So it looks like Reform will accuse anyone who criticises them of inciting violence against the party .
I thought they supported free speech !
I agree in general though would probably make an exception for the threat to shoot someone in the face. That does rather step over a line.
The question is whether arresting such people is new post-Widdecombe policy or whether similar outbursts would have lead to arrest in the past. Call me a cynic...
A thought WRT people in public life getting huge numbers of threats to kill, maim, rape etc and this being a routine aspect of their lives. Obvs social media has turned private and outrageous conversations, unknowable beyond the group in the pub, into planet wide distribution and a small number of mad, histrionic and bad people are having disproportionate effect.
What to do?
Nearly all the bad stuff is in fact a crime; incitement, threats, hate crime etc. nearly all of it goes uninvestigated and unpunished. it seems to me that we have a choice in society. Either accept that this will continue, and a tiny % of the population cause mayhem while some especially women MPs live in fear and threat; or develop of culture of massive and well publicised criminal law enforcement of thousands of cases which drives it into unacceptability. A parallel: drink driving.
I agree generally, but the analogy is inexact (aren't they all?). Drink driving is a real risk: if I do it 10000 times, I'm bound to hurt myself or someone else. Or there is a large possibility. If I threaten to kill politicians 10000 times, but never mean it, the risk to life is zero.
(One threat each, from 10000 different people is, of course, a different matter.)
You don't need to follow through on the threat for it to be harmful. It's incredibly corrosive for public life for people to face constant torrents of abuse. How are they to know that a particular person's threats aren't serious? Good people are being forced out of politics or deterred from ever throwing their hats in the ring by this crap. We have become far too tolerant of this IMHO. And once again, the problem is social media. When is someone going to do something about these vile companies profiting from coarsening our societies, harming our young people and providing tools for our enemies to attack us with?
I'm a supporter of Israel, and not left wing enough to support Labour, but I think their actions have warranted sanctions like this or stronger at this point. Even if not as severe as we'd apply to say Russia.
Israel has decided its approach to foreign relations is "everybody hates us and we don't care, we'll do it anyway". Which is fine, but policy choices can have consequences.
For what it's worth, I'm happy to apply similar sanctions to relevant regions of South Sudan etc etc.
So it looks like Reform will accuse anyone who criticises them of inciting violence against the party .
I thought they supported free speech !
I agree in general though would probably make an exception for the threat to shoot someone in the face. That does rather step over a line.
The question is whether arresting such people is new post-Widdecombe policy or whether similar outbursts would have lead to arrest in the past. Call me a cynic...
A thought WRT people in public life getting huge numbers of threats to kill, maim, rape etc and this being a routine aspect of their lives. Obvs social media has turned private and outrageous conversations, unknowable beyond the group in the pub, into planet wide distribution and a small number of mad, histrionic and bad people are having disproportionate effect.
What to do?
Nearly all the bad stuff is in fact a crime; incitement, threats, hate crime etc. nearly all of it goes uninvestigated and unpunished. it seems to me that we have a choice in society. Either accept that this will continue, and a tiny % of the population cause mayhem while some especially women MPs live in fear and threat; or develop of culture of massive and well publicised criminal law enforcement of thousands of cases which drives it into unacceptability. A parallel: drink driving.
I agree generally, but the analogy is inexact (aren't they all?). Drink driving is a real risk: if I do it 10000 times, I'm bound to hurt myself or someone else. Or there is a large possibility. If I threaten to kill politicians 10000 times, but never mean it, the risk to life is zero.
(One threat each, from 10000 different people is, of course, a different matter.)
You don't need to follow through on the threat for it to be harmful. It's incredibly corrosive for public life for people to face constant torrents of abuse. How are they to know that a particular person's threats aren't serious? Good people are being forced out of politics or deterred from ever throwing their hats in the ring by this crap. We have become far too tolerant of this IMHO. And once again, the problem is social media. When is someone going to do something about these vile companies profiting from coarsening our societies, harming our young people and providing tools for our enemies to attack us with?
Social media companies have culpability for algorithmic shenannigans, but let's not let the individuals off the hook. We need to learn that saying "I'd love to shoot politician X" on social media is different from saying it in the pub, which is different from saying it in a private home.
(Though being racist in a private home is now illegal in Scotland, as I understand it.)
You don't need to follow through on the threat for it to be harmful. It's incredibly corrosive for public life for people to face constant torrents of abuse. How are they to know that a particular person's threats aren't serious? Good people are being forced out of politics or deterred from ever throwing their hats in the ring by this crap. We have become far too tolerant of this IMHO. And once again, the problem is social media. When is someone going to do something about these vile companies profiting from coarsening our societies, harming our young people and providing tools for our enemies to attack us with?
Totally agree with all of that. One of the problems is social media has just made it so easy for pillocks to hand out abuse and make threats - it take virtually no effort. Before all this, the favoured method was 'poison pen' letters, but few people could be bothered putting pen to paper, so receiving threats by mail was relatively rare and easier to resolve.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
RR was the first female Chancellor and it was made a big deal of. All the more so, I sense, because of the ongoing absence of a female Labour leader.
I think it's possible that this would play into the thinking on the replacement. Context being Reeves has only done two years and the new leader is yet again male.
It would, on this basis, devolve into a Mahmood v Cooper choice. And Mahmood is the sharper tougher politician of those two.
Aftertime wisdom from me here though. I backed Pat McFadden.
Not sure about the gender dynamics it just feels like the first true tell of the Burnham years. When he has to decide he'll lean rightward and from COE everything else follows. No borrowing beyond self contained rules, no national house building, limited industrial investment most likely for defence, no nationalisation of water. Seems we'll be getting Starmer mk2: a little shiner and more personable,
Expected England XI: Pickford; James, Stones, Guehi, Spence; Rice, Anderson; Rogers, Bellingham, Gordon; Kane
Brave decision at left back as Spence not exactly looked solid in defence. And Konsa unlucky not to go back to centre back. Spence does seem to be to Tuchel, what Kalvin Philips was to Southgate.
Completely off topic, but on Monday night my wife and I had dinner with friends in Soho just a hundred yards or so from Ronnie Scott's at Osteria Vibrato.
It was a fun evening, with great food, made all the more memorable by the fact that Nigella Lawson was at the next door table. For 66, she looks absolute fabulous. And it's fair to say she was having a marvelous (and very loud) time.
You may have had a fun evening. Your wife had an annoying evening, watching you gawp at Nigella for two hours.
I'm looking forward to Great British Innuendo Bake Off this autumn. Nigella + Paul Hollywood is going to be hilarious.
Completely off topic, but on Monday night my wife and I had dinner with friends in Soho just a hundred yards or so from Ronnie Scott's at Osteria Vibrato.
It was a fun evening, with great food, made all the more memorable by the fact that Nigella Lawson was at the next door table. For 66, she looks absolute fabulous. And it's fair to say she was having a marvelous (and very loud) time.
You may have had a fun evening. Your wife had an annoying evening, watching you gawp at Nigella for two hours.
I'm looking forward to Great British Innuendo Bake Off this autumn. Nigella + Paul Hollywood is going to be hilarious.
Completely off topic, but on Monday night my wife and I had dinner with friends in Soho just a hundred yards or so from Ronnie Scott's at Osteria Vibrato.
