We've had donkeys years of folk moaning about the Metropolitan elite and North London liberals. Now we get someone who unashamedly isn't, the same folk aren't happy. Not like that.
From the point of view of the establishment, the main purpose of Burnham is to stop Farage entering No 10. That's more important to them than the particulars of what Burnham actually does in office.
Why would the Establishment want to stop Farage, one of their own?
Just back from a blissful, internet free week on the Isle of Man. No 5g there at all, 4g ish and wifi in the holiday home that worked when it wanted to*. Going to unplug more often, it was great.
Back online now, and back to the Westminster circus. AB is much better at the comms piece, certainly comes across as human/personable. Not a fan of the BlameThatcherForEverything schtick but he's preaching to his leftwing base there. I'm interested to see who makes up his cabinet now, and what changes will actually materialise other than just better comms.
From the point of view of the establishment, the main purpose of Burnham is to stop Farage entering No 10. That's more important to them than the particulars of what Burnham actually does in office.
Why would the Establishment want to stop Farage, one of their own?
Indeed. There seems to be a fit of the vapours that power may be flowing away from expensive London clubs.
There doesn't seem to be enough money to run the country, and there hasn't been for some time. So unless Burnham can magically cut costs (which no-one else has been able to do so) then yes the State needs to raise more money
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
Don’t nationalise it, wait for it to go bust and supervise the sale with the administrators.
Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.
If the government doesn’t keep stepping in, they are toast.
The comic version of the lawsuit is to claim the government has a duty to prop them up, if they go bust. They don’t.
A legal challenge is inevitable, in all cases except the government backing Thames Water. Forever.
It's will be interesting to see how it pans out, though.
Like everything else, there will be an element of negotiation in it, but here the government has by far the strongest hand, as long as they play it both forcefully and carefully. Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut.
What would be unconscionable would be for the existing shareholders to retain ownership of assets which are effectively being refinanced by the bill payers. One possible solution (which would fit with Burnham's cooperative principles) might be restructuring it under the mutual ownership of its customers, to recognise that reality.
{sigh}
“Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.”
“Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut”
“while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.”
So you can’t do it without private investment? That’s how we treat it? That’s the pitch for people investing?
Err yeah, that’s how investments work.
The value of your shares can do down as well as up. Especially if you take a huge dividend while loading the company with debt it can no longer afford to service.
Especially as a monopoly provider of a necessary utility should be about the lowest risk you can get.
I guess we'll now never find out what it was that he did in government.
Prisons minister (Lord) James Timpson is first resignation from govt as Andy Burnham's team takes over. The rehabilitation expert was brought in by Keir Starmer in 2024 https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/2079142438715691278
From the point of view of the establishment, the main purpose of Burnham is to stop Farage entering No 10. That's more important to them than the particulars of what Burnham actually does in office.
What’s not to like? Do we want bigotry and facism to rule the roost?
All this means the Battle for the North could become the most important battle of the next year at least – and Farage’s biggest to date. He may well lose it.
There doesn't seem to be enough money to run the country, and there hasn't been for some time. So unless Burnham can magically cut costs (which no-one else has been able to do so) then yes the State needs to raise more money
Rishi and Hunt cut employee NI BY 4% that was £9.6bn in tax removed
As I’ve said before if that had been reversed the Government wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in
All this means the Battle for the North could become the most important battle of the next year at least – and Farage’s biggest to date. He may well lose it.
We can but hope. If AB is indeed seeking to be more collegiate, and tacks to the centre, could that also boost KB's Tories too if she plays this right? Effectively squeezing the extreme wings, left an right, with Normal Politics (tm)
Just back from a blissful, internet free week on the Isle of Man. No 5g there at all, 4g ish and wifi in the holiday home that worked when it wanted to*. Going to unplug more often, it was great.
