the sort that in theory appeals to me).

    I think this is because I realise that radical change is very difficult to bring about. Positive change, I mean. Radical negative change (aka vandalism) is easy peasy. But big beneficial change (to a country) without lots of negative unforeseen consequences is difficult. To pull it off requires great application and ability.

    Few politicians have this to a sufficient degree and therefore my feeling is that it's on the whole better for the country if they rein in the grand ambitions and concentrate on keeping the show on the road, avoid serious missteps, improve a few things, leave the place a little bit better for their time in charge.

    So, yes, I guess I am (at least when feeling this way which I do most of the time) a Left Minimalist. I'm pleased there's a nice-sounding name for it.

    Interesting. I think that keeping the show on the road and postponing radical beneficial change is what Starmer offered, and personally (I think we're of similar views) I got tired of it, to the point of considering the Greens. I think that postponement=never (we have a majority of nearly 200 ffs), so left minimalism actually comes down to minding the shop until a populist right-winger comes along. IMO it's not enough.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 3,850

    On the basis of this polling Burnhams first big test will be Israel. If he changes tactics and takes action against Israel he'll keep these people on board, if not they will feel betrayed.

    I'd like to seem teh same groups polled on what labour and Burnham's israel policy should be and then seehow the two match up.

    Peter.

    Given that Trump seems to have fallen out with Bibi there is now less chance of an implosion at the White House too. Or, at least, a more manageable one. A tiff with Trump which doesn't involve tariffs would be good for AB.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,307
    https://x.com/Telegraph/status/2072236333376934041

    Andy Burnham has told female Labour MPs there will be a woman in every meeting in an effort to change the “boys’ club” culture at No 10.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,081
    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
    Construction of dense residential
    /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.

    You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
    Not really.

    Manchester is doing well as it is at the intersection of so many major motorways.

    It is a hub and spoke success story, as is London which is similarly well connected with infrastructure.

    The M6, M60, M62, M61, M56, M602, M66 and A57(M) all run to or through Manchester, which has helped Manchester's economic success.

    Sadly other cities and towns are lagging as they are not so well connected.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 64,041

    https://x.com/Telegraph/status/2072236333376934041

    Andy Burnham has told female Labour MPs there will be a woman in every meeting in an effort to change the “boys’ club” culture at No 10.

    Well someone needs to keep the minutes, right?
    Hopefully it won't be like that book prize, that had a huge sexism problem when most nominees were men, but everybody's fine with it being even more dominated by women.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,198

    kinabalu said:

    'Left Minimalist' - this is an interesting term I haven't come across before. There's a touch of that in me. I'm certainly 'left' but at the same time I tend to be put off by politicians promising radical change (even of the sort that in theory appeals to me).

    I think this is because I realise that radical change is very difficult to bring about. Positive change, I mean. Radical negative change (aka vandalism) is easy peasy. But big beneficial change (to a country) without lots of negative unforeseen consequences is difficult. To pull it off requires great application and ability.

    Few politicians have this to a sufficient degree and therefore my feeling is that it's on the whole better for the country if they rein in the grand ambitions and concentrate on keeping the show on the road, avoid serious missteps, improve a few things, leave the place a little bit better for their time in charge.

    So, yes, I guess I am (at least when feeling this way which I do most of the time) a Left Minimalist. I'm pleased there's a nice-sounding name for it.

    Interesting. I think that keeping the show on the road and postponing radical beneficial change is what Starmer offered, and personally (I think we're of similar views) I got tired of it, to the point of considering the Greens. I think that postponement=never (we have a majority of nearly 200 ffs), so left minimalism actually comes down to minding the shop until a populist right-winger comes along. IMO it's not enough.
    Yes fair enough and I agree with that also. Beating the populist right electorally is imo the number one political priority right now. If that requires some Big Vision energy from the left side of politics then let's have it.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,457

    https://x.com/Telegraph/status/2072236333376934041

    Andy Burnham has told female Labour MPs there will be a woman in every meeting in an effort to change the “boys’ club” culture at No 10.

    Well someone needs to keep the minutes, right?


    Or other roles.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,738
    edited 9:26AM



    A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.

    Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.

    The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.

    There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,635
    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
    Construction of dense residential
    /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.

    You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
    Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.

    Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?

    But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.

    House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,338
    edited 9:32AM

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
    Construction of dense residential
    /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.

    You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
    Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.

    Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?

    But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.

