Liz Truss says Andy Burnham won’t be PM at the next election, is she right? – politicalbetting.com
Liz Truss says Andy Burnham won’t be PM at the next election, is she right? – politicalbetting.com
Liz Truss, the country’s leading expert on Prime Ministers triggering a financial crisis leading to their ousting, has predicted that Andy Burnham’s premiership will trigger a financial crisis and she says that “My prediction is that there will be another prime minister before 2029.”
1
Comments
Anyway, this from the previous thread:
I was musing on a comment from @Richard_Tyndall saying he was in favour of free speech.
Nothing wrong with that in theory but of course speech is like tea, coffee or social care - it's a commodity. You can have as much as you want or are willing to pay for.
If you have time and money, you can have all the speech you want. If you are very wealthy, you can hire people to do the speaking for you, advance your arguments and if you are wealthier still, you can own the platforms on which speech occurs so you can regulate who can say what and shut down those who disagree with you.
Speech therefore isn't "free" - it's expensive though the cost of speech has fallen in recent times in some respects. It's easier to be able to have speech and have your say - all you basically need is a device connected to the Internet - whereas in former times you had to take your chance at Speakers' Corner and that could be a bearpit (as can forums like this).
The other side is the impact of your speech - let's be honest, this forum might have some reach but not much whereas an article on X or perhaps the Daily Mail has more likelihood of being more widely read so those who control the speech on well-read sites have a lot of speech they can throw around.
The truth is very many voices aren't heard - there are older people who don't have Internet connections and for whom a world increasingly dominated by online and app-based activity is isolating. There are people who don't have the time to speak and there are doubtless a myriad of other reasons.
We won't have free speech until and unless everyone has an equal opportunity to express their view - we have a thing called elections which does that pretty well in truth - and all views (within the law to a point though the current legal status is unsatisfactory) can be heard equally.
Forcing the Daily Mail to say something nice about Labour might be considered a tad coercive - it's a thought. Much though I would like to see all media contain a diversity and plurality of opinion, this can't be ordained by central Government diktat.
You can't force speech to be free any more than you can force people to be tolerant. You can be intolerant towards intolerance but you have to accept people have a right to be intolerant within the law.
"No normal political conference features the spectacle of a former UK prime minister proudly introducing a former spokeswoman for Andrew and Tristan Tate – brothers accused of orchestrating a global sex trafficking and grooming operation – onto its main stage, to polite applause."
@jamesrball.com
In truly incredible timing for CPAC GB and for Liz Truss herself, the Tate brothers have just been arrested.
https://bsky.app/profile/jamesrball.com/post/3mqychrgbi226
Basically, Royal Ascot is more like gymnastics - there are different disciplines for different types of horses over different distances like the vault, floor, pommel horse etc.
As always, most analogies don't bear close examination.
Like it did with all those new Tory PMs?
Qiuite...
What !!!!
Andrew and Tristan Tate spent the days before their arrest partying in Washington, D.C., as guests of Paolo Zampolli — Donald Trump’s U.S. Special Envoy for Global Partnerships and a longtime friend of Trump and Melania.
Zampolli is the former modeling executive who says he brought Melania to the United States and introduced her to Donald Trump. His name has also surfaced repeatedly in reporting surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s modeling-world connections.
And there’s more.
https://x.com/levparnas/status/2078640416233238817?s=20
https://x.com/skint_eastwood1/status/2078419004557840719?s=61
I heard for the first time this morning that Burnham is talking about loosening the grip of the whips, reducing their powers. Apologies if this aspect of his vision has already been discussed but just to say that, as I have advocated for this for years, I am pleased at least to see it is something being discussed seriously rather than just remaining a fringe idea.
Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش
@citrinowicz
The greatest challenge now is no longer military pressure, it's escalation management. It is becoming increasingly clear that events are beginning to slip beyond anyone's control.
With virtually no trust between Washington and Tehran, mediators who appear increasingly exhausted, and a dialogue conducted primarily through military strikes, the risk of further escalation is now higher than the prospects for de-escalation. That is unlikely to change unless one side makes a meaningful concession, and there is little evidence that Tehran is prepared to do so.
...
Unless something significant changes soon, this conflict is on a trajectory toward a far more dangerous phase, one that may become increasingly difficult for either side to contain.
https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2078597273601106294
However, assuming there is no early election, I think it plausible the bloom will come off Burnham's rose before summer 2029, but not because of Truss's forecast financial crisis. Rather, I cannot see the special sauce of Manchesterism. An integrated bus system follows London; the redevelopment miracle is just Burnham funnelling George Osborne's grants to a single developer, Renaker. And at the first sign of difficulty, Burnham abandoned affordable homes and the clean air zone.
