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.
Our town was blighted by aggressive beggars and some rough sleeping.
Plod and outreach came and although some lived in properties outside the area and bused in others who slept rough didn’t want to go into accomodation.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
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.
Does Burnham really need to explain he's not advocating concentration camps?
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.
Does Burnham really need to explain he's not advocating concentration camps?
I would have thought Restore, Reform and many Tory voters would like the concept of the workhouse.
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.
I thought Shabana was a bloody awful home secretary that tried to out-Reform Reform. Before that, she was a supporter of immigrants. Maybe she's a Boris?
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.
Let’s see if he repeals Starmer’s decriminalisation of 40-week abortions then…
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
You would think now he has a flat at 10 Downing Street he does not need to sleep rough .
Seriously has he achieved anything on this in Manchester ? You would think being a long term mayor he should have if it’s his mission
This is a moderately interesting take on what is otherwise a very tedious culture war on X about Nolan's film.
Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey may be the most pro-Western civilization film Hollywood has made in decades - not because it flatters the Greeks, but because it understands civilization as a moral achievement rather than an ethnic possession.
The identitarian far-left and far-right share a premise: that the Western canon is ethnic property. One side condemns it on that basis; the other guards it on the same basis. Nolan refuses the premise, populating Homer's world with various identities while treating the story with absolute seriousness. That’s not a repudiation of the canon but evidence of its triumph: Homer can be inhabited by, and speak to, anyone.
The film’s deepest commitment is to individual moral agency. Odysseus cannot hide behind Greece, military orders, or victory. His choices are his own, and so is his guilt. No collective cause dissolves individual moral responsibility; his final heroism lies not in conquest, but atonement.
That principle extends to hospitality: treat the stranger as you would wish to be treated. When the Greeks violate it, they become the barbarians they fear. Penelope's devastating realization - "You're the people from the sea" - underscores that the enemies of civilization are sometimes its self-appointed defenders, exempting themselves from the principles they claim to uphold.
This is Western civilization at its best - not an ethnicity or a triumphalist myth, but a tradition built around the dignity of the individual, moral responsibility, and atonement. And a civilization strong enough to preserve stories that judge its own heroes remains a civilization worth defending. https://x.com/tylerhnorris/status/2078960088258363722
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
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.
I thought Shabana was a bloody awful home secretary that tried to out-Reform Reform. Before that, she was a supporter of immigrants. Maybe she's a Boris?
That's exactly why she was an excellent home secretary.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
You would think now he has a flat at 10 Downing Street he does not need to sleep rough .
Seriously has he achieved anything on this in Manchester ? You would think being a long term mayor he should have if it’s his mission
The Twitter consensus is that rough sleeping in Manchester has doubled in the time Burnham’s been mayor.
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.
To me it suggests his vacuity instead; ending rough sleeping isn't possible; its a combination of economic issues, mental health issues, and a very small number of people who embrace the lifestyle (or in some cases, can't function any other way).
Hopefully Andy Burnham will come under a lot of scrutiny over his polices . Any PM should expect so but especially him given he had no need to justify or explain to anyone before becoming PM . We have the Labour Party to thank for this lack of essential scrutiny of course given their rush to coronate him
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.
Does Burnham really need to explain he's not advocating concentration camps?
I would have thought Restore, Reform and many Tory voters would like the concept of the workhouse.
Actually the Workhouse as opposed to the Poorhouse was a Whig / Liberal invention, one of the Benthamite Reforms of the 1830s. Most Tories opposed them as being draconian, expensive, demoralising and ineffective. The Poor Laws Amendment Act has more to answer for than the horrific response of national government to potato blight.
There's a part of me that would like to imagine that Burnham is currently getting a briefing along the lines of this one from the Inauguration episode of Stargate SG1
There's a part of me that would like to imagine that Burnham is currently getting a briefing along the lines of this one from the Inauguration episode of Stargate SG1
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
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.
To me it suggests his vacuity instead; ending rough sleeping isn't possible; its a combination of economic issues, mental health issues, and a very small number of people who embrace the lifestyle (or in some cases, can't function any other way).
The other suggestion (which I favour) is that it's something to keep Lucy Powell busy with, which won't do any harm, and might end up doing some good.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
You would think now he has a flat at 10 Downing Street he does not need to sleep rough .
Seriously has he achieved anything on this in Manchester ? You would think being a long term mayor he should have if it’s his mission
The Twitter consensus is that rough sleeping in Manchester has doubled in the time Burnham’s been mayor.
Though it has increased in recent years, it initially went down significantly and has recently rebounded (but is still down overall).
Which is not unusual for a problem like this. Fixing it entails dealing with a myriad of issues like drugs, mental health etc and the fact some people actually do like the lifestyle or prefer it over getting clean etc
It may be possible to do something but elimination is not realistic.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
You would think now he has a flat at 10 Downing Street he does not need to sleep rough .
Seriously has he achieved anything on this in Manchester ? You would think being a long term mayor he should have if it’s his mission
The Twitter consensus is that rough sleeping in Manchester has doubled in the time Burnham’s been mayor.