It was a fun evening, with great food, made all the more memorable by the fact that Nigella Lawson was at the next door table. For 66, she looks absolute fabulous. And it's fair to say she was having a marvelous (and very loud) time.
You may have had a fun evening. Your wife had an annoying evening, watching you gawp at Nigella for two hours.
I'm looking forward to Great British Innuendo Bake Off this autumn. Nigella + Paul Hollywood is going to be hilarious.
There is a special place in hell for journalists who leak the England team.
The last World Cup, the Athletic had the starting line up many many hours before the kick off. But I am sure Argentina are very happy to know that its Rogers in for Saka a couple of horus before kick off.
Do you think they will change anything because of it? I’d expect most top 4 in the worl sides to back themselves.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
RR was the first female Chancellor and it was made a big deal of. All the more so, I sense, because of the ongoing absence of a female Labour leader.
I think it's possible that this would play into the thinking on the replacement. Context being Reeves has only done two years and the new leader is yet again male.
It would, on this basis, devolve into a Mahmood v Cooper choice. And Mahmood is the sharper tougher politician of those two.
Aftertime wisdom from me here though. I backed Pat McFadden.
Not sure about the gender dynamics it just feels like the first true tell of the Burnham years. When he has to decide he'll lean rightward and from COE everything else follows. No borrowing beyond self contained rules, no national house building, limited industrial investment most likely for defence, no nationalisation of water. Seems we'll be getting Starmer mk2: a little shiner and more personable,
Hardly surprising given the hand he has to play with, two wasted years and a general election which is now looming (well it's still 2.5 years away but you can't do that much in 2.5 years).
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
RR was the first female Chancellor and it was made a big deal of. All the more so, I sense, because of the ongoing absence of a female Labour leader.
I think it's possible that this would play into the thinking on the replacement. Context being Reeves has only done two years and the new leader is yet again male.
It would, on this basis, devolve into a Mahmood v Cooper choice. And Mahmood is the sharper tougher politician of those two.
Aftertime wisdom from me here though. I backed Pat McFadden.
Not sure about the gender dynamics it just feels like the first true tell of the Burnham years. When he has to decide he'll lean rightward and from COE everything else follows. No borrowing beyond self contained rules, no national house building, limited industrial investment most likely for defence, no nationalisation of water. Seems we'll be getting Starmer mk2: a little shiner and more personable,
Touch too early, I think. Hope there's more of a difference than that. But the change was in the main made because of 'persona' so there's a certain logic there.
Completely off topic, but on Monday night my wife and I had dinner with friends in Soho just a hundred yards or so from Ronnie Scott's at Osteria Vibrato.
It was a fun evening, with great food, made all the more memorable by the fact that Nigella Lawson was at the next door table. For 66, she looks absolute fabulous. And it's fair to say she was having a marvelous (and very loud) time.
You may have had a fun evening. Your wife had an annoying evening, watching you gawp at Nigella for two hours.
I'm looking forward to Great British Innuendo Bake Off this autumn. Nigella + Paul Hollywood is going to be hilarious.
I think this thread has taken a turn for the Wurst
Had Starmer been what now appears to be himself since he became Prime Minister, he’d probably be looking forward to another term
The stick seems to have been removed from his arse
I doubt that is the case - political leaders often seem more relaxed and likeable once they know the end of their career has come. Maybe they could have been bolder, more human, during their leadership and done better, but if it were so simple they'd have done it. It's only because they failed they can act differently.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
RR was the first female Chancellor and it was made a big deal of. All the more so, I sense, because of the ongoing absence of a female Labour leader.
I think it's possible that this would play into the thinking on the replacement. Context being Reeves has only done two years and the new leader is yet again male.
It would, on this basis, devolve into a Mahmood v Cooper choice. And Mahmood is the sharper tougher politician of those two.
Aftertime wisdom from me here though. I backed Pat McFadden.
Not sure about the gender dynamics it just feels like the first true tell of the Burnham years. When he has to decide he'll lean rightward and from COE everything else follows. No borrowing beyond self contained rules, no national house building, limited industrial investment most likely for defence, no nationalisation of water. Seems we'll be getting Starmer mk2: a little shiner and more personable,
Touch too early, I think. Hope there's more of a difference than that. But the change was in the main made because of 'persona' so there's a certain logic there.
Then wat was the point of wasting 6 months on this?
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
RR was the first female Chancellor and it was made a big deal of. All the more so, I sense, because of the ongoing absence of a female Labour leader.
I think it's possible that this would play into the thinking on the replacement. Context being Reeves has only done two years and the new leader is yet again male.
It would, on this basis, devolve into a Mahmood v Cooper choice. And Mahmood is the sharper tougher politician of those two.
Aftertime wisdom from me here though. I backed Pat McFadden.
Cooper is a very longstanding friend of Andy Burnham.
Is she going back to Home Sec then?
(if Mahmood is CoE and Ed is Foreign - which is where the betting has strongly gone)
Maybe best to just wait, I suppose. Not long now.
Or, if she has not been well, First Secretary of State/Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House?
Deputy PM is also a piece of the jigsaw.
There are too many pieces to fit in the box at present. Someone is going to be very unhappy.
(I have zero sources, and this is a guess, but I think the unhappy bunnies will be EdM and Haig.)
There is a special place in hell for journalists who leak the England team.
The last World Cup, the Athletic had the starting line up many many hours before the kick off. But I am sure Argentina are very happy to know that its Rogers in for Saka a couple of horus before kick off.
Do you think they will change anything because of it? I’d expect most top 4 in the worl sides to back themselves.
No team just rocks up saying we are the best, we back ourselves. It isn't there would necessarily a big change, but certainly they consider how the tactics will subtly adjust depending on who is on the pitch. The level of planning that goes into matches now is incredible. Each player now gets given detailed individualised footage with analysis of the player they will be up against which they study on their ipads. Rogers hasn't played much and certainly not wide. The Argies will have mostly been preppring for facing Saka or Madueke down the right wing.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
RR was the first female Chancellor and it was made a big deal of. All the more so, I sense, because of the ongoing absence of a female Labour leader.
I think it's possible that this would play into the thinking on the replacement. Context being Reeves has only done two years and the new leader is yet again male.
It would, on this basis, devolve into a Mahmood v Cooper choice. And Mahmood is the sharper tougher politician of those two.
Aftertime wisdom from me here though. I backed Pat McFadden.
Not sure about the gender dynamics it just feels like the first true tell of the Burnham years. When he has to decide he'll lean rightward and from COE everything else follows. No borrowing beyond self contained rules, no national house building, limited industrial investment most likely for defence, no nationalisation of water. Seems we'll be getting Starmer mk2: a little shiner and more personable,
Touch too early, I think. Hope there's more of a difference than that. But the change was in the main made because of 'persona' so there's a certain logic there.
Then wat was the point of wasting 6 months on this?
How did America lose its mind like this? Previous presidents will be spinning in their graves at the madness of it all.
Just not a serious country anymore.
Tim Miller @Timodc This is an absurd person to nominate to run DNI anyone who voted to confirm him cares absolutely zero about our national security and does not deserve the responsibility of being a US senator
There is a special place in hell for journalists who leak the England team.
The last World Cup, the Athletic had the starting line up many many hours before the kick off. But I am sure Argentina are very happy to know that its Rogers in for Saka a couple of horus before kick off.