At best, it all feels inconsequential. We don't know Burnham's plans in detail but already there are reports of push-back against folding DSIT if Britain is serious about AI and IT, and his flagship Number 10 in the north has raised questions around the practicality of our leaders commuting between London and Manchester. (Will there need to be a new not-Royal train? It's a long old drive, and as Rishi found out, helicopters, while practical, are not uncontroversial.)
Is there more to Burnham than a human Starmer? There does seem to be the same technocratic conviction that the truth is out there and we just need to gather all the parties together and thrash things out over beer and sandwiches. Is it enough for three years in Downing Street? I'm not betting on it.
On the current trajectory We’re fucked. Prepare for what’s coming.
Starmer has petulantly removed the whip from Labour MPs for voting against the government on non budget/confidence votes.
The Republicans are happy to avoid the discussion, and the Democrats prefer to see high ‘gas’ prices in the run up to the mid-terms.
But are there any circumstances where your speech can hurt? Should there be consequences for you if they do? Should you be prevented from making speech that might hurt? Who gets to decide if there is legitimate hurt and what the remedy/prevention needs to be?
These aren't straightforward questions. For example John Stuart Mill's answers are roughly: (a) can cause hurt; (b) will be consequences; (c) absolutely no limit on making speech; (d) will be sorted out through public opinion. Mill is widely misunderstood. I have a lot of respect for his logic but I'm not sure he's right on (b) and (d) in thinking the truth will out. Most of the time the truth doesn't out.
(Realise this is a different point from the one you are making, which I agree with. I also wanted to comment on what is free speech?)
This is not about some over-arching, all encompassing, right to be heard. That is both impractical and unwarranted.
It is simply about the right to say what you want, to openly speak your mind, without fear of prosecution except under very specific, very limited situations (direct incitement to violence and endangerment)
Indeed the wealthy and those with access to media or well paid spokesmen already had that right. They have the ability to ensure they are heard without ever risking prosecution. It is the unrepresented and common people who have lacked that for so long and who now have it through the internet. They are the exact reason why we should fight harder for freedom of speech. Because they can now be heard and it is way too easy for those who don't want those voices to be heard to use spurious laws and regulation to stop them.
Note that those being prosecuted are not the wealthy and the well connected. It is the normal person, a housewife, a retired policeman or an Aberdeen college worker. It is the voices and the messages that those in power would much rather were never heard. I may not agree with anything they are saying but it is vital for all of us that they have the right to say what they want, even if some of us hope that they will be ignored.
So I think your argument is spurious. What matters is the right to say what you want without fear of prosecution, whether that is in a pub, on the internet or at Speaker's Corner. Taking away that right won't stop people thinking those things and it will only result in you having a false sense of security and then being surprised when those thoughts and opinions turn into sudden, violent action.
My point remains, endless escalation is only inevitable as long as Congress decides to let it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y08z25q8eo
Anyway, I need to be off.
Zampolli previously acknowledged contacting a senior ICE official about Amanda Ungaro, the mother of his child, during a bitter custody dispute. She was later taken into immigration custody and deported, although Zampolli denies that he asked ICE to detain her.
That one had blowback because La Ungaro was willing to speak about the early days decades back when she was around Melania in her early days in the USA.
That is a little inconvenient.
That could be Musk tweaking the algorithms, or an overly cautious media refusing to contemplate some of the potential negatives around COVID vaccines for fear of putting people off getting vaccinated. There are many other examples.
Those of us committed to free speech should be equally committed to judicious regulation of those who have their hands on the amplifier controls. Getting this regulation right in the face of partisanship from all sides is difficult, but essential for democracy in my view.
Rather I see a strategy crafted to avoid calls for an election, or mainly the possibility not being acknowledged.
Personally I don't think it matters very much at all. It is like wealth redistribution. Maybe nice in principle but in practice not only impossible but generally counter productive.
Are we going to have JD Vance perambulating around Europe making more speeches, and if so what will be in them?
We have advertising standards to ensure businesses can’t misrepresent their products or promise what they can’t deliver. That’s a form of limitation on free speech. Without it the consumer is at the mercy of charlatans. It used to work pretty well, but the online ads I see these days from drop shippers (notably for miraculous “air conditioning” that defies the laws of physics) suggest we’re not enforcing as much as we used to.