Back online now, and back to the Westminster circus. AB is much better at the comms piece, certainly comes across as human/personable. Not a fan of the BlameThatcherForEverything schtick but he's preaching to his leftwing base there. I'm interested to see who makes up his cabinet now, and what changes will actually materialise other than just better comms.
*rarely
The new Starlink Mini 2 has a built-in battery, you can now have internet pretty much anywhere in the world that can see the sky.
There doesn't seem to be enough money to run the country, and there hasn't been for some time. So unless Burnham can magically cut costs (which no-one else has been able to do so) then yes the State needs to raise more money
Rishi and Hunt cut employee NI BY 4% that was £9.6bn in tax removed
Which as we've discussed ad nauseum was part of a package that was a net tax increase.
If the government reversed that we'd be in a bigger mess.
A move towards the French system. Large amounts of stuff provided by private companiies but with very strict Government limits/controls on service, quality and profits. It is something I have been advocating for the NHS for years. We have had the two extremes being advocated for too long - either Nationalisaation or laisse faire privatisation. Neither is the way to go.
I am afraid of Burnham on a personal level as I think he could end up causing me a lot of grief and costing me a lot of money with his policies and in the end I am old and just don't like change. But if he genuinely sticks to his announcements on ID cards, drilling and a new way of dealing with utilities (at least as a start) then I would give him a cautious welcome.
Just back from a blissful, internet free week on the Isle of Man. No 5g there at all, 4g ish and wifi in the holiday home that worked when it wanted to*. Going to unplug more often, it was great.
Back online now, and back to the Westminster circus. AB is much better at the comms piece, certainly comes across as human/personable. Not a fan of the BlameThatcherForEverything schtick but he's preaching to his leftwing base there. I'm interested to see who makes up his cabinet now, and what changes will actually materialise other than just better comms.
*rarely
The new Starlink Mini 2 has a built-in battery, you can now have internet pretty much anywhere in the world that can see the sky.
But switching off was great too... Going for long walks, practicing Archery in the garden, painting Warhammer with my son, swimming in the sea with my daughter, wine with card games on the patio.
Let's see etc but he did that well imo. He has the knack of appearing like a normal bloke speaking from the heart.
A normal bloke speaking from the heart might not a great Prime Minister make...
A bit of cerebral might not go amiss.
I know. He was first rejected from Cambridge because he couldn't see the similarity between the Canterbury Tales and a package holiday. Isn't that the definition of thick?
There doesn't seem to be enough money to run the country, and there hasn't been for some time. So unless Burnham can magically cut costs (which no-one else has been able to do so) then yes the State needs to raise more money
Rishi and Hunt cut employee NI BY 4% that was £9.6bn in tax removed
Which as we've discussed ad nauseum was part of a package that was a net tax increase.
If the government reversed that we'd be in a bigger mess.
Indeed. They were moving from taxing work to income. They left the tax free allowance unchanged so only workers benefitted.
I’m not saying that alone netted it off, other measures too, but I think it was a welcome step from them.
A move towards the French system. Large amounts of stuff provided by private companiies but with very strict Government limits/controls on service, quality and profits. It is something I have been advocating for the NHS for years. We have had the two extremes being advocated for too long - either Nationalisaation or laisse faire privatisation. Neither is the way to go.
I am afraid of Burnham on a personal level as I think he could end up causing me a lot of grief and costing me a lot of money with his policies and in the end I am old and just don't like change. But if he genuinely sticks to his announcements on ID cards, drilling and a new way of dealing with utilities (at least as a start) then I would give him a cautious welcome.
Our problem seems to be, as we are halfway towards the French model, our regulation is just wholly inadequate.
We have nationalised utilities but the regulation seems to be lacking.
I quite like Burnham if not sure about his 1970s stuff but he has charisma and I wish him the best as long as he does not put Ed Miliband in as COE
That's going to be Andy's problem. Nothing personal, it's the nature of the job.
Making Ed Chancellor will upset one slice of opinion.
Giving Shabana the job will upset another.