Do you think they will change anything because of it? I’d expect most top 4 in the worl sides to back themselves.
No team just rocks up saying we are the best, we back ourselves. It isn't there would necessarily a big change, but certainly they consider how the tactics will subtly adjust depending on who is on the pitch. The level of planning that goes into matches now is incredible. Each player now gets given detailed individualised footage with analysis of the player they will be up against which they study on their ipads. Rogers hasn't played much and certainly not wide. The Argies will have mostly been preppring for facing Saka or Madueke down the right wing.
So it’s more that the surprise is gone? When is the latest it would have had to be announced?
There is a special place in hell for journalists who leak the England team.
The last World Cup, the Athletic had the starting line up many many hours before the kick off. But I am sure Argentina are very happy to know that its Rogers in for Saka a couple of horus before kick off.
Do you think they will change anything because of it? I’d expect most top 4 in the worl sides to back themselves.
No team just rocks up saying we are the best, we back ourselves. It isn't there would necessarily a big change, but certainly they consider how the tactics will subtly adjust depending on who is on the pitch. The level of planning that goes into matches now is incredible. Each player now gets given detailed individualised footage with analysis of the player they will be up against which they study on their ipads. Rogers hasn't played much and certainly not wide. The Argies will have mostly been preppring for facing Saka or Madueke down the right wing.
So it’s more that the surprise is gone? When is the latest it would have had to be announced?
I think the put the teams in somewhere about an hour before kickoff. So there is never a total surprise. But its quite different from you spent the day before watching footage of the 1-2 players you think you will face, and the manager will keep drilling for and against certain players tendencies.
That was the really bad thing about the leaks from the Athletic, it was often many many hours before kickoff. Plenty of time for opposition to see this and make calm adjustments to the plan. Rather than if you get the team news 1hr before, it is much more of a rush, particularly if it is a left field pick like Rogers who wouldn't have been down as playing right wing.
I'm still wondering if Farage is actually going to hand his nomination papers in...
It's been more embarrassing then they planned (else they would not be as furious about it as they have been), but they still have a clear message of having the public endorse Farage so they can claim any allegations about him in future are meaningless. So at this point they have to stick with that, since if he pulls out they'll still dismiss any allegations (media ones, rather than Parliamentary), but not have the 'the public don't care about this' argument to fall back on.
As we've seen, plenty of people are swallowing that line eagerly.
How did America lose its mind like this? Previous presidents will be spinning in their graves at the madness of it all.
Just not a serious country anymore.
Tim Miller @Timodc This is an absurd person to nominate to run DNI anyone who voted to confirm him cares absolutely zero about our national security and does not deserve the responsibility of being a US senator
Don't know about this dude, but since almost all GOP supporters are hardcore MAGA, whose love of Trump is not feigned, they really should be able to find quality candidates even within the MAGA world.
How did America lose its mind like this? Previous presidents will be spinning in their graves at the madness of it all.
Just not a serious country anymore.
Tim Miller @Timodc This is an absurd person to nominate to run DNI anyone who voted to confirm him cares absolutely zero about our national security and does not deserve the responsibility of being a US senator
Don't know about this dude, but since almost all GOP supporters are hardcore MAGA, whose love of Trump is not feigned, they really should be able to find quality candidates even within the MAGA world.
I'm still wondering if Farage is actually going to hand his nomination papers in...
It's been more embarrassing then they planned (else they would not be as furious about it as they have been), but they still have a clear message of having the public endorse Farage so they can claim any allegations about him in future are meaningless. So at this point they have to stick with that, since if he pulls out they'll still dismiss any allegations (media ones, rather than Parliamentary), but not have the 'the public don't care about this' argument to fall back on.
As we've seen, plenty of people are swallowing that line eagerly.
They’re lucky there’s the World Cup going on and other things of interest because the whole thing is a complete and utter shambles
I believe Reform are on the side of the establishment and not ordinary people. The evidence is compelling.
Do you know why Farage isn't part of the establishment? Because he didn't go to university.
So presumably the Establishment does include Matt Goodwin (obv), Richard Tice, Sarah Pochin, Danny Kruger, Robert Jenrick, Suella Braverman, and Zia Yusuf.
Not Yusuf, Tice and Pochin and Goodwin as they didn't go to Oxbridge, for top rank mandarins there are only 2 universities as Sir Humphrey said
New: After being accused of avoiding press scrutiny Andy Burnham has sat down for an eve of premiership interview with… Gary Lineker
After he was asked by Lineker about new wealth taxes Burnham said he wouldn’t rule it out but that it’s a decision “for another day”:
“I’m going to obviously take my time to properly look at the state of things, particularly the state of finances. And I just said a moment ago, Gary, about bringing people together. You know, I don’t want to come in and sort of, if you like, create new divisions and pitch people one against another.
“I’m not going rule things out right now. I do believe we need a greater sense of fairness and people feeling that things are being done in the right way and a fair way. But at the same time, you know, I don’t want to sort of be perceived as somebody who’s coming in with grudges and agendas and, you know, going to just immediately find or demonise one group or create a new way of dividing people.
“So, you know, decisions to be taken in time, they’re going to be difficult. I’m not going to shy away from that. You know, we are going to have to work quite hard to make sure, you know, we can pay our way.
“And at some point that might be having to ask for a little more. But, you know, those decisions are not for now. They’re for another day.”
The whole 19 minute interview for those without TwiX is:-
Gary Lineker sits down with Britain’s next Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, ahead of England’s World Cup semi-final against Argentina.
They discuss Everton, Mexico ’86, England’s chances of lifting the trophy, the Hillsborough Law, the cost of living and dealing with Donald Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qiiks0NAk
I believe Reform are on the side of the establishment and not ordinary people. The evidence is compelling.
Do you know why Farage isn't part of the establishment? Because he didn't go to university.
So presumably the Establishment does include Matt Goodwin (obv), Richard Tice, Sarah Pochin, Danny Kruger, Robert Jenrick, Suella Braverman, and Zia Yusuf.
Not Yusuf, Tice and Pochin and Goodwin as they didn't go to Oxbridge, for top rank mandarins there are only 2 universities as Sir Humphrey said
Had Starmer been what now appears to be himself since he became Prime Minister, he’d probably be looking forward to another term
The stick seems to have been removed from his arse
His problem was not the warmth of his personality or the lack therof. It was the fact that he was not competent at the job. Given the importance of the job this was not tolerable. He should have had that insight sooner and resigned on his own terms, but he dragged it out until he was forced out on somebody else's terms. He will shortly cease to be PM and that is right and proper.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
If it's Mahmood Ed M will be furious with himself for not running, 99% certain Mahmood will thwart net zero policies. Labour MPs looking like they've comprehensively shat the bed then turned over face down in it with Burnham coronation.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
If it's Mahmood Ed M will be furious with himself for not running, 99% certain Mahmood will thwart net zero policies. Labour MPs looking like they've comprehensively shat the bed then turned over face down in it with Burnham coronation.
It'll be funnier still if David Mili gets the FS gig. We never liked you Ed!
Lovely final exchange between Starmer and Kemi and great credit to both of them
I thought it drivel and turned it off. It’s drivel because it’s wholly false in how they think and feel about each other. We were being fed a charade - nothing real.
