She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
***Buffs nails***
I wrote this last month.
The Times are reporting that Andy Burnham has shortlisted his Chancellor down to three names, I can see why Wes Streeting is the favourite but I do think the value might be with Shabana Mahmood.
Firstly she’s done a good job as Home Secretary and secondly given the hullabaloo have made over Rachel Reeves being the first female Chancellor, replacing her with a man after. just two years will look bad.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I wouldn't have had Widdecome as the greatest enemy of Antifa/Remain/Labour but what do I know?
I don't like Farage but I have never considered his assassination to be something to cherish. If something happened to him over the next month we would all miss out on the humiliation he is going to suffer debating with a bin.
Allison Pearson is quite possibly more unhinged than Allister Heath.
Fifa to break rules with 30-minute half-time in World Cup final
BBC and ITV to broadcast 11-minute Super Bowl-style show featuring Shakira, Madonna, Justin Bieber, BTS and Coldplay — and still have time to analyse first-half action
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
***Buffs nails***
I wrote this last month.
The Times are reporting that Andy Burnham has shortlisted his Chancellor down to three names, I can see why Wes Streeting is the favourite but I do think the value might be with Shabana Mahmood.
Firstly she’s done a good job as Home Secretary and secondly given the hullabaloo have made over Rachel Reeves being the first female Chancellor, replacing her with a man after. just two years will look bad.
The Franco regime came to an end, but Argentina still remained under the shadow, the Generals war was an attempt to regain popularity, so for a while Argentinian people may not have been so wildly in favour of attempt to take the islands as they may now have come to be today.
The Galtieri regime.
Franco was in Spain 1936-1975.
To be fair to you and others, Foss and Viewcode too, I’ve only recently switched on to how close the two countries were in the Franco era, Argentina increasingly modelling themselves on Francoism.
I invite you to read my post again with an idea with a lot historically merit imo, that long after Spain began its transition to democracy following Franco’s death in 1975, Argentina’s ruling elites rejected that democratic path, remaining heavily anchored to a brutal, authoritarian model reminiscent of the ultra-conservative Francoism.
"Benefits claimants can ignore hosepipe ban MPs criticise ‘two-tier’ restrictions that allow benefits recipients with three children to hose their gardens"
It really pays less and less in this country to work full time, strive and get on.
You use your hosepipe. Get a fine.
The dole bludger down at number 7 can use theirs all day without any comeback.
Nuts but plenty will justify it.
I'll break this down for you. Up until the change in the law recently, benefit claimants with 3 or more children only received money for two. Most will be in debt to card companies, the DWP or the local council - perhaps all three. Fining them would simply add to the financial pressures and most likely the fines wouldn't/couldn't be paid. It would waste court time and money for nothing more that a gesture.
It may offend people and generate the two-tier trope but there is a practicality there.
So basically fine/screw over the people working you know you will be able to get money from for,doing something others can just do at will.
The fines are there to prevent a behaviour they don’t want. In this case using excessive water in the garden. So you’re effectively penalising some water users but allowing others to carry on with no fear of any consequence for a behaviour that is not desirable.
It is two tier and is manifestly unfair on those in the relevant areas.
By your logic we may as well let benefits claimants speed, park without paying for a ticket or do anything they like as the fine would be unlikely to be paid.
So what's the answer then?
There's not much point trying to fine people who don't have money. So then you end up looking at other punishments for non-payment of fines. We could (and do) send people to prison for that, but I'm not sure that's ideal either.
And there's also the flipside to consider. Some people and businesses feel that they can speed, park without paying for a ticket or do anything they like as the fine is a trivial amount of money for them. Again, that's not especially fair, but people on the right have traditionally been robust in saying that life isn't always fair- get over it. Frankly, I'd rather be in the slice of society where paying fines is a meaningful annoyance than the one the powers that be don't try and levy them.
There's a fairly simple solution to not having the necessary liquidity to pay a fine.
Compulsory water meters for all. It’s nuts that I pay for what I use and someone else can pay a fixed amount for unlimited use. You wouldn’t do that for gas or electricity.
Some dwellings can't have meters fitted. I have one, but some of my neighbours want one and can't have one. I believe it's to do with the way the old buildings were converted to flats.
It would appear that the increasingly authoritarian and seemingly desperate Kemi is starting a cull of centrists and one Nation Tories.
Gavin Barwell may be a soft and easy target.
I would suggest that the likes of Ruth Davison, Andy Street and other moderate Tory MP''s and Lords and ex Political figures may be about the expose her folly and to bite back hard!
Internecine warfare in the Tory Party and the exposure of Farage as a frit gutless coward may yet prove Andy of Makerfield has one essence money cannot buy "political luck"...
This is entirely bonkers and reinforces the sentiment that the Tories have not started their journey back to credibility.
Kemi is changing the conservative party to one that will not re-join the EU, wants to open the North Sea and mitigate the worst of climate change costs in energy bills affecting millions of working people and also slow down the damage to the car industry, and will stop the boats by leaving the ECHR if necessary
There is a cohort of conservatives who do not support these policies, and to be fair the Lib Dems most certainly are a better fit but Gavin Barwell was repeatedly warned not to continue to undermine her and he refused hence her action
Now how this plays out time will tell, but her critics do not seem to be able to explain why she has better approval ratings than Burnham, Davey and others whilst leading a party that had it worst defeat in 2024 and has some way to go to recover public trust
Anyway she certainly does seem to rattle quite a few but I would suggest leaving the EU and maintaining that position is probably the biggest factor in her critics
And when Burnham opens the North Sea in the next few months Kemi will most certainly claim it as a victory for common sense
wants to open the North Sea and mitigate the worst of climate change costs in energy bills affecting millions of working people and also slow down the damage to the car industry,
Those aren't the policies Badenoch is forcing people to publicly sign up to or leave the party. Those are trade-offs that reasonable people may have nuanced disagreements about. Badenoch is forcing people to publicly reject any steps that might mitigate climate change, as an absolute principle. I really don't know what she's trying to do.