Though it has increased in recent years, it initially went down significantly and has recently rebounded (but is still down overall).
Which is not unusual for a problem like this. Fixing it entails dealing with a myriad of issues like drugs, mental health etc and the fact some people actually do like the lifestyle or prefer it over getting clean etc
It may be possible to do something but elimination is not realistic.
Agree but “liking” it is a bit too far I think. The alternatives of slum landlords, of shared accommodation, hostels etc aren’t a bed of roses either. I can see why for some sleeping rough is the least worst option.
Andy Burnham seems to have many skills and seems pretty inventive and sharp. One thing I have not seen any evidence of though is the ability to say no . I notice Northern Ireland already asking for more money . That’s a real test of a PM . Is he too nice ?
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.
Rough sleeping has been ended before. It sounds good, is possible, and cheap. There might be an issue with rough sleepers preferring to sleep rough during the summer months but who knows? I'm not sure I've seen many at all since the pandemic.
LBC’s suggestions based on its mixture of guesswork and whispers heard, informed by Marr and Clark their political editor, is Mahmoud for no. 11, Ed to be moved but who knows where…(housing?), Streeting for defence or possibly a new AI-related role, Rayner comes back and might get health, Powell to get a top job….
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.
I recall a glorious Lake district trip with my soon to be girlfriend, now wife, where I forgot all the cares about football and research chemistry. Not even radio signal for the football results. Bliss.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
You would think now he has a flat at 10 Downing Street he does not need to sleep rough .
Seriously has he achieved anything on this in Manchester ? You would think being a long term mayor he should have if it’s his mission
Yes he has, though its gotten worse in recent years its still better than it was in 2017.
That pattern of decline since 2017 until 2021 then increase since then mirrors what has happened in the rest of the country, though in the rest of the country it is now at a record high whereas in Manchester it is still significantly below where it was in 2017.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
One thing I would advise Andy Burnham on is to stop going on about not wearing a suit and tie . If he really wants to wear them less just quietly do so . By going on as if it’s a grand policy of his makes him look like more Kevin the Teenager than a PM of a top 10 economic power country
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
Fair enough. I don't think it's performative either. I think people often genuinely reach very different conclusions from the same facts.
Where I part company is when those differences are explained as "they don't care" or "they lack compassion". That's a much stronger claim than "I think they're wrong", and one that's very hard to substantiate.
Most people aren't devoid of empathy. They simply prioritise competing harms differently or disagree about what policies will actually reduce suffering.
And this is why the left so often lose. If you explain disagreement as a deficit of compassion rather than a difference in priorities or judgement, you stop trying to persuade. You end up preaching to people who already agree with you and wondering why everyone else isn't listening.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
Burnham had a major pledge on rough sleeping in Greater Manchester, and he's been donating 15% of his salary to a charity to deal with it. I think this is genuine on his part. A bit harsh for people to decry it as performative.
He wasn't successful as Mayor in dealing with the issue in Greater Manchester - said that he couldn't address the problem as one city alone. In this sense it's also a test of his commitment to devolution - what if Scotland or Wales are less committed to this? Or a future mayor somewhere decides to prioritise resources to achieving some other policy objective?
One thing I would advise Andy Burnham on is to stop going on about not wearing a suit and tie . If he really wants to wear them less just quietly do so . By going on as if it’s a grand policy of his makes him look like more Kevin the Teenager than a PM of a top 10 economic power country
I haven't heard him mention it tbh. It seems to be mostly journalists and commentators astonished that he may choose not to wear the required uniform for a London club.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
You would think now he has a flat at 10 Downing Street he does not need to sleep rough .
Seriously has he achieved anything on this in Manchester ? You would think being a long term mayor he should have if it’s his mission
Yes he has, though its gotten worse in recent years its still better than it was in 2017.
That pattern of decline since 2017 until 2021 then increase since then mirrors what has happened in the rest of the country, though in the rest of the country it is now at a record high whereas in Manchester it is still significantly below where it was in 2017.
From my lived experience, there are more Jakies in Manchester than Leeds.
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.
Though the biggest issue is that the problems that leave to rough sleeping are personal and varied. Putting more resources into mental health, drug treatment, sheltered accommodation and rehabilitation as a *combined* effort will probably reduce the number of rough sleepers.
It will not just end it as a politicians solution. Certainly not by the next election, for example.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
And having encountered certain people in the charity world, they project a belief in a lack of compassion in others, because they lack it themselves.
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.
Does Burnham really need to explain he's not advocating concentration camps?
I thought they were referred to as four star hotels these days?
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
Fair enough. I don't think it's performative either. I think people often genuinely reach very different conclusions from the same facts.
Where I part company is when those differences are explained as "they don't care" or "they lack compassion". That's a much stronger claim than "I think they're wrong", and one that's very hard to substantiate.
Most people aren't devoid of empathy. They simply prioritise competing harms differently or disagree about what policies will actually reduce suffering.
And this is why the left so often lose. If you explain disagreement as a deficit of compassion rather than a difference in priorities or judgement, you stop trying to persuade. You end up preaching to people who already agree with you and wondering why everyone else isn't listening.