Meanwhile, Burnham’s destruction of Labour as election winning force begins…
There was a moment of genuine warmth between them and most appropriate for the occassion
Indeed if Starmer had shown more of that he would still be PM and the only weird part of it all was his ovation from all those behind him who defenestrated him
“only weird part of it all was his ovation from all those behind him who defenestrated him”
That only proves my point, how utterly performative all this was!
You have to be a Thermian not to recognise acting and lies.
If Shabana Mahmood is chancellor it’ll end in tears…quickly. Through no fault of her own she’s given little thought to economic policy and yet likes to make a splash as a minister. There will be no rapport with Andy Burnham. The media and market will approve..until they turn.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
If it's Mahmood Ed M will be furious with himself for not running, 99% certain Mahmood will thwart net zero policies. Labour MPs looking like they've comprehensively shat the bed then turned over face down in it with Burnham coronation.
It'll be funnier still if David Mili gets the FS gig. We never liked you Ed!
Lovely final exchange between Starmer and Kemi and great credit to both of them
I thought it drivel and turned it off. It’s drivel because it’s wholly false in how they think and feel about each other. We were being fed a charade - nothing real.
Meanwhile, Burnham’s destruction of Labour as election winning force begins…
There was a moment of genuine warmth between them and most appropriate for the occassion
Indeed if Starmer had shown more of that he would still be PM and the only weird part of it all was his ovation from all those behind him who defenestrated him
“only weird part of it all was his ovation from all those behind him who defenestrated him”
That only proves my point, how utterly performative all this was!
You have to be a Thermian not to recognise acting and lies.
Absolute nonsense young carrot hopper. There is, and always has been, a degree of respect in the Kemi/Starmer relationship.
If Shabana Mahmood is chancellor it’ll end in tears…quickly. Through no fault of her own she’s given little thought to economic policy and yet likes to make a splash as a minister. There will be no rapport with Andy Burnham. The media and market will approve..until they turn.
New: After being accused of avoiding press scrutiny Andy Burnham has sat down for an eve of premiership interview with… Gary Lineker
After he was asked by Lineker about new wealth taxes Burnham said he wouldn’t rule it out but that it’s a decision “for another day”:
“I’m going to obviously take my time to properly look at the state of things, particularly the state of finances. And I just said a moment ago, Gary, about bringing people together. You know, I don’t want to come in and sort of, if you like, create new divisions and pitch people one against another.
“I’m not going rule things out right now. I do believe we need a greater sense of fairness and people feeling that things are being done in the right way and a fair way. But at the same time, you know, I don’t want to sort of be perceived as somebody who’s coming in with grudges and agendas and, you know, going to just immediately find or demonise one group or create a new way of dividing people.
“So, you know, decisions to be taken in time, they’re going to be difficult. I’m not going to shy away from that. You know, we are going to have to work quite hard to make sure, you know, we can pay our way.
“And at some point that might be having to ask for a little more. But, you know, those decisions are not for now. They’re for another day.”
The whole 19 minute interview for those without TwiX is:-
Gary Lineker sits down with Britain’s next Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, ahead of England’s World Cup semi-final against Argentina.
They discuss Everton, Mexico ’86, England’s chances of lifting the trophy, the Hillsborough Law, the cost of living and dealing with Donald Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qiiks0NAk
Burnham absolutely deserved the credit for the Hillsborough inquiry, after the whole Anfield stadium booed him at the memorial service when he was the sports minister.
But the idea that the guy who will be PM next week, hasn’t done an in-depth interview with any serious politics journalist at all, is pretty disgraceful.
Louise Haigh, Andy Burnham’s top aide, advised him not to appoint Ed Miliband as chancellor, according to five people familiar with conversations in Burnham’s team.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
If it's Mahmood Ed M will be furious with himself for not running, 99% certain Mahmood will thwart net zero policies. Labour MPs looking like they've comprehensively shat the bed then turned over face down in it with Burnham coronation.
It'll be funnier still if David Mili gets the FS gig. We never liked you Ed!
The clever plan, and the other upside to, is moving Yvette so Keir can slot in as FS
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
If it's Mahmood Ed M will be furious with himself for not running, 99% certain Mahmood will thwart net zero policies. Labour MPs looking like they've comprehensively shat the bed then turned over face down in it with Burnham coronation.
It'll be funnier still if David Mili gets the FS gig. We never liked you Ed!
Ed Miliband - Paymaster General.
Governor of South Georgia surely.
(EdM is very high on the list of pernicious friends that Burnham might have. Foreign office works very well in that way. But Ed wanted more, and is now history)
"@Johnmcternan says “it would be insane” not to appoint Miliband as chancellor. “Do you want to run the treasury or do you want the treasury to run you? The choice is Ed Miliband or the treasury view.” "
"@Johnmcternan says “it would be insane” not to appoint Miliband as chancellor. “Do you want to run the treasury or do you want the treasury to run you? The choice is Ed Miliband or the treasury view.” "
There is a special place in hell for journalists who leak the England team.
The last World Cup, the Athletic had the starting line up many many hours before the kick off. But I am sure Argentina are very happy to know that its Rogers in for Saka a couple of horus before kick off.
Do you think they will change anything because of it? I’d expect most top 4 in the worl sides to back themselves.
No team just rocks up saying we are the best, we back ourselves. It isn't there would necessarily a big change, but certainly they consider how the tactics will subtly adjust depending on who is on the pitch. The level of planning that goes into matches now is incredible. Each player now gets given detailed individualised footage with analysis of the player they will be up against which they study on their ipads. Rogers hasn't played much and certainly not wide. The Argies will have mostly been preppring for facing Saka or Madueke down the right wing.
"No team just rocks up saying we are the best, we back ourselves."
So it looks like Reform will accuse anyone who criticises them of inciting violence against the party .
I thought they supported free speech !
I agree in general though would probably make an exception for the threat to shoot someone in the face. That does rather step over a line.
The question is whether arresting such people is new post-Widdecombe policy or whether similar outbursts would have lead to arrest in the past. Call me a cynic...
A thought WRT people in public life getting huge numbers of threats to kill, maim, rape etc and this being a routine aspect of their lives. Obvs social media has turned private and outrageous conversations, unknowable beyond the group in the pub, into planet wide distribution and a small number of mad, histrionic and bad people are having disproportionate effect.
What to do?
Nearly all the bad stuff is in fact a crime; incitement, threats, hate crime etc. nearly all of it goes uninvestigated and unpunished. it seems to me that we have a choice in society. Either accept that this will continue, and a tiny % of the population cause mayhem while some especially women MPs live in fear and threat; or develop of culture of massive and well publicised criminal law enforcement of thousands of cases which drives it into unacceptability. A parallel: drink driving.
There is a middle path of the social media companies doing more to stop such posts.
Yes. That may be true. And it is my view that most social media outfits should be regarded as publishers and should be both civilly and criminally liable for what they make lots of money out of and is regarded as publishing if anyone else does it.
But I don't think that is going to happen. Government is too scared of American commercial interest.
So I think your suggestion is like asking major illegal drug importers to please stop importing drugs as it is doing harm.
Zelensky has fired the defence minister Fedorov. I think this is probably a big mistake, and isn't a good symptom for how well Zelensky is running things. Fedorov seems to be a smart young guy making good reforms. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for making this change.