    House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
    The decanting of people to the outskirts was done well before the recent growth in population in central Manchester.

    In 1990 500 people lived within a mile of Piccadilly Gardens, now its 85,000 - the first figure is a census figure so 100% accurate.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,338
    edited 9:32AM
    duplicate
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,738
    Dura_Ace said:



    A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.

    Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.

    The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.

    There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
    2021 not 2012.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,302
    algarkirk said:

    Have we seen this from More in Common?



    RFM: 28% (=)
    LAB: 24% (+3)
    CON: 20% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    GRN: 10% (=)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    26-28 June


    I think not. Not on the Wiki GE page yet.
    https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2072222428592312500
    Fieldwork 26-28 June means after Starmer's resignation but before Burnham started to define himself as de facto PM with Monday's speech.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,635

    kinabalu said:

    'Left Minimalist' - this is an interesting term I haven't come across before. There's a touch of that in me. I'm certainly 'left' but at the same time I tend to be put off by politicians promising radical change (even of the sort that in theory appeals to me).

    I think this is because I realise that radical change is very difficult to bring about. Positive change, I mean. Radical negative change (aka vandalism) is easy peasy. But big beneficial change (to a country) without lots of negative unforeseen consequences is difficult. To pull it off requires great application and ability.

    Few politicians have this to a sufficient degree and therefore my feeling is that it's on the whole better for the country if they rein in the grand ambitions and concentrate on keeping the show on the road, avoid serious missteps, improve a few things, leave the place a little bit better for their time in charge.

    So, yes, I guess I am (at least when feeling this way which I do most of the time) a Left Minimalist. I'm pleased there's a nice-sounding name for it.

    Interesting. I think that keeping the show on the road and postponing radical beneficial change is what Starmer offered, and personally (I think we're of similar views) I got tired of it, to the point of considering the Greens. I think that postponement=never (we have a majority of nearly 200 ffs), so left minimalism actually comes down to minding the shop until a populist right-winger comes along. IMO it's not enough.
    For radical change to be effective (leaving aside whether it is beneficial) it needs an intellectual basis, to be properly planned and with a clear end goal.

    Both the Atlee and Thatcher governments were prepared to do that.

    I don't see anyone in the traditional parties being willing or capable of so doing. And certainly not in either the left-populists or right-populists.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,712
    edited 9:39AM

    kinabalu said:

    'Left Minimalist' - this is an interesting term I haven't come across before. There's a touch of that in me. I'm certainly 'left' but at the same time I tend to be put off by politicians promising radical change (even of the sort that in theory appeals to me).

    I think this is because I realise that radical change is very difficult to bring about. Positive change, I mean. Radical negative change (aka vandalism) is easy peasy. But big beneficial change (to a country) without lots of negative unforeseen consequences is difficult. To pull it off requires great application and ability.

    Few politicians have this to a sufficient degree and therefore my feeling is that it's on the whole better for the country if they rein in the grand ambitions and concentrate on keeping the show on the road, avoid serious missteps, improve a few things, leave the place a little bit better for their time in charge.

    So, yes, I guess I am (at least when feeling this way which I do most of the time) a Left Minimalist. I'm pleased there's a nice-sounding name for it.

    Interesting. I think that keeping the show on the road and postponing radical beneficial change is what Starmer offered, and personally (I think we're of similar views) I got tired of it, to the point of considering the Greens. I think that postponement=never (we have a majority of nearly 200 ffs), so left minimalism actually comes down to minding the shop until a populist right-winger comes along. IMO it's not enough.
    For radical change to be effective (leaving aside whether it is beneficial) it needs an intellectual basis, to be properly planned and with a clear end goal.

    Both the Atlee and Thatcher governments were prepared to do that.

    I don't see anyone in the traditional parties being willing or capable of so doing. And certainly not in either the left-populists or right-populists.
    Labour is - and very likely remains, despite the change of faces - a prisoner of the way it chose to win the 2024 election, boxing itself in horrendously. Which is why, aside from whatever tinkering Burnham can legislate for over the next year to eighteen months - the opportunity is for a radical and reforming manifesto for 2028/9, as I posted earlier.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,806
    KoN inherits SKS's £5BN black hole

    SKS fans please explain
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,998
    Dura_Ace said:



    A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.

    Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.

    The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.

    There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
    Your comments on this subject are entirely compromised by the fact you support Russia and want this country to have a weak and compromised defence due to your nihilistic beliefs, which border on the psychopathic.