'Badenoch is forcing people to publicly reject any steps that might mitigate climate change, as an absolute principle'
Maybe you could provide the context and evidence of that
In a further effort to rid her party of Lib Dems in all but name, Badenoch announced that any aspiring Tory MP who does not support scrapping net zero and leaving the ECHR will be barred from the candidate list.
The end goal is barred, not just the means that may or may not get there.
Kemi has a policy on net zero and the ECHR which is not unreasonable and any aspiring conservative candidate will be required to accept the policy
I see nothing wrong with her position
I can understand it upsets Lib Dems though
Understandably upsets anyone who is concerned about the world getting inexorably hotter, which presumably now means “Lib Dems” in the through the looking glass world we’re now living in.
But never mind, that’s not a problem for the average Tory target voter.
Hopefully you're excluding yourself from that number, given that when we spoke of rising sea temperatures caused by removing sulphur from ship fuel, you felt it was better to 'rip the plaster off' than try to repair the damage.
Oh dear. Not only is that a Twitter style invented quote, as you’re increasingly reaching for, but the impact of removing sulphur from ship fuel (which by the way kills tens of thousands of people per year) is, at its maximum estimate, about 3-4 years of the warming done by burning the stuff you love to burn.
The idea we should pollute the air and temporarily hide (for 3 years) the reality of climate change really is thoroughly unserious and childlike, as your post perfectly illustrates. Future civilisations will LOL at the nonsense. But sadly it’s that kind of sentiment that is in charge now. We are living in an unserious time.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
***Buffs nails***
I wrote this last month.
The Times are reporting that Andy Burnham has shortlisted his Chancellor down to three names, I can see why Wes Streeting is the favourite but I do think the value might be with Shabana Mahmood.
Firstly she’s done a good job as Home Secretary and secondly given the hullabaloo have made over Rachel Reeves being the first female Chancellor, replacing her with a man after. just two years will look bad.
"Benefits claimants can ignore hosepipe ban MPs criticise ‘two-tier’ restrictions that allow benefits recipients with three children to hose their gardens"
It really pays less and less in this country to work full time, strive and get on.
You use your hosepipe. Get a fine.
The dole bludger down at number 7 can use theirs all day without any comeback.
Nuts but plenty will justify it.
I'll break this down for you. Up until the change in the law recently, benefit claimants with 3 or more children only received money for two. Most will be in debt to card companies, the DWP or the local council - perhaps all three. Fining them would simply add to the financial pressures and most likely the fines wouldn't/couldn't be paid. It would waste court time and money for nothing more that a gesture.
It may offend people and generate the two-tier trope but there is a practicality there.
So basically fine/screw over the people working you know you will be able to get money from for,doing something others can just do at will.
The fines are there to prevent a behaviour they don’t want. In this case using excessive water in the garden. So you’re effectively penalising some water users but allowing others to carry on with no fear of any consequence for a behaviour that is not desirable.
It is two tier and is manifestly unfair on those in the relevant areas.
By your logic we may as well let benefits claimants speed, park without paying for a ticket or do anything they like as the fine would be unlikely to be paid.
So what's the answer then?
There's not much point trying to fine people who don't have money. So then you end up looking at other punishments for non-payment of fines. We could (and do) send people to prison for that, but I'm not sure that's ideal either.
And there's also the flipside to consider. Some people and businesses feel that they can speed, park without paying for a ticket or do anything they like as the fine is a trivial amount of money for them. Again, that's not especially fair, but people on the right have traditionally been robust in saying that life isn't always fair- get over it. Frankly, I'd rather be in the slice of society where paying fines is a meaningful annoyance than the one the powers that be don't try and levy them.
There's a fairly simple solution to not having the necessary liquidity to pay a fine.
Compulsory water meters for all. It’s nuts that I pay for what I use and someone else can pay a fixed amount for unlimited use. You wouldn’t do that for gas or electricity.
Some dwellings can't have meters fitted. I have one, but some of my neighbours want one and can't have one. I believe it's to do with the way the old buildings were converted to flats.
I live in a basement flat in a listed building. I asked for a meter, thinking it would be refused and I would get the lower fixed tariff you get when that happens, but they put it in happily. Just found a pipe and spliced it in. Tiny little thing. Even through two thick brick walls it is read from the road.
But I have my own supply and my own stopcock. It may be that some flats where water is included in the rent don't have that arrangement.
My bill has gone down from £45 to £25. The people who benfit from no meter are families I would think.
Fifa to break rules with 30-minute half-time in World Cup final
BBC and ITV to broadcast 11-minute Super Bowl-style show featuring Shakira, Madonna, Justin Bieber, BTS and Coldplay — and still have time to analyse first-half action
I don't believe that is so bad. I am waiting for Infantini to present Messi with at least a three goal gratis advantage which gives Milei the World Cup and probably Messi the Golden Boot.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
***Buffs nails***
I wrote this last month.
The Times are reporting that Andy Burnham has shortlisted his Chancellor down to three names, I can see why Wes Streeting is the favourite but I do think the value might be with Shabana Mahmood.