New: After being accused of avoiding press scrutiny Andy Burnham has sat down for an eve of premiership interview with… Gary Lineker
After he was asked by Lineker about new wealth taxes Burnham said he wouldn’t rule it out but that it’s a decision “for another day”:
“I’m going to obviously take my time to properly look at the state of things, particularly the state of finances. And I just said a moment ago, Gary, about bringing people together. You know, I don’t want to come in and sort of, if you like, create new divisions and pitch people one against another.
“I’m not going rule things out right now. I do believe we need a greater sense of fairness and people feeling that things are being done in the right way and a fair way. But at the same time, you know, I don’t want to sort of be perceived as somebody who’s coming in with grudges and agendas and, you know, going to just immediately find or demonise one group or create a new way of dividing people.
“So, you know, decisions to be taken in time, they’re going to be difficult. I’m not going to shy away from that. You know, we are going to have to work quite hard to make sure, you know, we can pay our way.
“And at some point that might be having to ask for a little more. But, you know, those decisions are not for now. They’re for another day.”
The whole 19 minute interview for those without TwiX is:-
Gary Lineker sits down with Britain’s next Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, ahead of England’s World Cup semi-final against Argentina.
They discuss Everton, Mexico ’86, England’s chances of lifting the trophy, the Hillsborough Law, the cost of living and dealing with Donald Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qiiks0NAk
Burnham absolutely deserved the credit for the Hillsborough inquiry, after the whole Anfield stadium booed him at the memorial service when he was the sports minister.
But the idea that the guy who will be PM next week, hasn’t done an in-depth interview with any serious politics journalist at all, is pretty disgraceful.
Yes, although it is a bit sensitive while Starmer remains Prime Minister. I'd imagine the two men have an informal pact not to slag each other off, and Starmer said at PMQs: I shall give my support privately if asked for, not publicly when not asked for.
ETA: I wonder if the Prime Minister meant to say ‘advice’ rather than ‘support’.
The only way the Mahmood appointment makes sense, if it happens, is she has agreed she will just do exactly what No. 10 want on the economics front and have no ideas or agenda herself.
I thuink she seems to have been a pretty effective operator at the Home Office, even if personally I disagree with the anti-immigrant stance she has adopted.
She was put there with a brief to bring down immigration and has turned a poison chalice into an asset politically.
This is the nonsense. Doing a good job, so best she stops doing it.
Hopefully the policies will continue.
I wasn't saying she should stop doing it. Personally I think leaving an effective minister in place is a very good idea. One of the problems that GIve suffered from is that at both Justice and DEFRA he made huge strides in getting the trust and support of all sides in the various debates and then promptly got moved or sacked.
I was simply repsonding to the claim that she is only being considered because she will be a No 10 stooge. I think that rather understates her abilities.
So it looks like Reform will accuse anyone who criticises them of inciting violence against the party .
I thought they supported free speech !
I agree in general though would probably make an exception for the threat to shoot someone in the face. That does rather step over a line.
The question is whether arresting such people is new post-Widdecombe policy or whether similar outbursts would have lead to arrest in the past. Call me a cynic...
A thought WRT people in public life getting huge numbers of threats to kill, maim, rape etc and this being a routine aspect of their lives. Obvs social media has turned private and outrageous conversations, unknowable beyond the group in the pub, into planet wide distribution and a small number of mad, histrionic and bad people are having disproportionate effect.
What to do?
Nearly all the bad stuff is in fact a crime; incitement, threats, hate crime etc. nearly all of it goes uninvestigated and unpunished. it seems to me that we have a choice in society. Either accept that this will continue, and a tiny % of the population cause mayhem while some especially women MPs live in fear and threat; or develop of culture of massive and well publicised criminal law enforcement of thousands of cases which drives it into unacceptability. A parallel: drink driving.
I think that is the first and, sadly, probably the last time I will be compared to Jude Bellingham. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. On the question of red cards, I cannot tell him how much incoming I had a week ago Monday, after President Trump intervened on the USA red card, asking me to get the England red card adjusted. Just for the record, Mr Speaker, I did not attempt that.
For my successor, and for the England team, I will not give advice; I will simply give my wholehearted support. Just for the record, Mr Speaker, I do not care what the score is tonight, as long as we win.
So it looks like Reform will accuse anyone who criticises them of inciting violence against the party .
I thought they supported free speech !
I agree in general though would probably make an exception for the threat to shoot someone in the face. That does rather step over a line.
The question is whether arresting such people is new post-Widdecombe policy or whether similar outbursts would have lead to arrest in the past. Call me a cynic...
A thought WRT people in public life getting huge numbers of threats to kill, maim, rape etc and this being a routine aspect of their lives. Obvs social media has turned private and outrageous conversations, unknowable beyond the group in the pub, into planet wide distribution and a small number of mad, histrionic and bad people are having disproportionate effect.
What to do?
Nearly all the bad stuff is in fact a crime; incitement, threats, hate crime etc. nearly all of it goes uninvestigated and unpunished. it seems to me that we have a choice in society. Either accept that this will continue, and a tiny % of the population cause mayhem while some especially women MPs live in fear and threat; or develop of culture of massive and well publicised criminal law enforcement of thousands of cases which drives it into unacceptability. A parallel: drink driving.
What to do?
Get rid of anonymous comments on the internet.
That won't do it. The internet outside the UK is where many of the accounts are hosted.
And look at all those anonymous accounts that have turned out to be linked to all those defenestrated Councillors.
There are advantages to strong and appropriate policing, but we also need a politics which does not reward fear and loathing (yes I know I go on about that).
Farage and all his colleagues deliberately create and exploit such a culture - and NF for one knows that without it and linked pretend victim narratives (a mainstay of populists and authoritarians) he is going to get precisely nowhere.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
If it's Mahmood Ed M will be furious with himself for not running, 99% certain Mahmood will thwart net zero policies. Labour MPs looking like they've comprehensively shat the bed then turned over face down in it with Burnham coronation.
Louise Haigh, Andy Burnham’s top aide, advised him not to appoint Ed Miliband as chancellor, according to five people familiar with conversations in Burnham’s team.
Louise Haigh is very interesting. She clearly fancies herself as having the vision thing. She’s utterly arrogant and mouthy. Louise Haigh main reason I am so convinced this Burnham government will destroy Labours electability for a generation.
Lovely final exchange between Starmer and Kemi and great credit to both of them
I thought it drivel and turned it off. It’s drivel because it’s wholly false in how they think and feel about each other. We were being fed a charade - nothing real.
Meanwhile, Burnham’s destruction of Labour as election winning force begins…
There was a moment of genuine warmth between them and most appropriate for the occassion
Indeed if Starmer had shown more of that he would still be PM and the only weird part of it all was his ovation from all those behind him who defenestrated him
“only weird part of it all was his ovation from all those behind him who defenestrated him”
That only proves my point, how utterly performative all this was!
You have to be a Thermian not to recognise acting and lies.
Absolute nonsense young carrot hopper. There is, and always has been, a degree of respect in the Kemi/Starmer relationship.
You have zero evidence. If you do, share it and amaze us.
There is a special place in hell for journalists who leak the England team.
The last World Cup, the Athletic had the starting line up many many hours before the kick off. But I am sure Argentina are very happy to know that its Rogers in for Saka a couple of horus before kick off.
Do you think they will change anything because of it? I’d expect most top 4 in the worl sides to back themselves.