    I ascribe zero value to what you say on the subject, despite your military "experience".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,237
    Meriopol highway bridge taken out by the Ukranians.

    https://x.com/jimmysecuk/status/2072209343647305902

    The starving out of the Russian occupiers continues, there’s now one fewer route to get supplies to the front lines.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,998

    https://x.com/Telegraph/status/2072236333376934041

    Andy Burnham has told female Labour MPs there will be a woman in every meeting in an effort to change the “boys’ club” culture at No 10.

    It's good politics, since performative nonsense like this resonates really well with the base.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,635
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
    Construction of dense residential
    /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.

    You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
    Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.

    Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?

    But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.

    House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
    The decanting of people to the outskirts was done well before the recent growth in population in central Manchester.

    In 1990 500 people lived within a mile of Piccadilly Gardens, now its 85,000 - the first figure is a census figure so 100% accurate.
    Its been three stages.

    Originally inner urban working class poor renting.

    Then empty of inhabitants.

    Now middle classes renters in big, shiny buildings.

    That's great for middle class types who want to rent a flat in a big, shiny building in a city centre.

    Not so good for the descendants of the former inner urban working class now living in places like Gorton and Denton.

    And pretty irrelevant to those who want to own an average house in an average suburb / town and have an average life.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,198
    edited 9:49AM
    Just watched the highlights of France Sweden. Bloody hell. That will take some beating.

    But thankfully the best team doesn't always win the WC.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 23,206
    Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.

    .................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,425
    Dura_Ace said:



    A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.

    Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.

    The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.

    There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
    Also to Casino's point, the DiP announced yesterday provides no funding for Challenger 3.
    It's quite likely that scrapping Challenger is part of the "efficiency savings" which pay for most of the 'increase' in funding.

    The UK has none of the modern auxiliary equipment to support MBT deployment (transport; recovery; bridging; supporting armoured combat vehicles). Fully equipping a single regiment would likely be around £2 to £3bn, and might cost £3 -500m a year to sustain overseas.
    I've said before that it's unlikely the UK will ever again field an MBT regiment overseas. If they're not in place to blunt an invasion, then they are pretty useless anyway. And the future value of MBTs is in any event pretty uncertain.

    If we want to contribute to European defence, far more cost effective (not least as it would also contribute directly to the defence of the UK, and give other options for overseas deployment - eg Cyprus of the Falklands) would be to increase the capabilities of the RAF, IMO.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 10,205
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
    Construction of dense residential
    /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.

    You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
    Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.

    Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?

    But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.

    House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
    The decanting of people to the outskirts was done well before the recent growth in population in central Manchester.

    In 1990 500 people lived within a mile of Piccadilly Gardens, now its 85,000 - the first figure is a census figure so 100% accurate.
    Point of order: census figures are not 100% accurate! Better than just about everything else, but still not accurate.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,498
    edited 9:52AM

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
    Construction of dense residential
    /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.

    You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
    Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.

    Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?

    But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.

    House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
    There have been motorways in Manchester for decades. If they were the underlying driver of economic activity you’d expect GDP per capita in the NW of England to be 15x higher than in London.

    They are a necessary enabler of economic activity, but not much more than that. The only part of the UK where you could reasonably argue that a lack of them is materially inhibiting growth is the NE of England, and even then I’m not convinced it would unlock boundless economic activity in County Durham.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,302
    edited 9:56AM

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
    Construction of dense residential
    /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.

    You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
    Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.

    Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?

    But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.

    House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
    "who's calling for more motorways?"

    Me, across the western side of the West Midlands conurbation. Or not even a motorway, just a single lane fast A road to by pass the bottlenecks linking to the M5. We seem to be the forgotten part of the UK in terms of major road construction.

    It's a ridiculous situation where a 150 mile journey from Wolverhampton to Exeter takes about 3 hours 30 minutes but with the first 15 miles down the gridlocked A4123 to the M5 J2 taking 40 minutes even on a moderately good day. The absence of by-passes around Kidderminster and Wall Heath (Dudley) make the A449 alternative to J6 no quicker even using rat runs down suburban streets and single lane rural roads.

    35 or so years ago the problem was recognised but a proposal for a Western Orbital Route was knocked on the head. But since then there have been no relevant changes to the road network here even on a much reduced scale while the traffic volumes have increased massively.

    PS. Meanwhile going east or north from here instead of south we're the only part of the UK where you have to pay tolls to use a motorway.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,338

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
    Construction of dense residential
    /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.