Firstly she’s done a good job as Home Secretary and secondly given the hullabaloo have made over Rachel Reeves being the first female Chancellor, replacing her with a man after. just two years will look bad.
It would appear that the increasingly authoritarian and seemingly desperate Kemi is starting a cull of centrists and one Nation Tories.
Gavin Barwell may be a soft and easy target.
I would suggest that the likes of Ruth Davison, Andy Street and other moderate Tory MP''s and Lords and ex Political figures may be about the expose her folly and to bite back hard!
Internecine warfare in the Tory Party and the exposure of Farage as a frit gutless coward may yet prove Andy of Makerfield has one essence money cannot buy "political luck"...
This is entirely bonkers and reinforces the sentiment that the Tories have not started their journey back to credibility.
Kemi is changing the conservative party to one that will not re-join the EU, wants to open the North Sea and mitigate the worst of climate change costs in energy bills affecting millions of working people and also slow down the damage to the car industry, and will stop the boats by leaving the ECHR if necessary
There is a cohort of conservatives who do not support these policies, and to be fair the Lib Dems most certainly are a better fit but Gavin Barwell was repeatedly warned not to continue to undermine her and he refused hence her action
Now how this plays out time will tell, but her critics do not seem to be able to explain why she has better approval ratings than Burnham, Davey and others whilst leading a party that had it worst defeat in 2024 and has some way to go to recover public trust
Anyway she certainly does seem to rattle quite a few but I would suggest leaving the EU and maintaining that position is probably the biggest factor in her critics
And when Burnham opens the North Sea in the next few months Kemi will most certainly claim it as a victory for common sense
wants to open the North Sea and mitigate the worst of climate change costs in energy bills affecting millions of working people and also slow down the damage to the car industry,
Those aren't the policies Badenoch is forcing people to publicly sign up to or leave the party. Those are trade-offs that reasonable people may have nuanced disagreements about. Badenoch is forcing people to publicly reject any steps that might mitigate climate change, as an absolute principle. I really don't know what she's trying to do.
'Badenoch is forcing people to publicly reject any steps that might mitigate climate change, as an absolute principle'
Maybe you could provide the context and evidence of that
In a further effort to rid her party of Lib Dems in all but name, Badenoch announced that any aspiring Tory MP who does not support scrapping net zero and leaving the ECHR will be barred from the candidate list.
The end goal is barred, not just the means that may or may not get there.
Kemi has a policy on net zero and the ECHR which is not unreasonable and any aspiring conservative candidate will be required to accept the policy
I see nothing wrong with her position
I can understand it upsets Lib Dems though
On net zero, she was part of a government that said the exact opposite.
How many U turns did Starmer do in just 2 years ?
Burnham is not even PM and he’s made several.
He changes his mind about six times each day in the Telegraph.
The Telegraph considers Burnham to be the fourth worst PM in history after Starmer, Brown and Blair.
I am sure that the Reformograph is intimate with Burnham's team so getting all the insights.
It says something for AB's comms strategy of not communicating at this stage.
The Telegraph can say "we predicted this", because they predicted the entire universe of possibilities, whilst AB can say that "you made all these wrong predictions".
It's like a game of Battleships with one side refusing to say whether it was a hit ot not.
"I'm hitting square G6. Is there a ship there?" "No comment."
A Spectator podcast I listened to was slightly annoyed about it.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
Presumably if Mr Miliband isn't appointed CotE he'll revert to his previous position that oil is bad.
The Franco regime came to an end, but Argentina still remained under the shadow, the Generals war was an attempt to regain popularity, so for a while Argentinian people may not have been so wildly in favour of attempt to take the islands as they may now have come to be today.
The Galtieri regime.
Franco was in Spain 1936-1975.
To be fair to you and others, Foss and Viewcode too, I’ve only recently switched on to how close the two countries were in the Franco era, Argentina increasingly modelling themselves on Francoism.
I invite you to read my post again with an idea with a lot historically merit imo, that long after Spain began its transition to democracy following Franco’s death in 1975, Argentina’s ruling elites rejected that democratic path, remaining heavily anchored to a brutal, authoritarian model reminiscent of the ultra-conservative Francoism.
You need to get your basic facts right. Or is it a case of "all Spanish-speaking people look the same to me"?? :shrug:
This is the World Cup final tonight. By far the 2 best teams head to head. Whoever wins really shouldn't find too many problems with whoever the other side of the draw throws up. France are just incredible but it is so hard to score against Spain. This should be great.
I’m currently in the Basque Country. They are wishing plagues on both houses.
'Interesting on perceptions of how left wing Burnham & Starmer are. On 0-10 scale: Average Brit, Labour's voters lost left, right & loyalists all place Burnham at 3 But differ on Starmer. All Brits & Lab right put Starmer also at 3 but Lab left and loyalists put him dead centre'
'Keir Starmer has become the first UK prime minister to be presented with the Légion d’honneur by a French president, in recognition of his work with France on the security of Europe.
Emmanuel Macron awarded the historic honour to Starmer for his leadership in setting up the coalition of the willing – a group of countries chaired by France and the UK that have pledged to support Ukraine – at a critical moment for Europe in early 2025.
The only other British prime minister to receive a similar award – at a higher level, the Grand-Croix of the Légion d’honneur – was Winston Churchill in 1958 in recognition of his leadership and close ties to France during the second world war....'
'Sir Ed Davey this afternoon issued an impassioned plea to Tory wets disillusioned with Kemi Badenoch: come home to the Lib Dems.