No team just rocks up saying we are the best, we back ourselves. It isn't there would necessarily a big change, but certainly they consider how the tactics will subtly adjust depending on who is on the pitch. The level of planning that goes into matches now is incredible. Each player now gets given detailed individualised footage with analysis of the player they will be up against which they study on their ipads. Rogers hasn't played much and certainly not wide. The Argies will have mostly been preppring for facing Saka or Madueke down the right wing.
"No team just rocks up saying we are the best, we back ourselves."
France?
On that performance last night, I wonder if they had some big bust up*. Not only were they crap, little effort, no fluidity, didn't seem that bothered and Deschamps just looked like he was having a big sulk (as if all the planning they had done the players had veto'ed it). At 2-0 they didn't seem to really up the intensity, not 100%.
* as a squad they have had plenty of big bust ups in the past.
Had Starmer been what now appears to be himself since he became Prime Minister, he’d probably be looking forward to another term
The stick seems to have been removed from his arse
His problem was not the warmth of his personality or the lack therof. It was the fact that he was not competent at the job. Given the importance of the job this was not tolerable. He should have had that insight sooner and resigned on his own terms, but he dragged it out until he was forced out on somebody else's terms. He will shortly cease to be PM and that is right and proper.
The job has beaten Starmer, but it beat Brown, May and Sunak in similarly dismal ways. In each case, it's not clear that there was an obviously better alternative whose path they were blocking. And whilst Cameron looked in confident command of the ship of state, it now rather looks like he confidently steered it into multiple icebergs.
Running the country should be challenging. But perhaps not this challenging.
Lovely final exchange between Starmer and Kemi and great credit to both of them
I thought it drivel and turned it off. It’s drivel because it’s wholly false in how they think and feel about each other. We were being fed a charade - nothing real.
Meanwhile, Burnham’s destruction of Labour as election winning force begins…
There was a moment of genuine warmth between them and most appropriate for the occassion
Indeed if Starmer had shown more of that he would still be PM and the only weird part of it all was his ovation from all those behind him who defenestrated him
“only weird part of it all was his ovation from all those behind him who defenestrated him”
That only proves my point, how utterly performative all this was!
You have to be a Thermian not to recognise acting and lies.
New: After being accused of avoiding press scrutiny Andy Burnham has sat down for an eve of premiership interview with… Gary Lineker
After he was asked by Lineker about new wealth taxes Burnham said he wouldn’t rule it out but that it’s a decision “for another day”:
“I’m going to obviously take my time to properly look at the state of things, particularly the state of finances. And I just said a moment ago, Gary, about bringing people together. You know, I don’t want to come in and sort of, if you like, create new divisions and pitch people one against another.
“I’m not going rule things out right now. I do believe we need a greater sense of fairness and people feeling that things are being done in the right way and a fair way. But at the same time, you know, I don’t want to sort of be perceived as somebody who’s coming in with grudges and agendas and, you know, going to just immediately find or demonise one group or create a new way of dividing people.
“So, you know, decisions to be taken in time, they’re going to be difficult. I’m not going to shy away from that. You know, we are going to have to work quite hard to make sure, you know, we can pay our way.
“And at some point that might be having to ask for a little more. But, you know, those decisions are not for now. They’re for another day.”
The whole 19 minute interview for those without TwiX is:-
Gary Lineker sits down with Britain’s next Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, ahead of England’s World Cup semi-final against Argentina.
They discuss Everton, Mexico ’86, England’s chances of lifting the trophy, the Hillsborough Law, the cost of living and dealing with Donald Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qiiks0NAk
Burnham absolutely deserved the credit for the Hillsborough inquiry, after the whole Anfield stadium booed him at the memorial service when he was the sports minister.
But the idea that the guy who will be PM next week, hasn’t done an in-depth interview with any serious politics journalist at all, is pretty disgraceful.
Between elections the government, including the PM is accountable to the parliament. Despite assumptions and appearances the PM is not accountable to the media at all. The media prefer, being lazy, to continuously question both the PM and other government luminaries themselves instead of reporting on their complex accountability to parliament. What they could do is report properly and fully on how the government and the PM account of themselves to parliament. They can also report on what the government actually does and the acts parliament undertakes.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
RR was the first female Chancellor and it was made a big deal of. All the more so, I sense, because of the ongoing absence of a female Labour leader.
I think it's possible that this would play into the thinking on the replacement. Context being Reeves has only done two years and the new leader is yet again male.
It would, on this basis, devolve into a Mahmood v Cooper choice. And Mahmood is the sharper tougher politician of those two.
Aftertime wisdom from me here though. I backed Pat McFadden.
Not sure about the gender dynamics it just feels like the first true tell of the Burnham years. When he has to decide he'll lean rightward and from COE everything else follows. No borrowing beyond self contained rules, no national house building, limited industrial investment most likely for defence, no nationalisation of water. Seems we'll be getting Starmer mk2: a little shiner and more personable,
Touch too early, I think. Hope there's more of a difference than that. But the change was in the main made because of 'persona' so there's a certain logic there.
Then wat was the point of wasting 6 months on this?
How do you mean?
It's been done as soon as it could have been, no?
Burnham had to get into P.
Just the opportunity cost, Starmer’s wasted and wasting months of governing time. Burnham's shuffling and will take a good while to bed in. Even driving his wonks on a policy deathmarch hes going to struggle with actionable ideas in the foreseeable. Just seems a mess if nothing will change/
So it looks like Reform will accuse anyone who criticises them of inciting violence against the party .
I thought they supported free speech !
I agree in general though would probably make an exception for the threat to shoot someone in the face. That does rather step over a line.
The question is whether arresting such people is new post-Widdecombe policy or whether similar outbursts would have lead to arrest in the past. Call me a cynic...
A thought WRT people in public life getting huge numbers of threats to kill, maim, rape etc and this being a routine aspect of their lives. Obvs social media has turned private and outrageous conversations, unknowable beyond the group in the pub, into planet wide distribution and a small number of mad, histrionic and bad people are having disproportionate effect.
What to do?
Nearly all the bad stuff is in fact a crime; incitement, threats, hate crime etc. nearly all of it goes uninvestigated and unpunished. it seems to me that we have a choice in society. Either accept that this will continue, and a tiny % of the population cause mayhem while some especially women MPs live in fear and threat; or develop of culture of massive and well publicised criminal law enforcement of thousands of cases which drives it into unacceptability. A parallel: drink driving.
What to do?
Get rid of anonymous comments on the internet.
That won't do it. The internet outside the UK is where many of the accounts are hosted.
And look at all those anonymous accounts that have turned out to be linked to all those defenestrated Councillors.
There are advantages to strong and appropriate policing, but we also need a politics which does not reward fear and loathing (yes I know I go on about that).
Farage and all his colleagues deliberately create and exploit such a culture - and NF for one knows that without it and linked pretend victim narratives (a mainstay of populists and authoritarians) he is going to get precisely nowhere.
The time will come when countries realise that they can no more allow open access to foreign based illegal/criminal/libellous words over the internet than a foreign publication distributed in the UK can operate with impunity, or foreign illegal drugs can be imported without penalty.
The only way the Mahmood appointment makes sense, if it happens, is she has agreed she will just do exactly what No. 10 want on the economics front and have no ideas or agenda herself.