The same dynamic will be there several times a day, every day. Makes you wonder why anyone sane wants the job.
Because they want to do something with the power, even if they upset some people along the way.
That is why Starmer failed so abysmally, he had no drive to actually do anything.
His self-defined "legacy" of 2 years in Downing Street was getting there and winning power. Now anything he actually did while there. That sums him up completely, a grey failure who got into office but then was utterly clueless as to what to do once there.
Just back from a blissful, internet free week on the Isle of Man. No 5g there at all, 4g ish and wifi in the holiday home that worked when it wanted to*. Going to unplug more often, it was great.
Back online now, and back to the Westminster circus. AB is much better at the comms piece, certainly comes across as human/personable. Not a fan of the BlameThatcherForEverything schtick but he's preaching to his leftwing base there. I'm interested to see who makes up his cabinet now, and what changes will actually materialise other than just better comms.
*rarely
The new Starlink Mini 2 has a built-in battery, you can now have internet pretty much anywhere in the world that can see the sky.
But switching off was great too... Going for long walks, practicing Archery in the garden, painting Warhammer with my son, swimming in the sea with my daughter, wine with card games on the patio.
The best holiday I had in recent years was where I was totally switched off for a week. It doesn’t happen often enough.
A 10 year plan with a general election due in three years.
I wish Burnham well but his wish list of lovely things will likely be in the bin by this time next year. There's way too much trouble in the world right now to have the plain sailing required to deliver what he wants.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
How radical and edgy.
It's keeping up with the times. I imagine pearls were clutched when the first PM without a top hat appeared. Suits are on the way out.
Houthis say they will impose a maritime blockade on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for what they say is the kingdom’s siege on the Yemeni capital, according to the group’s spokesperson Yahya Saree.
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
Don’t nationalise it, wait for it to go bust and supervise the sale with the administrators.
Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.
If the government doesn’t keep stepping in, they are toast.
The comic version of the lawsuit is to claim the government has a duty to prop them up, if they go bust. They don’t.
A legal challenge is inevitable, in all cases except the government backing Thames Water. Forever.
It's will be interesting to see how it pans out, though.
Like everything else, there will be an element of negotiation in it, but here the government has by far the strongest hand, as long as they play it both forcefully and carefully. Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut.
What would be unconscionable would be for the existing shareholders to retain ownership of assets which are effectively being refinanced by the bill payers. One possible solution (which would fit with Burnham's cooperative principles) might be restructuring it under the mutual ownership of its customers, to recognise that reality.
{sigh}
“Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.”
“Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut”
“while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.”
So you can’t do it without private investment? That’s how we treat it? That’s the pitch for people investing?
In investing, you ac always lose yt=our shirt.
Despite what some pricing algorithms say, there is no risk-free rate of return.
There are many, many examples of companies that emerged from bankruptcy, with their excess baggage of debt removed, that have gone onto great success.
There doesn't seem to be enough money to run the country, and there hasn't been for some time. So unless Burnham can magically cut costs (which no-one else has been able to do so) then yes the State needs to raise more money
There is more than enough money to run the country. The problem is that successive governments, particularly Blair onwards have piled waste on waste. We need to move away from a culture of handouts to everyone and away from a culture where the government manages everything.
The elephant in the room is that every year that we continue to rack up debt at an astonishing rate, the debt interest payments get bigger and bigger, and this is completely unsustainable.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
How radical and edgy.
It's keeping up with the times. I imagine pearls were clutched when the first PM without a top hat appeared. Suits are on the way out.
It seems secondary schools will be the last place to get the memo.
A move towards the French system. Large amounts of stuff provided by private companiies but with very strict Government limits/controls on service, quality and profits. It is something I have been advocating for the NHS for years. We have had the two extremes being advocated for too long - either Nationalisaation or laisse faire privatisation. Neither is the way to go.