The party leader gleefully encouraged the likes of Gavin Barwell to 'come and talk', as Badenoch delivered an ultimatum to her own ranks – back my policies or leave.
At a Westminster press conference convened to announce an official Lib Dem call for a 'new Magna Carta' to save Britain from 'populists and tech tyrants', Sir Ed found time to have a pop at Badenoch, whom he accused of 'turning away lifelong conservatives'.
'@petercardwell Many asked me to find out about Aloysuis, Ann Widdecombe’s beloved rescue cat.
AW’s management tell me: “Aloysuis was removed from the scene very quickly. He is safe, well cared for and Ann’s family will decide a long-term plan. Rest assured he is being his usual bossy self!'
It would appear that the increasingly authoritarian and seemingly desperate Kemi is starting a cull of centrists and one Nation Tories.
Gavin Barwell may be a soft and easy target.
I would suggest that the likes of Ruth Davison, Andy Street and other moderate Tory MP''s and Lords and ex Political figures may be about the expose her folly and to bite back hard!
Internecine warfare in the Tory Party and the exposure of Farage as a frit gutless coward may yet prove Andy of Makerfield has one essence money cannot buy "political luck"...
This is entirely bonkers and reinforces the sentiment that the Tories have not started their journey back to credibility.
Kemi is changing the conservative party to one that will not re-join the EU, wants to open the North Sea and mitigate the worst of climate change costs in energy bills affecting millions of working people and also slow down the damage to the car industry, and will stop the boats by leaving the ECHR if necessary
There is a cohort of conservatives who do not support these policies, and to be fair the Lib Dems most certainly are a better fit but Gavin Barwell was repeatedly warned not to continue to undermine her and he refused hence her action
Now how this plays out time will tell, but her critics do not seem to be able to explain why she has better approval ratings than Burnham, Davey and others whilst leading a party that had it worst defeat in 2024 and has some way to go to recover public trust
Anyway she certainly does seem to rattle quite a few but I would suggest leaving the EU and maintaining that position is probably the biggest factor in her critics
And when Burnham opens the North Sea in the next few months Kemi will most certainly claim it as a victory for common sense
wants to open the North Sea and mitigate the worst of climate change costs in energy bills affecting millions of working people and also slow down the damage to the car industry,
Those aren't the policies Badenoch is forcing people to publicly sign up to or leave the party. Those are trade-offs that reasonable people may have nuanced disagreements about. Badenoch is forcing people to publicly reject any steps that might mitigate climate change, as an absolute principle. I really don't know what she's trying to do.
'Badenoch is forcing people to publicly reject any steps that might mitigate climate change, as an absolute principle'
Maybe you could provide the context and evidence of that
In a further effort to rid her party of Lib Dems in all but name, Badenoch announced that any aspiring Tory MP who does not support scrapping net zero and leaving the ECHR will be barred from the candidate list.
The end goal is barred, not just the means that may or may not get there.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Secondly, Miliband is a key person in Burnham's project. I think he will want Miliband in a senior post. The obvious other position would be Deputy Prime Minister. However I think Burnham would want a woman in either DPM or CoE role so there's a configuration to think about.
The baggage, or pile-on by the media leading to a negative public view of Miliband, is a problem however. Question is how much appetite Burnham has for facing it down. Limited I suspect.
The main thing though is that Burnham is coming into the premiership with very few favours owed to existing cabinet members and he has 400 MPs to choose from. He can make his own team.
The Franco regime came to an end, but Argentina still remained under the shadow, the Generals war was an attempt to regain popularity, so for a while Argentinian people may not have been so wildly in favour of attempt to take the islands as they may now have come to be today.
The Galtieri regime.
Franco was in Spain 1936-1975.
To be fair to you and others, Foss and Viewcode too, I’ve only recently switched on to how close the two countries were in the Franco era, Argentina increasingly modelling themselves on Francoism.
I invite you to read my post again with an idea with a lot historically merit imo, that long after Spain began its transition to democracy following Franco’s death in 1975, Argentina’s ruling elites rejected that democratic path, remaining heavily anchored to a brutal, authoritarian model reminiscent of the ultra-conservative Francoism.
You need to get your basic facts right. Or is it a case of "all Spanish-speaking people look the same to me"?? :shrug:
I didn’t get any basic facts wrong, as I just explained.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
Presumably if Mr Miliband isn't appointed CotE he'll revert to his previous position that oil is bad.
There may well be a postmaster post in Lerwick open for him. Bit of a stretch for his abilities but fair's fair.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified for the role of the front runners. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Secondly, Miliband is a key person in Burnham's project. I think he will want Miliband in a senior post. The obvious other position would be Deputy Prime Minister. However I think Burnham would want a woman in either DPM or CoE role so there's a configuration to think about.
The baggage, or pile-on by the media leading to a negative public view of Miliband, is a problem however. Question is how much appetite Burnham has for facing it down. Limited I suspect.
The main thing though is that Burnham is coming into the premiership with very few favours owed to existing cabinet members and he has 400 MPs to choose from. He can make his own team.
If Ed Miliband is appointed chancellor, that is a clear shift from Burnham to the left relative to Starmer and Reeves. If it is Cooper less so, if Streeting or Mahmood could even be a shift right
Fifa to break rules with 30-minute half-time in World Cup final
BBC and ITV to broadcast 11-minute Super Bowl-style show featuring Shakira, Madonna, Justin Bieber, BTS and Coldplay — and still have time to analyse first-half action
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
Presumably if Mr Miliband isn't appointed CotE he'll revert to his previous position that oil is bad.