I thuink she seems to have been a pretty effective operator at the Home Office, even if personally I disagree with the anti-immigrant stance she has adopted.
She was put there with a brief to bring down immigration and has turned a poison chalice into an asset politically.
This is the nonsense. Doing a good job, so best she stops doing it.
Hopefully the policies will continue.
I wasn't saying she should stop doing it. Personally I think leaving an effective minister in place is a very good idea. One of the problems that GIve suffered from is that at both Justice and DEFRA he made huge strides in getting the trust and support of all sides in the various debates and then promptly got moved or sacked.
I was simply repsonding to the claim that she is only being considered because she will be a No 10 stooge. I think that rather understates her abilities.
I think the Treasury is the biggest roadblock, and a sign of success will be if significant (my benchmark - 10-12% by 2034) of taxation revenue is raised and spent locally, with careful central supervision overlooking. That last is very difficult to get right, but it will take time for regions to build up the capacity to manage 2x or 3x expenditure locally than at present, and we need guard rails whilst our local administrations mature.
There will be more change needed along with it - regional government on that scale cannot be run by volunteer councillors. We will need the equivalent of stipendiary magistrates, as they sued to be called.
And we will also need some wealth transfer area to area if we are to boost regions.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
RR was the first female Chancellor and it was made a big deal of. All the more so, I sense, because of the ongoing absence of a female Labour leader.
I think it's possible that this would play into the thinking on the replacement. Context being Reeves has only done two years and the new leader is yet again male.
It would, on this basis, devolve into a Mahmood v Cooper choice. And Mahmood is the sharper tougher politician of those two.
Aftertime wisdom from me here though. I backed Pat McFadden.
Not sure about the gender dynamics it just feels like the first true tell of the Burnham years. When he has to decide he'll lean rightward and from COE everything else follows. No borrowing beyond self contained rules, no national house building, limited industrial investment most likely for defence, no nationalisation of water. Seems we'll be getting Starmer mk2: a little shiner and more personable,
I've been repeatedly assured by numerous posters that he's a dangerous Socialist who'll have the IMF in in weeks.
Another go at electing a leader will take place tonight at a full council meeting scheduled from 5.30-9pm.
Nationally there are currently two councils who have failed to select a leader, ourselves and Oldham, all other impasses, in such as Birmingham, Cambridge, iirc Chelmsford have been resolved. It seems over a lot of the last few years politics has often mirrored across Standedge, albeit in different variants.
Previously, the two candidates, the Green leader of a coalition containing LD and varying Independents and the Reform leader have failed to gain the leadership. It is not an X vs Y FPTP vote, it takes the form of two votes, one for or against X (or abstain), one for or against Y.
The Conservative group of 9 councillors have voted against both Green and Reform candidates in previous meetings, defeating both and saying they will only support a grand coalition.
It seems a lot of the preliminary fact finding discussions and questions between the parties were conducted on copy to all councillor email chains with a view to transparency. (some of the article covering this, for which I bought a physical newspaper as a one off as the best form of reading - over £3!!! - is below).
It looks like the Reform leader Cllr Wood (of, "we don't know what an amendment is" fame) is quite a radical her way or no way type who stonewalls anything not entirely to her liking, and would have liked to meet opposing politicians individually and face-to-face (perhaps to pick off individual Conservatives) so refused to engage at all with the email discovery.
It was also the Reform group that refused to countenance any rescheduling around the England game.
She has lost two councillors since May, one went independent one resigned (by-election 13/8), so the numbers are:
Green 12 Varied Ind 14 LD 5 (31 supporting Green coalition)
Con 9
Reform 27 ex-Reform Ind 1 (27 or 28 supporting Reform)
I think tonight some of the business prior to the vote will debate a Reform motion along the lines of "per precedent largest party should be able to form a cabinet" (let us be in charge). There is a Tory suggested amendment that in the circumstances the leadership only be valid for 12 months (Cllr Wood - "in they did not consult me on this amendment").
The thought crosses my mind that the coalition grouping could all sign up as a single group and reveal they have greater numbers in a single political group than Reform, though I feel such a trick improbable.
It does look to be edging a little towards a 12 month Reform led council though, the alternative being a process whereby the auditors invite the government to ultimately take over running of the council. I'm not at all certain of that outcome though.
All will become clear, or not, tonight.
Eldest granddaughter works for Kirklees! She and her colleagues are keeping their heads down and getting on with their jobs.
Cllr Wood of Reform reported by Yorkshire Live as having been elected leader. Hopefully she's genned up a bit on things since May, though her stobbornness says not..
So it looks like Reform will accuse anyone who criticises them of inciting violence against the party .
I thought they supported free speech !
I agree in general though would probably make an exception for the threat to shoot someone in the face. That does rather step over a line.
The question is whether arresting such people is new post-Widdecombe policy or whether similar outbursts would have lead to arrest in the past. Call me a cynic...
A thought WRT people in public life getting huge numbers of threats to kill, maim, rape etc and this being a routine aspect of their lives. Obvs social media has turned private and outrageous conversations, unknowable beyond the group in the pub, into planet wide distribution and a small number of mad, histrionic and bad people are having disproportionate effect.
What to do?
Nearly all the bad stuff is in fact a crime; incitement, threats, hate crime etc. nearly all of it goes uninvestigated and unpunished. it seems to me that we have a choice in society. Either accept that this will continue, and a tiny % of the population cause mayhem while some especially women MPs live in fear and threat; or develop of culture of massive and well publicised criminal law enforcement of thousands of cases which drives it into unacceptability. A parallel: drink driving.
What to do?
Get rid of anonymous comments on the internet.
That won't do it. The internet outside the UK is where many of the accounts are hosted.
And look at all those anonymous accounts that have turned out to be linked to all those defenestrated Councillors.
There are advantages to strong and appropriate policing, but we also need a politics which does not reward fear and loathing (yes I know I go on about that).
Farage and all his colleagues deliberately create and exploit such a culture - and NF for one knows that without it and linked pretend victim narratives (a mainstay of populists and authoritarians) he is going to get precisely nowhere.
The time will come when countries realise that they can no more allow open access to foreign based illegal/criminal/libellous words over the internet than a foreign publication distributed in the UK can operate with impunity, or foreign illegal drugs can be imported without penalty.
I agree. We have much in place (eg blocking lists by the Internet Watch Foundation, Cleanfeed and so on) but we have not come to terms with what we want politicially.
This is one area where I would love to see some policy development from the "law and order" Conservatives. I think in this area they are too beholden to the USA in the soul of their party.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
If it's Mahmood Ed M will be furious with himself for not running, 99% certain Mahmood will thwart net zero policies. Labour MPs looking like they've comprehensively shat the bed then turned over face down in it with Burnham coronation.
It'll be funnier still if David Mili gets the FS gig. We never liked you Ed!
Ed Miliband - Paymaster General.
Governor of South Georgia surely.
(EdM is very high on the list of pernicious friends that Burnham might have. Foreign office works very well in that way. But Ed wanted more, and is now history)
It seems to me that there are only about five and half jobs in government that the self appointed elect regard as worth having (roughly PM, for sec, home sec, CoE, health, maybe defence) and there must be about 15-20 people who 'must' be fitted into one of those jobs.
FT reporting Shabana Mahmood to be Burnham’s Chancellor.
Certainly a better option than eco-nutter Milband, light fingered Haigh or Cooper-Balls. Surely can't be worse than Reeves.