I am afraid of Burnham on a personal level as I think he could end up causing me a lot of grief and costing me a lot of money with his policies and in the end I am old and just don't like change. But if he genuinely sticks to his announcements on ID cards, drilling and a new way of dealing with utilities (at least as a start) then I would give him a cautious welcome.
Our problem seems to be, as we are halfway towards the French model, our regulation is just wholly inadequate.
We have nationalised utilities but the regulation seems to be lacking.
We simply don't have the understanding of how these things can and should be done. And we bounce back and forth between privatisation and nationalisation with each side looking for the purist answer.
All this means the Battle for the North could become the most important battle of the next year at least – and Farage’s biggest to date. He may well lose it.
Burnham's. Delivery. Has. A strange. Cadence My wife observes.
Ending rough sleeping. It was done during Covid, it is good to see there is a commitment to do it again.
"We will do better." He said. I think I would have preferred an emphasis on turning around the country being a collective effort that required the involvement of everyone. "We're all in it together," was one of the best political soundbites of our generation.
Like the greatest living Canadian, William Shatner, every word is its own sentence ?
The rough sleeping problem, isn't the sleeping outdoors bit. That's the *outcome*.
Herding them all into accomodation rapidly broke down, during COVID, because of the personal issues of the rough sleepers. Which is why they are rough sleeping in the first place.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Burnham's. Delivery. Has. A strange. Cadence My wife observes.
Ending rough sleeping. It was done during Covid, it is good to see there is a commitment to do it again.
"We will do better." He said. I think I would have preferred an emphasis on turning around the country being a collective effort that required the involvement of everyone. "We're all in it together," was one of the best political soundbites of our generation.
Like the greatest living Canadian, William Shatner, every word is its own sentence ?
The rough sleeping problem, isn't the sleeping outdoors bit. That's the *outcome*.
Herding them all into accomodation rapidly broke down, during COVID, because of the personal issues of the rough sleepers. Which is why they are rough sleeping in the first place.
Homelessness != Rough Sleeping, as well.
It’s mostly a drink and drugs and mental health problem, and needs to be approached from that end rather than the “housing” end.
Burnham's. Delivery. Has. A strange. Cadence My wife observes.
Ending rough sleeping. It was done during Covid, it is good to see there is a commitment to do it again.
"We will do better." He said. I think I would have preferred an emphasis on turning around the country being a collective effort that required the involvement of everyone. "We're all in it together," was one of the best political soundbites of our generation.
Like the greatest living Canadian, William Shatner, every word is its own sentence ?
The rough sleeping problem, isn't the sleeping outdoors bit. That's the *outcome*.
Herding them all into accomodation rapidly broke down, during COVID, because of the personal issues of the rough sleepers. Which is why they are rough sleeping in the first place.
Homelessness != Rough Sleeping, as well.
Quite. You can round rough sleepers up and lock them in an institution. Does that solve the problem?
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
How radical and edgy.
It's keeping up with the times. I imagine pearls were clutched when the first PM without a top hat appeared. Suits are on the way out.
It seems secondary schools will be the last place to get the memo.
Burnham's. Delivery. Has. A strange. Cadence My wife observes.
Ending rough sleeping. It was done during Covid, it is good to see there is a commitment to do it again.
"We will do better." He said. I think I would have preferred an emphasis on turning around the country being a collective effort that required the involvement of everyone. "We're all in it together," was one of the best political soundbites of our generation.
Like the greatest living Canadian, William Shatner, every word is its own sentence ?
The rough sleeping problem, isn't the sleeping outdoors bit. That's the *outcome*.
Herding them all into accomodation rapidly broke down, during COVID, because of the personal issues of the rough sleepers. Which is why they are rough sleeping in the first place.
Homelessness != Rough Sleeping, as well.
Quite. You can round rough sleepers up and lock them in an institution. Does that solve the problem?
That's pretty much what we used to do. And the initiations were so horrific that people all over the political spectrum fought to end them.
In addition, modern law doesn't allow you to lock people up for making the place look a bit untidy. And doctors will not drug people up to the eyeballs, just to make them manageable, as they used to.