There may well be a postmaster post in Lerwick open for him. Bit of a stretch for his abilities but fair's fair.
What ghastly atrocities have the people of Lerwick perpetrated, to deserve such?
I thought both these teams were supposed to be on another level from England. To the untrained eye (definitely me) they don't look wildly better than us.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified for the role of the front runners. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Secondly, Miliband is a key person in Burnham's project. I think he will want Miliband in a senior post. The obvious other position would be Deputy Prime Minister. However I think Burnham would want a woman in either DPM or CoE role so there's a configuration to think about.
The baggage, or pile-on by the media leading to a negative public view of Miliband, is a problem however. Question is how much appetite Burnham has for facing it down. Limited I suspect.
The main thing though is that Burnham is coming into the premiership with very few favours owed to existing cabinet members and he has 400 MPs to choose from. He can make his own team.
If Ed Miliband is appointed chancellor, that is a clear shift from Burnham to the left relative to Starmer and Reeves. If it is Cooper less so, if Streeting or Mahmood could even be a shift right
Are you saying devolution is a left policy and centralisation is a right policy ?
The Franco regime came to an end, but Argentina still remained under the shadow, the Generals war was an attempt to regain popularity, so for a while Argentinian people may not have been so wildly in favour of attempt to take the islands as they may now have come to be today.
The Galtieri regime.
Franco was in Spain 1936-1975.
To be fair to you and others, Foss and Viewcode too, I’ve only recently switched on to how close the two countries were in the Franco era, Argentina increasingly modelling themselves on Francoism.
I invite you to read my post again with an idea with a lot historically merit imo, that long after Spain began its transition to democracy following Franco’s death in 1975, Argentina’s ruling elites rejected that democratic path, remaining heavily anchored to a brutal, authoritarian model reminiscent of the ultra-conservative Francoism.
You need to get your basic facts right. Or is it a case of "all Spanish-speaking people look the same to me"?? :shrug:
I didn’t get any basic facts wrong, as I just explained.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified for the role of the front runners. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Secondly, Miliband is a key person in Burnham's project. I think he will want Miliband in a senior post. The obvious other position would be Deputy Prime Minister. However I think Burnham would want a woman in either DPM or CoE role so there's a configuration to think about.
The baggage, or pile-on by the media leading to a negative public view of Miliband, is a problem however. Question is how much appetite Burnham has for facing it down. Limited I suspect.
The main thing though is that Burnham is coming into the premiership with very few favours owed to existing cabinet members and he has 400 MPs to choose from. He can make his own team.
If Ed Miliband is appointed chancellor, that is a clear shift from Burnham to the left relative to Starmer and Reeves. If it is Cooper less so, if Streeting or Mahmood could even be a shift right
Are you saying devolution is a left policy and centralisation is a right policy ?
Tax and spend is a left policy and Ed Miliband certainly backs that
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Secondly, Miliband is a key person in Burnham's project. I think he will want Miliband in a senior post. The obvious other position would be Deputy Prime Minister. However I think Burnham would want a woman in either DPM or CoE role so there's a configuration to think about.
The baggage, or pile-on by the media leading to a negative public view of Miliband, is a problem however. Question is how much appetite Burnham has for facing it down. Limited I suspect.
The main thing though is that Burnham is coming into the premiership with very few favours owed to existing cabinet members and he has 400 MPs to choose from. He can make his own team.
That would be the 400 who couldn't produce a single candidate for the leadership? Who generated one of the worst cabinets in modern times? Who tolerated Starmer's ineptitude for 2 years? That 400?
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified for the role of the front runners. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Secondly, Miliband is a key person in Burnham's project. I think he will want Miliband in a senior post. The obvious other position would be Deputy Prime Minister. However I think Burnham would want a woman in either DPM or CoE role so there's a configuration to think about.
The baggage, or pile-on by the media leading to a negative public view of Miliband, is a problem however. Question is how much appetite Burnham has for facing it down. Limited I suspect.
The main thing though is that Burnham is coming into the premiership with very few favours owed to existing cabinet members and he has 400 MPs to choose from. He can make his own team.
If Ed Miliband is appointed chancellor, that is a clear shift from Burnham to the left relative to Starmer and Reeves. If it is Cooper less so, if Streeting or Mahmood could even be a shift right
If so I think that's a signal Burnham wants to make. He's presenting himself as a change from Starmer and Reeves.
Not investment advice for Miliband stock however. My main position is no-one knows. I doubt the Times knows either.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified for the role of the front runners. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Secondly, Miliband is a key person in Burnham's project. I think he will want Miliband in a senior post. The obvious other position would be Deputy Prime Minister. However I think Burnham would want a woman in either DPM or CoE role so there's a configuration to think about.
The baggage, or pile-on by the media leading to a negative public view of Miliband, is a problem however. Question is how much appetite Burnham has for facing it down. Limited I suspect.
The main thing though is that Burnham is coming into the premiership with very few favours owed to existing cabinet members and he has 400 MPs to choose from. He can make his own team.
If Ed Miliband is appointed chancellor, that is a clear shift from Burnham to the left relative to Starmer and Reeves. If it is Cooper less so, if Streeting or Mahmood could even be a shift right
Are you saying devolution is a left policy and centralisation is a right policy ?
Tax and spend is a left policy and Ed Miliband certainly backs that
why focus on that and not the devolution which is the primary policy of the new government ?