    You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
    Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.

    Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?

    But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.

    House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
    The decanting of people to the outskirts was done well before the recent growth in population in central Manchester.

    In 1990 500 people lived within a mile of Piccadilly Gardens, now its 85,000 - the first figure is a census figure so 100% accurate.
    Its been three stages.

    Originally inner urban working class poor renting.

    Then empty of inhabitants.

    Now middle classes renters in big, shiny buildings.

    That's great for middle class types who want to rent a flat in a big, shiny building in a city centre.

    Not so good for the descendants of the former inner urban working class now living in places like Gorton and Denton.

    And pretty irrelevant to those who want to own an average house in an average suburb / town and have an average life.
    Those people left over 35 years ago more likely 40-50 years ago - apart from in your nostalgic mind it's they are utterly irrelevant to to story and render your entire argument utterly stupid...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,352
    Roger said:

    Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.

    .................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard

    You could always move to Gaza when Bardella becomes president.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,684

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
    Construction of dense residential
    /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.

    You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
    Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.

    Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?

    But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.

    House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
    The decanting of people to the outskirts was done well before the recent growth in population in central Manchester.

    In 1990 500 people lived within a mile of Piccadilly Gardens, now its 85,000 - the first figure is a census figure so 100% accurate.
    Its been three stages.

    Originally inner urban working class poor renting.

    Then empty of inhabitants.

    Now middle classes renters in big, shiny buildings.

    That's great for middle class types who want to rent a flat in a big, shiny building in a city centre.

    Not so good for the descendants of the former inner urban working class now living in places like Gorton and Denton.

    And pretty irrelevant to those who want to own an average house in an average suburb / town and have an average life.
    'Not so good for the descendants of the former inner urban working class" - but that isn't Manchesterism's - embodied by Andy Burnham - fault. They're there because of the push-the-poor-people-to-the-outskirts (which was the outcome, if not the intent) of the post-war period.
    It is still a big problem to solve, and it was the focus of the term that Andy Burnham had just been elected for - 'showing the path to the skyscrapers' - letting young people from Little Hulton or Hattersley share in and benefit from the growth that the city centre was going through. It's a long term project. But you need the growth first.
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,032

    Roger said:

    Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.

    .................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard

    No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
    I’m chuckling at all those butthurt at The Canary being debunked were the same ones laughing when it was Farage or Reclaim.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,558
    Roger said:

    Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.

    .................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard

    Gaza barely registers as an issue, and Burnham's entire speech in Manchester this week was entirely on domestic issues and he did not once mention Gaza

    Gaza is a tragedy, but Burnham success or failure will not be about Gaza
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,558
    kinabalu said:

    Just watched the highlights of France Sweden. Bloody hell. That will take some beating.

    But thankfully the best team doesn't always win the WC.

    If France play anywhere near that level it is hard to see past them, and certainly not England who I doubt will beat Mexico even if they win tonight
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,998
    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.

    Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.

    The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.

    There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
    Also to Casino's point, the DiP announced yesterday provides no funding for Challenger 3.
    It's quite likely that scrapping Challenger is part of the "efficiency savings" which pay for most of the 'increase' in funding.

    The UK has none of the modern auxiliary equipment to support MBT deployment (transport; recovery; bridging; supporting armoured combat vehicles). Fully equipping a single regiment would likely be around £2 to £3bn, and might cost £3 -500m a year to sustain overseas.
    I've said before that it's unlikely the UK will ever again field an MBT regiment overseas. If they're not in place to blunt an invasion, then they are pretty useless anyway. And the future value of MBTs is in any event pretty uncertain.

    If we want to contribute to European defence, far more cost effective (not least as it would also contribute directly to the defence of the UK, and give other options for overseas deployment - eg Cyprus of the Falklands) would be to increase the capabilities of the RAF, IMO.
    I am arguing for a two division structure without relying on the Army Reserve, which isn't realistic. For a real serious defence strategist, read Nicholas Drummond below. I was arguing for 85-90k+ army, to account for training and wastage, and he thinks it might be possible with 83k and agreed with me.

    Note that to get back to the Army of the noughties with a third division and a corps HQ, that would require an army of 112k, which we almost certainly wouldn't be willing to pay for right now, despite me personally being willing to back that too:

    ▶️I have modelled in some detail how the British Army ought to grow. Basically, to deliver a two division structure and make it deployable without relying on the Army Reserve, the Regular Army needs 83,000 personnel.