All this means the Battle for the North could become the most important battle of the next year at least – and Farage’s biggest to date. He may well lose it.
Houthis say they will impose a maritime blockade on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for what they say is the kingdom’s siege on the Yemeni capital, according to the group’s spokesperson Yahya Saree.
The all too foreseeable consequences of Trump's idiocy just get better and better.
There needs to be a complete and full investigation into FIFA's behaviour this tournament.
No stone unturned.
Genuine LOL. Of course there does....
Do you think we should just turn the other cheek?
Who is going to carry out this complete and full investigation into FIFA's behaviour, Dixon of Dock Green or Crockett & Tubbs?
Trump's DOJ?
It wouldn't be terribly hard, probably, to get evidence of FIFIA breaking laws on bribery etc. And since this usually has an international dimension, finding something that the UK has jurisdiction over.
The reason that this hasn't happened is that if the UK Government issued warrants for the arrest of senior FIFA personnel, there would be a shitstorm in football.
Burnham's high-profile pledge to end rough sleeping is interesting, as it's not a pledge that is an obvious vote winner - i.e. it's not on most people's list of priorities.
It rather suggests that a 'moral mission' will be part of Burnham's agenda - doing what's right, not just what's most popular.
Burnham's. Delivery. Has. A strange. Cadence My wife observes.
Ending rough sleeping. It was done during Covid, it is good to see there is a commitment to do it again.
"We will do better." He said. I think I would have preferred an emphasis on turning around the country being a collective effort that required the involvement of everyone. "We're all in it together," was one of the best political soundbites of our generation.
Like the greatest living Canadian, William Shatner, every word is its own sentence ?
The rough sleeping problem, isn't the sleeping outdoors bit. That's the *outcome*.
Herding them all into accomodation rapidly broke down, during COVID, because of the personal issues of the rough sleepers. Which is why they are rough sleeping in the first place.
Homelessness != Rough Sleeping, as well.
It's part of the problem - the visible part. Almost no-one wants to be sleeping rough. There is a big difference in outcomes between let's get rid of rough sleeping and let's not bother particularly, which is current policy.
This is a universal problem and there's plenty of good practice to follow, including in the UK, that delivers those better outcomes.
Burnham's high-profile pledge to end rough sleeping is interesting, as it's not a pledge that is an obvious vote winner - i.e. it's not on most people's list of priorities.
It rather suggests that a 'moral mission' will be part of Burnham's agenda - doing what's right, not just what's most popular.
Don't underestimate the influence of Catholicism on him. It runs deep in the NW Labour Party. And in Burnham.
Comments
I cannot say no.
I hope he’s not taking a dump !!
😳
It’s Johnsonian over promising on steroids. Clocks ticking on this BS.
Tick Tock.
Much more respectable than lazy Bray and his amp.
https://x.com/tomhfh/status/2079173607066935772
Now we get someone who unashamedly isn't, the same folk aren't happy.
Not like that.
Perish the though.
Going to unplug more often, it was great.
Back online now, and back to the Westminster circus.
AB is much better at the comms piece, certainly comes across as human/personable. Not a fan of the BlameThatcherForEverything schtick but he's preaching to his leftwing base there.
I'm interested to see who makes up his cabinet now, and what changes will actually materialise other than just better comms.
*rarely
I still have nightmares.
That should be one of the first.
I will help you on one point though, I think you are very misguided on just about every topic you venture to post on.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.260220964
Prisons minister (Lord) James Timpson is first resignation from govt as Andy Burnham's team takes over. The rehabilitation expert was brought in by Keir Starmer in 2024
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/2079142438715691278
His first two policy changes about North Sea oil and digital id are fine . Just needs to announce the other easy one of not gifting the chagos islands
A bit of cerebral might not go amiss.