Maybe the reality is any chancellor is going to do 'more of the same'
The reality is, Milliband will deliver massive devolution that Reeves did not
Maybe it's time you realised your idea of 'left' and 'right' are not relevant to voters in 2026 who Burnham is chasing
I thought both these teams were supposed to be on another level from England. To the untrained eye (definitely me) they don't look wildly better than us.
So far, this is the classic case of a team getting knocked out the moment they come up against a good opponent.
I thought both these teams were supposed to be on another level from England. To the untrained eye (definitely me) they don't look wildly better than us.
Fifa to break rules with 30-minute half-time in World Cup final
BBC and ITV to broadcast 11-minute Super Bowl-style show featuring Shakira, Madonna, Justin Bieber, BTS and Coldplay — and still have time to analyse first-half action
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified for the role of the front runners. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Secondly, Miliband is a key person in Burnham's project. I think he will want Miliband in a senior post. The obvious other position would be Deputy Prime Minister. However I think Burnham would want a woman in either DPM or CoE role so there's a configuration to think about.
The baggage, or pile-on by the media leading to a negative public view of Miliband, is a problem however. Question is how much appetite Burnham has for facing it down. Limited I suspect.
The main thing though is that Burnham is coming into the premiership with very few favours owed to existing cabinet members and he has 400 MPs to choose from. He can make his own team.
If Ed Miliband is appointed chancellor, that is a clear shift from Burnham to the left relative to Starmer and Reeves. If it is Cooper less so, if Streeting or Mahmood could even be a shift right
If so I think that's a signal Burnham wants to make. He's presenting himself as a change from Starmer and Reeves.
Not investment advice for Miliband stock however. My main position is no-one knows. I doubt the Times knows either.
And the big question- that I don't think any of us really knows the answer to- is what that change looks like.
Is it really going to be a radical departure? In that case, the presentation needs to be reassuring.
Or is something like Starmerism roughly the only affordable game in town? If that's so, Burnham needs to present as exciting-new-wow.
To be clear, I don't think any of us know; not really. And whatever the benefits of the recent surgical coup, it does mean that we don't have a clue who the new government are going to be, or what they are going to do. One has to wonder if Andy himself knows.
I thought both these teams were supposed to be on another level from England. To the untrained eye (definitely me) they don't look wildly better than us.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
One promising sign for Burnham, I think. Early days, but so far his regime seems to be leak-proof, unlike Starmer's or most other recent PMs. Nobody really has a clue about personnel or policy except Burnham and his close team, and they're not telling. So the media (and PB) are just guessing. I hope it lasts.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
Is that a comment on Brown, or the Treasury, though ?
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
Average annual growth while Gordon Brown was Chancellor - 2.7%
Average annual growth for the period of Tory chancellors since then - 1.4%
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
Average annual growth while Gordon Brown was Chancellor - 2.7%
Average annual growth for the period of Tory chancellors since then - 1.4%
The numbers don't lie.
All that shows is that he got out before it blew up.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
That was catastrophic but it pales into insignificance with a regulatory structure that literally had no one in charge of the strategic position (whilst having thousands of people checking the forms for consumer credit) resulting in some of the largest banks in the world going insolvent with a lender of last resort in the form of the UK taxpayer. That really could have sunk us.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
Average annual growth while Gordon Brown was Chancellor - 2.7%
Average annual growth for the period of Tory chancellors since then - 1.4%
The numbers don't lie.
All that shows is that he got out before it blew up.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
Average annual growth while Gordon Brown was Chancellor - 2.7%
Average annual growth for the period of Tory chancellors since then - 1.4%
The numbers don't lie.
I note the period you quote carefully leaves out the disastrous time when all Brown's chickens came home to roost in 2007-10. And also, as I said above, how much of his time was spent with the Conservatives' golden economic legacy.
And I hold no torch for the Heir-to-Blair Conservative chancellors that followed him, as opposed to the far better Conservative chancellors that preceded him.
So, yes, in this case, the numbers absolutely do lie, or at least flatter to deceive.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
On a day when the Conservatives have been roasted by Lady Hallet for the criminal dereliction of duty by spaffing up the wall TEN BILLION pounds on USELESS PPE you Tories have some gaul calling out Brown.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
Average annual growth while Gordon Brown was Chancellor - 2.7%
Average annual growth for the period of Tory chancellors since then - 1.4%
The numbers don't lie.
What was the growth for the period Brown was prime minister ?
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
On a day when the Conservatives have been roasted by Lady Hallet for the criminal dereliction of duty by spaffing up the wall TEN BILLION pounds on USELESS PPE you Tories have some gaul calling out Brown.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
Agreed. Brown should be excoriated for PPI but not for the global financial crisis.
One promising sign for Burnham, I think. Early days, but so far his regime seems to be leak-proof, unlike Starmer's or most other recent PMs. Nobody really has a clue about personnel or policy except Burnham and his close team, and they're not telling. So the media (and PB) are just guessing. I hope it lasts.
We shan't know till next week whether these are leaks or just rumours.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
On a day when the Conservatives have been roasted by Lady Hallet for the criminal dereliction of duty by spaffing up the wall TEN BILLION pounds on USELESS PPE you Tories have some gaul calling out Brown.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
Average annual growth while Gordon Brown was Chancellor - 2.7%
Average annual growth for the period of Tory chancellors since then - 1.4%
The numbers don't lie.
What was the growth for the period Brown was prime minister ?
That number doesn't lie.
Oh for goodness sake. We were in the middle of the World Banking crisis.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
On a day when the Conservatives have been roasted by Lady Hallet for the criminal dereliction of duty by spaffing up the wall TEN BILLION pounds on USELESS PPE you Tories have some gaul calling out Brown.