    ▶️If we want to raise a third division, it would need an additional 20,000 soldiers plus extra Corps unit headcount of 9,000 for a total size of 112,000. This was the approximate size of the Regular Army in 2010.

    ▶️ To make a three division structure credible, the Army would need to purchase to around £30 billion of additional equipment. This sounds huge, and it is, but, over ten years it's affordable and achievable.

    ▶️The problem is if we wait. We risk having to grow the Army very quickly over a 2 to 3 year period and needing to buy all the extra kit it needs as soon as possible. Which means buying what's available not what we want.

    ▶️This is what we did in 1937, but by that time it was too late. We had fallen too far behind. The process of re-arming proved to be very difficult and costly. We only finished paying off the debt in 2006.

    ▶️In the short-term, rather than growing the Army to 100,000, I would prefer to see the RN and RAF expanded. Instead, I believe the UK should reconstitute an Army of 83,000 and properly equip it.

    ▶️This requires an extra £3 to £4 billion per annum and around £10 billion in additional equipment spent between now and 2030.

    https://x.com/nicholadrummond/status/1776228627446632811
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,998

    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.

    Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.

    The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.

    There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
    Also to Casino's point, the DiP announced yesterday provides no funding for Challenger 3.
    It's quite likely that scrapping Challenger is part of the "efficiency savings" which pay for most of the 'increase' in funding.

    The UK has none of the modern auxiliary equipment to support MBT deployment (transport; recovery; bridging; supporting armoured combat vehicles). Fully equipping a single regiment would likely be around £2 to £3bn, and might cost £3 -500m a year to sustain overseas.
    I've said before that it's unlikely the UK will ever again field an MBT regiment overseas. If they're not in place to blunt an invasion, then they are pretty useless anyway. And the future value of MBTs is in any event pretty uncertain.

    If we want to contribute to European defence, far more cost effective (not least as it would also contribute directly to the defence of the UK, and give other options for overseas deployment - eg Cyprus of the Falklands) would be to increase the capabilities of the RAF, IMO.
    I am arguing for a two division structure without relying on the Army Reserve, which isn't realistic. For a real serious defence strategist, read Nicholas Drummond below. I was arguing for 85-90k+ army, to account for training and wastage, and he thinks it might be possible with 83k and agreed with me.

    Note that to get back to the Army of the noughties with a third division and a corps HQ, that would require an army of 112k, which we almost certainly wouldn't be willing to pay for right now, despite me personally being willing to back that too:

    ▶️I have modelled in some detail how the British Army ought to grow. Basically, to deliver a two division structure and make it deployable without relying on the Army Reserve, the Regular Army needs 83,000 personnel.

    ▶️If we want to raise a third division, it would need an additional 20,000 soldiers plus extra Corps unit headcount of 9,000 for a total size of 112,000. This was the approximate size of the Regular Army in 2010.

    ▶️ To make a three division structure credible, the Army would need to purchase to around £30 billion of additional equipment. This sounds huge, and it is, but, over ten years it's affordable and achievable.

    ▶️The problem is if we wait. We risk having to grow the Army very quickly over a 2 to 3 year period and needing to buy all the extra kit it needs as soon as possible. Which means buying what's available not what we want.

    ▶️This is what we did in 1937, but by that time it was too late. We had fallen too far behind. The process of re-arming proved to be very difficult and costly. We only finished paying off the debt in 2006.

    ▶️In the short-term, rather than growing the Army to 100,000, I would prefer to see the RN and RAF expanded. Instead, I believe the UK should reconstitute an Army of 83,000 and properly equip it.

    ▶️This requires an extra £3 to £4 billion per annum and around £10 billion in additional equipment spent between now and 2030.

    https://x.com/nicholadrummond/status/1776228627446632811
    PS. Note how very dangerous and expensive it is (and over the long term as well) to wait until an imminent crisis. Which several regular posters on here (not you) want to do. It's a big reason why we almost fucked it in WWII, and had a fairly performance until at least late 1942 and it caused equipment problems all the way through to VE day.

    We can't wait.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,338
    Selebian said:

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    FPT:

    Burnham, Purnell, the Milibands.

    Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.

    Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?

    Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?

    And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
    You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
    R4 More or Less
    Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently).
    Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period.
    Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
    So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.

    Anything else ?
    Construction of dense residential
    /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.