James Frayne
Burnham’s authentic Northern strategy could utterly destroy Farage’s chances of power
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/20/burnham-authentic-northern-strategy-could-destroy-farage/
Thankfully it was just a slash.
(Btw, I hope you offered him a tea of coffee.)
As I’ve said before if that had been reversed the Government wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in
If AB is indeed seeking to be more collegiate, and tacks to the centre, could that also boost KB's Tories too if she plays this right?
Effectively squeezing the extreme wings, left an right, with Normal Politics (tm)
https://x.com/olegkutkov/status/2078989908501582281
Just arrest the twat.
If the government reversed that we'd be in a bigger mess.
I am afraid of Burnham on a personal level as I think he could end up causing me a lot of grief and costing me a lot of money with his policies and in the end I am old and just don't like change. But if he genuinely sticks to his announcements on ID cards, drilling and a new way of dealing with utilities (at least as a start) then I would give him a cautious welcome.
Making Ed Chancellor will upset one slice of opinion.
Giving Shabana the job will upset another.
The same dynamic will be there several times a day, every day. Makes you wonder why anyone sane wants the job.
But switching off was great too...
Going for long walks, practicing Archery in the garden, painting Warhammer with my son, swimming in the sea with my daughter, wine with card games on the patio.
I’m not saying that alone netted it off, other measures too, but I think it was a welcome step from them.
We have nationalised utilities but the regulation seems to be lacking.
That is why Starmer failed so abysmally, he had no drive to actually do anything.
His self-defined "legacy" of 2 years in Downing Street was getting there and winning power. Now anything he actually did while there. That sums him up completely, a grey failure who got into office but then was utterly clueless as to what to do once there.
I imagine pearls were clutched when the first PM without a top hat appeared.
Suits are on the way out.
Houthis say they will impose a maritime blockade on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for what they say is the kingdom’s siege on the Yemeni capital, according to the group’s spokesperson Yahya Saree.
Despite what some pricing algorithms say, there is no risk-free rate of return.
There are many, many examples of companies that emerged from bankruptcy, with their excess baggage of debt removed, that have gone onto great success.
I am tribunis plebis.
The problem is that successive governments, particularly Blair onwards have piled waste on waste.
We need to move away from a culture of handouts to everyone and away from a culture where the government manages everything.
The elephant in the room is that every year that we continue to rack up debt at an astonishing rate, the debt interest payments get bigger and bigger, and this is completely unsustainable.
It should be clear to everyone now he's just a total nutcase, who's estranged everyone he's ever associated with, and should be handled accordingly.
Mauve trousers aren't the look in Hindley Green.
Herding them all into accomodation rapidly broke down, during COVID, because of the personal issues of the rough sleepers. Which is why they are rough sleeping in the first place.
Homelessness != Rough Sleeping, as well.
https://x.com/20rcmatheus/status/2078963156810874996?s=20
Bray unplugged. Bray doing the opposite of Dylan at the Newport folk festival.
https://youtu.be/hv-sOc2a36Y?is=6-6VJkOeX9PGD0rL
In addition, modern law doesn't allow you to lock people up for making the place look a bit untidy. And doctors will not drug people up to the eyeballs, just to make them manageable, as they used to.
We only need to mess around with FIFA once every four years.
Rest of the time we have the greatest league in the world and UEFA (which has its own issues) etc to concern ourselves with.
FIFA is a pisstake but we know that. We should focus on winning the Euros now.
Reform 37%
The qualifiers for WC30 will be in just over 2 years' time.
FIFA are not Gods, and there needs to be a reckoning.
Wonder when that has happened before?
The reason that this hasn't happened is that if the UK Government issued warrants for the arrest of senior FIFA personnel, there would be a shitstorm in football.
It rather suggests that a 'moral mission' will be part of Burnham's agenda - doing what's right, not just what's most popular.
This is a universal problem and there's plenty of good practice to follow, including in the UK, that delivers those better outcomes.
It runs deep in the NW Labour Party. And in Burnham.