Is that a subconscious reference to the French given the Soccer today ?
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
Agreed. Brown should be excoriated for PPI but not for the global financial crisis.
There is no doubt that the UK would have been hit severely economically by the American financial crisis whatever happened.
But there is also no doubt that our financial sector was appallingly badly regulated by the regime that Brown set up and the crony quangocrats like Lord Turner and Callum McCarthy that he appointed to run it. Northern Rock preceded Lehman Brothers after all.
So Brown did not cause the disaster, but his actions as Chancellor undoubtedly made it much worse.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
On a day when the Conservatives have been roasted by Lady Hallet for the criminal dereliction of duty by spaffing up the wall TEN BILLION pounds on USELESS PPE you Tories have some gaul calling out Brown.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
On a day when the Conservatives have been roasted by Lady Hallet for the criminal dereliction of duty by spaffing up the wall TEN BILLION pounds on USELESS PPE you Tories have some gaul calling out Brown.
Is that a subconscious reference to the French given the Soccer today ?
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
On a day when the Conservatives have been roasted by Lady Hallet for the criminal dereliction of duty by spaffing up the wall TEN BILLION pounds on USELESS PPE you Tories have some gaul calling out Brown.
Gall.
And I'm not a Tory.
I can't even blame it on autocorrect as that would have capitalised the G.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
On a day when the Conservatives have been roasted by Lady Hallet for the criminal dereliction of duty by spaffing up the wall TEN BILLION pounds on USELESS PPE you Tories have some gaul calling out Brown.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
Isn't quite a lot of that due to fall onto the public sector books soon? It would be very fitting if Burnham turns out to be a PM with good ideas, plans for making the economy grow, and then torpedoed by PPI bills from the New Labour government he had a part in.
One promising sign for Burnham, I think. Early days, but so far his regime seems to be leak-proof, unlike Starmer's or most other recent PMs. Nobody really has a clue about personnel or policy except Burnham and his close team, and they're not telling. So the media (and PB) are just guessing. I hope it lasts.
Is that not just a function of it being largely made up of non Westminster bods rather than the usual desperate for media attention MPs?
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
On a day when the Conservatives have been roasted by Lady Hallet for the criminal dereliction of duty by spaffing up the wall TEN BILLION pounds on USELESS PPE you Tories have some gaul calling out Brown.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
Agreed. Brown should be excoriated for PPI but not for the global financial crisis.
Global financial crisis - not Brown's fault. Running a massive defecit in the years leading up to the GFC because he thought he had abilished boom and bust - Brown's fault. Also selling off Britain's gold at a low point for gold - Brown's fault. Also running a toxic political culture with Damian McBride and the like - Brown's fault. Also PPI - Brown's fault (though nuance here - despite it being overall a negative it was an approach that had its merits in some circumstances). But keeping the UK out of the Euro - very much to Brown's credit.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
Agreed. Brown should be excoriated for PPI but not for the global financial crisis.
Global financial crisis - not Brown's fault. Running a massive defecit in the years leading up to the GFC because he thought he had abilished boom and bust - Brown's fault. Also selling off Britain's gold at a low point for gold - Brown's fault. Also running a toxic political culture with Damian McBride and the like - Brown's fault. Also PPI - Brown's fault (though nuance here - despite it being overall a negative it was an approach that had its merits in some circumstances). But keeping the UK out of the Euro - very much to Brown's credit.
I think that you are underestimating the extent to which the global financial crisis had its epicentre in London. RBS were the largest bank in the world at the time. Massively, massively overgeared and very much not alone in that. Clearly, as the brilliant Big Short showed us, the bizarre financial engineering in the US mortgage market played a large part but it would be wrong to underestimate our contribution.
Comments
No prediction but I hope France get through.
I wrote this last month.
The Times are reporting that Andy Burnham has shortlisted his Chancellor down to three names, I can see why Wes Streeting is the favourite but I do think the value might be with Shabana Mahmood.
Firstly she’s done a good job as Home Secretary and secondly given the hullabaloo have made over Rachel Reeves being the first female Chancellor, replacing her with a man after. just two years will look bad.
At 20/1 she’s worth backing in my humble opinion.
https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/06/23/who-will-be-andy-burnhams-chancellor/
I don't like Farage but I have never considered his assassination to be something to cherish. If something happened to him over the next month we would all miss out on the humiliation he is going to suffer debating with a bin.
Allison Pearson is quite possibly more unhinged than Allister Heath.
BBC and ITV to broadcast 11-minute Super Bowl-style show featuring Shakira, Madonna, Justin Bieber, BTS and Coldplay — and still have time to analyse first-half action
https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/world-cup/article/fifa-half-time-show-world-cup-final-madonna-shakira-bts-coldplay-justin-bieber-3zvrnt9l6
But let's not forget Pat McFadden. Ed's gone but he's still rolling.
I invite you to read my post again with an idea with a lot historically merit imo, that long after Spain began its transition to democracy following Franco’s death in 1975, Argentina’s ruling elites rejected that democratic path, remaining heavily anchored to a brutal, authoritarian model reminiscent of the ultra-conservative Francoism.
The idea we should pollute the air and temporarily hide (for 3 years) the reality of climate change really is thoroughly unserious and childlike, as your post perfectly illustrates. Future civilisations will LOL at the nonsense. But sadly it’s that kind of sentiment that is in charge now. We are living in an unserious time.
But I have my own supply and my own stopcock. It may be that some flats where water is included in the rent don't have that arrangement.