Given Mahmood has no experience in economics and as far we can tell no interest in it either, and her signature policy on immigration is directly inimical to growth, I would expect Mahmood to be worse than Reeves.
Maybe she will surprise on the upside. Which is another way of saying there's no reason to believe she will.
Utterly depressing, more stolid policies then a reform sweep 2029.
If it's Mahmood Ed M will be furious with himself for not running, 99% certain Mahmood will thwart net zero policies. Labour MPs looking like they've comprehensively shat the bed then turned over face down in it with Burnham coronation.
It'll be funnier still if David Mili gets the FS gig. We never liked you Ed!
Ed Miliband - Paymaster General.
Governor of South Georgia surely.
(EdM is very high on the list of pernicious friends that Burnham might have. Foreign office works very well in that way. But Ed wanted more, and is now history)
It seems to me that there are only about five and half jobs in government that the self appointed elect regard as worth having (roughly PM, for sec, home sec, CoE, health, maybe defence) and there must be about 15-20 people who 'must' be fitted into one of those jobs.
It’s the other two hundred who think they are up to it that they need to be worrying about
Comments
https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/2077434207370928313?s=20
There's a 99% invisible podcast on it.
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/625-football-chant/
Nominations close today he has met the criteria nobody else has
Why is SKS hanging around like a bad smell?
One last freebie ie tickets to the final.
Hope he gets a seat with the Spanish free Palestine lot!!
Israel has decided its approach to foreign relations is "everybody hates us and we don't care, we'll do it anyway". Which is fine, but policy choices can have consequences.
For what it's worth, I'm happy to apply similar sanctions to relevant regions of South Sudan etc etc.
(Though being racist in a private home is now illegal in Scotland, as I understand it.)
Totally agree with all of that. One of the problems is social media has just made it so easy for pillocks to hand out abuse and make threats - it take virtually no effort. Before all this, the favoured method was 'poison pen' letters, but few people could be bothered putting pen to paper, so receiving threats by mail was relatively rare and easier to resolve.
Brave decision at left back as Spence not exactly looked solid in defence. And Konsa unlucky not to go back to centre back. Spence does seem to be to Tuchel, what Kalvin Philips was to Southgate.
https://x.com/wokeratimarty/status/2077015805980459458
He attended school at Dulwich College which is significantly more "establishment" that the University of Worcester.
I went to a Russell Group University (and state schools). I am far more removed from the the "establishment" than a privately educated stock broker.
(I have zero sources, and this is a guess, but I think the unhappy bunnies will be EdM and Haig.)
It's been done as soon as it could have been, no?
Burnham had to get into P.
Just not a serious country anymore.
Tim Miller
@Timodc
This is an absurd person to nominate to run DNI anyone who voted to confirm him cares absolutely zero about our national security and does not deserve the responsibility of being a US senator
https://x.com/Timodc/status/2077437456022909328
Sadly he’s not got it, bizarre for a joke figure.
https://x.com/haggis_uk/status/2077354915303743620?s=61
That was the really bad thing about the leaks from the Athletic, it was often many many hours before kickoff. Plenty of time for opposition to see this and make calm adjustments to the plan. Rather than if you get the team news 1hr before, it is much more of a rush, particularly if it is a left field pick like Rogers who wouldn't have been down as playing right wing.
As we've seen, plenty of people are swallowing that line eagerly.
I love a good thunderstorm. I'd be happy with a geriatric dribble of rain at the moment though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A
Gary Lineker sits down with Britain’s next Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, ahead of England’s World Cup semi-final against Argentina.
They discuss Everton, Mexico ’86, England’s chances of lifting the trophy, the Hillsborough Law, the cost of living and dealing with Donald Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qiiks0NAk
Labour MPs looking like they've comprehensively shat the bed then turned over face down in it with Burnham coronation.
That only proves my point, how utterly performative all this was!
You have to be a Thermian not to recognise acting and lies.
@steverichards14
If Shabana Mahmood is chancellor it’ll end in tears…quickly. Through no fault of her own she’s given little thought to economic policy and yet likes to make a splash as a minister. There will be no rapport with Andy Burnham. The media and market will approve..until they turn.
https://x.com/steverichards14/status/2077451934550667733
15/1
But the idea that the guy who will be PM next week, hasn’t done an in-depth interview with any serious politics journalist at all, is pretty disgraceful.
@alexwickham
EXCLUSIVE with
@ChaplainChloe
Louise Haigh, Andy Burnham’s top aide, advised him not to appoint Ed Miliband as chancellor, according to five people familiar with conversations in Burnham’s team.
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/2077447583513850047
(EdM is very high on the list of pernicious friends that Burnham might have. Foreign office works very well in that way. But Ed wanted more, and is now history)
John McTernan
@Johnmcternan
Including my wise words
https://x.com/Johnmcternan/status/2077454447836348906
"@Johnmcternan says “it would be insane” not to appoint Miliband as chancellor. “Do you want to run the treasury or do you want the treasury to run you? The choice is Ed Miliband or the treasury view.” "
France?
Now now.
But I don't think that is going to happen. Government is too scared of American commercial interest.
So I think your suggestion is like asking major illegal drug importers to please stop importing drugs as it is doing harm.
ETA: I wonder if the Prime Minister meant to say ‘advice’ rather than ‘support’.
Still, a scoop for Gary Lineker.
I was simply repsonding to the claim that she is only being considered because she will be a No 10 stooge. I think that rather understates her abilities.
Get rid of anonymous comments on the internet.
We need to be good defensively, good when attacking, and take care of Messi. He clearly has everything covered off.
I think that is the first and, sadly, probably the last time I will be compared to Jude Bellingham. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. On the question of red cards, I cannot tell him how much incoming I had a week ago Monday, after President Trump intervened on the USA red card, asking me to get the England red card adjusted. Just for the record, Mr Speaker, I did not attempt that.
For my successor, and for the England team, I will not give advice; I will simply give my wholehearted support. Just for the record, Mr Speaker, I do not care what the score is tonight, as long as we win.
And look at all those anonymous accounts that have turned out to be linked to all those defenestrated Councillors.
There are advantages to strong and appropriate policing, but we also need a politics which does not reward fear and loathing (yes I know I go on about that).
Farage and all his colleagues deliberately create and exploit such a culture - and NF for one knows that without it and linked pretend victim narratives (a mainstay of populists and authoritarians) he is going to get precisely nowhere.
* as a squad they have had plenty of big bust ups in the past.
https://x.com/draper_rob/status/2077458295674036602
My prediction, fwiw, Argentina after penalties. I know.
Running the country should be challenging. But perhaps not this challenging.
For some reason I thought it was 10.
Maybe this applies to the CoE post?
There will be more change needed along with it - regional government on that scale cannot be run by volunteer councillors. We will need the equivalent of stipendiary magistrates, as they sued to be called.
And we will also need some wealth transfer area to area if we are to boost regions.
We're winning this in 90. Not close.
That’s the kind of football I could play
This is one area where I would love to see some policy development from the "law and order" Conservatives. I think in this area they are too beholden to the USA in the soul of their party.
Not horse !!
https://thewfa.co.uk/
82-8 off 14.3 overs, needing 162. Finished 162-8 with a ball to spare. Overton, 79 off 30, 22 in the last over.