We have trademark and trademark protections, and PDOs, to protect producers from imitation. In theory another inhibition of free speech. Those have strengthened over time. In some cases to slightly ludicrous levels: I was recently admonished by food standards for using “protected names” on my vineyard website (in my case, referring to the Cote D’Or and Montagne de Reims in a blog - because apparently I could be accused of trying to liken my wine to Burgundy or Champagne).
I’m generally of the view that regulating what’s published in order to protect the consumer is more important than doing so to protect the producer. The latter can lead to rackets. The strongest argument for better regulation of social media like X is consumer protection. Users should have some confidence what they’re reading isn’t AI slop or - as per my recent exposure to “Argentinian” Malvinas posters - paid trolling that purports to be something it’s not.
What on earth does this even mean?
Might be somewhat tangential to the Free Speech discussion, but where do we stand, in that connection, on the 34 people who have put their names forward as potential MP for Clacton. One respects their right to do so, of course, but is it making a mockery of the electoral process? (Or just even more that one candidate, on NF, was already making it?)
Should candidates be required to lodge their deposit in cash when submitting nomination papers?
"For a candidate’s nomination to be valid, the sum of £500 must be deposited with the (Acting) Returning Officer by the deadline for nominations, by 4pm, 19 working days before the poll. The deposit can be made using:1
- cash (British pounds only)
- a UK banker’s draft
The (Acting) Returning Officer may also accept a deposit made by a building society cheque, a debit or credit card or an electronic funds transfer."
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-uk-parliamentary-elections-great-britain/nominations/submitting-your-nomination-papers/deposit
But, I doubt he is as dogmatically sincere as she was.
There is a difference.
Jordan has evacuated King Hussein International Airport and Aqaba seaport due to a security threat, the US Embassy says.
@mattvanswol
I'm confused.
The USA has the most powerful military on Earth. We've bombed the HELL out of Iran for 4 months. Trump says their Air Force, Navy, and nearly all of their missile capabilities are destroyed.
...so how is Iran still capable of hitting US bases right now???
@JamieBonkiewicz
He’s so fucking close to getting it. Bless his heart.
https://x.com/JamieBonkiewicz/status/2078680233129963770?s=20
Formal notice of election: https://legacy.tendringdc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council/elections & voting/2026/Aug13/UKPGE - NOP SOP SOPN.pdf
The mediation of rights between individuals within society has been at the heart of law and philosophy since ancient times.
I would maintain that some form of democratic control (which probably means government control, for all it's myriad flaws) is better than corporate or oligarchic control.
But I have a great deal of respect for those who are deeply skeptical of state-endorsed cause celebres, indeed i am so myself.
The solution that is found (as it eventually will be found) will be a messy compromise that will probably satisfy neither of us, but will be better than what we have now.
I have 'every day interests'
You have 'your interests'
Those capitalists have 'private interests'
The fact the capitalism pays for everything is clearly lost in the grey matter of Lucy Powell....
Private interests = Banksters/Hedge Funds/People who look a bit Furrin/etc
Everyday interests = people we pretend to like. Bit like animals at the zoo - they are ok if behind glass. Not too close to Us.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg5gg6n9x3o
Can heartily recommend Montenegro. They stamped our passports without even looking at us there!!
Without knowing who the BBC's sometimes willfully daft panel will nominate, especially from a team event like the World Cup, although I guess it is between Bellingham and Kane, I shan't be getting involved this far out on anyone near the front of the market. Rory McIlroy looks far too short though, now he is no longer a realistic contender in the Open golf where Tommy Fleetwood (33/1) got to within one stroke of the lead yesterday before falling back.
https://www.oddschecker.com/awards/sports-personality-of-the-year/bbc-sports-personality-of-the-year/
Which reminds me, the Commonwealth Games starts next week in Glasgow.
Josh Kerr is a good shout if he gets nominated, and he really should be nominated for taking out a 27-year-old world record. Another one from athletics is Keely Hodgkinson, who’s getting close to the 800m WR and might have a go in Glasgow. That’s one of the very dodgy records from as long ago as 1983, before they knew how to properly test for drugs! It’s the oldest extant WR in track and field, men or women.
Lake Skardar is amazing
Herceg Novi and Kotor we’ve stayed in and they’re fantastic although we came in via Dubrovnik
The only system that has ever effectively lifted people out of poverty at scale.
Simples.
Which! Burnham!
Which! Burnham!