My bill has gone down from £45 to £25. The people who benfit from no meter are families I would think.
She is close to Burnham, a good media performer and has a PhD from LSE.
I think Burnham will keep Mahmood and Miliband where they are.
The Telegraph can say "we predicted this", because they predicted the entire universe of possibilities, whilst AB can say that "you made all these wrong predictions".
It's like a game of Battleships with one side refusing to say whether it was a hit ot not.
"I'm hitting square G6. Is there a ship there?"
"No comment."
A Spectator podcast I listened to was slightly annoyed about it.
Average Brit, Labour's voters lost left, right & loyalists all place Burnham at 3
But differ on Starmer. All Brits & Lab right put Starmer also at 3 but Lab left and loyalists put him dead centre'
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2076974511543500859?s=20
Emmanuel Macron awarded the historic honour to Starmer for his leadership in setting up the coalition of the willing – a group of countries chaired by France and the UK that have pledged to support Ukraine – at a critical moment for Europe in early 2025.
The only other British prime minister to receive a similar award – at a higher level, the Grand-Croix of the Légion d’honneur – was Winston Churchill in 1958 in recognition of his leadership and close ties to France during the second world war....'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/14/keir-starmer-legion-dhonneur-france-macron
The party leader gleefully encouraged the likes of Gavin Barwell to 'come and talk', as Badenoch delivered an ultimatum to her own ranks – back my policies or leave.
At a Westminster press conference convened to announce an official Lib Dem call for a 'new Magna Carta' to save Britain from 'populists and tech tyrants', Sir Ed found time to have a pop at Badenoch, whom he accused of 'turning away lifelong conservatives'.
https://x.com/spectator/status/2077063079901233491?s=20
Many asked me to find out about Aloysuis, Ann Widdecombe’s beloved rescue cat.
AW’s management tell me: “Aloysuis was removed from the scene very quickly. He is safe, well cared for and Ann’s family will decide a long-term plan. Rest assured he is being his usual bossy self!'
https://x.com/petercardwell/status/2077051625240207636?s=20
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Secondly, Miliband is a key person in Burnham's project. I think he will want Miliband in a senior post. The obvious other position would be Deputy Prime Minister. However I think Burnham would want a woman in either DPM or CoE role so there's a configuration to think about.
The baggage, or pile-on by the media leading to a negative public view of Miliband, is a problem however. Question is how much appetite Burnham has for facing it down. Limited I suspect.
The main thing though is that Burnham is coming into the premiership with very few favours owed to existing cabinet members and he has 400 MPs to choose from. He can make his own team.
@ElectCalculus
MRP earlier this month
Leans more urban than Reform and certainly the Tories
Reminiscent of the BNP's electoral geography in 2010 — so... probably not great for seat prospects outside of Great Yarmouth'
https://x.com/JoshHousden/status/2076680764079386794?s=20
To the untrained eye (definitely me) they don't look wildly better than us.
LMA: "But you don't drink, Sunil."
Sunil: "Oh, yeah!"
Not investment advice for Miliband stock however. My main position is no-one knows. I doubt the Times knows either.
Maybe the reality is any chancellor is going to do 'more of the same'
The reality is, Milliband will deliver massive devolution that Reeves did not
Maybe it's time you realised your idea of 'left' and 'right' are not relevant to voters in 2026 who Burnham is chasing
They cannot lose on this day can they ?
Apparently they're using a consumer-grade TV.
Is it really going to be a radical departure? In that case, the presentation needs to be reassuring.
Or is something like Starmerism roughly the only affordable game in town? If that's so, Burnham needs to present as exciting-new-wow.
To be clear, I don't think any of us know; not really. And whatever the benefits of the recent surgical coup, it does mean that we don't have a clue who the new government are going to be, or what they are going to do. One has to wonder if Andy himself knows.
He's got a few more days to decide.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
Let's see if that changes. It has to for France - or they are playing Saturday in the third place Game No-One Wants To Play.....
But we've seen them be shocking for 60 minutes and 2-0 down - and still come through.
Average annual growth for the period of Tory chancellors since then - 1.4%
The numbers don't lie.
And I hold no torch for the Heir-to-Blair Conservative chancellors that followed him, as opposed to the far better Conservative chancellors that preceded him.
So, yes, in this case, the numbers absolutely do lie, or at least flatter to deceive.
That number doesn't lie.
And I'm not a Tory.
Beatiful one touch passing.
https://www.ft.com/content/e2addd88-4361-43f1-94e2-9f0a808dd6a9
Whoops offside
Vous rentrez chez vous!
But France look rattled!
But there is also no doubt that our financial sector was appallingly badly regulated by the regime that Brown set up and the crony quangocrats like Lord Turner and Callum McCarthy that he appointed to run it. Northern Rock preceded Lehman Brothers after all.
So Brown did not cause the disaster, but his actions as Chancellor undoubtedly made it much worse.
Wow wow wow. French defense collapses
https://x.com/jacobkornbluh/status/2077126494300598442
https://x.com/paddypower/status/2077127877078794259
Running a massive defecit in the years leading up to the GFC because he thought he had abilished boom and bust - Brown's fault.
Also selling off Britain's gold at a low point for gold - Brown's fault.
Also running a toxic political culture with Damian McBride and the like - Brown's fault.
Also PPI - Brown's fault (though nuance here - despite it being overall a negative it was an approach that had its merits in some circumstances).
But keeping the UK out of the Euro - very much to Brown's credit.
https://x.com/KHarveyProctor/status/2077019409042866368
autodidactautocorrect