    You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
    Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.

    Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?

    But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.

    House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
    The decanting of people to the outskirts was done well before the recent growth in population in central Manchester.

    In 1990 500 people lived within a mile of Piccadilly Gardens, now its 85,000 - the first figure is a census figure so 100% accurate.
    Point of order: census figures are not 100% accurate! Better than just about everything else, but still not accurate.
    They aren't going to be hiding 84,500 people though. If a census says 500 it's going to be between 400-600 not -84,500 to 85,000
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,032
    Radio 2 News leading with the death of Victor ‘Bob’ Willis former lead singer of the band The Village People, who had three hits in the late seventies.

  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,684
    Taz said:

    Radio 2 News leading with the death of Victor ‘Bob’ Willis former lead singer of the band The Village People, who had three hits in the late seventies.

    Talented guy. Also took 8-43 against Australia at Headingley in 1981.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,642

    Roger said:

    Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.

    .................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard

    No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
    We shall mark down Pope Francis, Pope Leo, the Anglican communion and a few others, including me, as abnormal.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,296
    kinabalu said:

    Just watched the highlights of France Sweden. Bloody hell. That will take some beating.

    But thankfully the best team doesn't always win the WC.

    Always intrigues watching France and thinking of the sliding door in 2010 with Didier Deschamps, when he was interviewed (and impressed) for the Liverpool job (along with Pellegrini and Rijkaard) but they lost out to Roy Hodgson. Deschamps would have succeeded anywhere.

    https://x.com/DKingTelegraph/status/2072090225237520673
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,425

    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.

    Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.

    The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.

    There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
    Also to Casino's point, the DiP announced yesterday provides no funding for Challenger 3.
    It's quite likely that scrapping Challenger is part of the "efficiency savings" which pay for most of the 'increase' in funding.

    The UK has none of the modern auxiliary equipment to support MBT deployment (transport; recovery; bridging; supporting armoured combat vehicles). Fully equipping a single regiment would likely be around £2 to £3bn, and might cost £3 -500m a year to sustain overseas.
    I've said before that it's unlikely the UK will ever again field an MBT regiment overseas. If they're not in place to blunt an invasion, then they are pretty useless anyway. And the future value of MBTs is in any event pretty uncertain.

    If we want to contribute to European defence, far more cost effective (not least as it would also contribute directly to the defence of the UK, and give other options for overseas deployment - eg Cyprus of the Falklands) would be to increase the capabilities of the RAF, IMO.
    I am arguing for a two division structure without relying on the Army Reserve, which isn't realistic. For a real serious defence strategist, read Nicholas Drummond below. I was arguing for 85-90k+ army, to account for training and wastage, and he thinks it might be possible with 83k and agreed with me.

    Note that to get back to the Army of the noughties with a third division and a corps HQ, that would require an army of 112k, which we almost certainly wouldn't be willing to pay for right now, despite me personally being willing to back that too:

    ▶️I have modelled in some detail how the British Army ought to grow. Basically, to deliver a two division structure and make it deployable without relying on the Army Reserve, the Regular Army needs 83,000 personnel.

    ▶️If we want to raise a third division, it would need an additional 20,000 soldiers plus extra Corps unit headcount of 9,000 for a total size of 112,000. This was the approximate size of the Regular Army in 2010.

    ▶️ To make a three division structure credible, the Army would need to purchase to around £30 billion of additional equipment. This sounds huge, and it is, but, over ten years it's affordable and achievable.

    ▶️The problem is if we wait. We risk having to grow the Army very quickly over a 2 to 3 year period and needing to buy all the extra kit it needs as soon as possible. Which means buying what's available not what we want.

    ▶️This is what we did in 1937, but by that time it was too late. We had fallen too far behind. The process of re-arming proved to be very difficult and costly. We only finished paying off the debt in 2006.

    ▶️In the short-term, rather than growing the Army to 100,000, I would prefer to see the RN and RAF expanded. Instead, I believe the UK should reconstitute an Army of 83,000 and properly equip it.

    ▶️This requires an extra £3 to £4 billion per annum and around £10 billion in additional equipment spent between now and 2030.

    https://x.com/nicholadrummond/status/1776228627446632811
    Yes, that's a fantasy, which isn't going to happen.
    What in any event would be the purpose of this army ?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,145
    edited 10:21AM

    Roger said:

    Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.

    .................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard

    No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
    There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.

    In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Sign In or Register to comment.