That may be true - but the observation here was about Burnham personally, and I don’t see any evidence that it’s performative (and others have backed that up with evidence).
One thing I would advise Andy Burnham on is to stop going on about not wearing a suit and tie . If he really wants to wear them less just quietly do so . By going on as if it’s a grand policy of his makes him look like more Kevin the Teenager than a PM of a top 10 economic power country
I haven't heard him mention it tbh. It seems to be mostly journalists and commentators astonished that he may choose not to wear the required uniform for a London club.
So he must have told them for them to make a fuss . I remember thinking what a nob Richard Branson was when reading his bio when he was going on about not wearing ties (fair enough if that’s what you personally want ) and cutting off ties of any employee or business acquaintance who wore one in a meeting with him.
Betfair has suspended and is settling the next PM market. ETA now settled.
Hills has settled on Burnham PM.
Hills next PM after Burnham:- 9/4 Nigel Farage 5/1 Kemi Badenoch 8/1 Shabana Mahmood 8/1 Al Carns 12/1 Robert Jenrick 14/1 Angela Rayner 16/1 Ed Miliband 16/1 James Cleverly 16/1 Wes Streeting 16/1 Yvette Cooper 16/1 Zia Yusuf 16/1 Richard Tice 16/1 Rupert Lowe 22/1 Darren Jones 25/1 Zack Polanksi 33/1 Katie Lam 33/1 Louise Haigh 33/1 Lucy Powell 50/1 Claire Coutinho 50/1 John Healey 50/1 Boris Johnson 50/1 Ed Davey 50/1 Torsten Bell 66/1 Nick Timothy 66/1 Suella Braverman 66/1 Tom Tugendhat 66/1 Chris Philp 66/1 Hilary Benn 66/1 Peter Kyle 66/1 Sarah Sackman 100/1 Jeremy Hunt 100/1 Jeremy Corbyn 100/1 Hamish Falconer 100/1 Nadia Whittome 100/1 Dan Jarvis 100/1 Richard Burgon 100/1 David Lammy 100/1 Rebecca Long-Bailey
One thing I would advise Andy Burnham on is to stop going on about not wearing a suit and tie . If he really wants to wear them less just quietly do so . By going on as if it’s a grand policy of his makes him look like more Kevin the Teenager than a PM of a top 10 economic power country
I haven't heard him mention it tbh. It seems to be mostly journalists and commentators astonished that he may choose not to wear the required uniform for a London club.
So he must have told them for them to make a fuss . I remember thinking what a nob Richard Branson was when reading his bio when he was going on about not wearing ties (fair enough if that’s what you personally want ) and cutting off ties of any employee or business acquaintance who wore one in a meeting with him.
More likely they have asked. What people wear seems to be an endless source of fascination for many. It always is a favourite topic for journalists. Makes a nice change to be about a bloke tbh.
One thing I would advise Andy Burnham on is to stop going on about not wearing a suit and tie . If he really wants to wear them less just quietly do so . By going on as if it’s a grand policy of his makes him look like more Kevin the Teenager than a PM of a top 10 economic power country
I haven't heard him mention it tbh. It seems to be mostly journalists and commentators astonished that he may choose not to wear the required uniform for a London club.
So he must have told them for them to make a fuss . I remember thinking what a nob Richard Branson was when reading his bio when he was going on about not wearing ties (fair enough if that’s what you personally want ) and cutting off ties of any employee or business acquaintance who wore one in a meeting with him.
Or they have eyes and can see he's not wearing one when they speak to him.
Cutting other people's property absolutely make you a nob. Not wearing one yourself does not.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
Well, all tories are sadists who worship people that have more money than them so formulate your own Arbitrium Morale.
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.
Does Burnham really need to explain he's not advocating concentration camps?
I thought they were referred to as four star hotels these days?
Hilariously, the Nazis tried to abolish tramps, dysfunctional families etc. This was about saving "Aryan blood". So they put quite a bit of resources into it - not just violence. First they housed them is special housing (Gulags for Slags....). When this was often damaged or destroyed, they rebuilt in concrete. Then the barbed wire went up. Basically, they did a speed run through reform and help to ultra violence.
Then the war came.
The men were all conscripted into the army. Many ended up in punishment battalions on the Eastern front. A number ended up in the Dirlewanger Brigade. The children were generally forcibly adopted into "normal" families.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
Fair enough. I don't think it's performative either. I think people often genuinely reach very different conclusions from the same facts.
Where I part company is when those differences are explained as "they don't care" or "they lack compassion". That's a much stronger claim than "I think they're wrong", and one that's very hard to substantiate.
Most people aren't devoid of empathy. They simply prioritise competing harms differently or disagree about what policies will actually reduce suffering.
And this is why the left so often lose. If you explain disagreement as a deficit of compassion rather than a difference in priorities or judgement, you stop trying to persuade. You end up preaching to people who already agree with you and wondering why everyone else isn't listening.
That may be true - but the observation here was about Burnham personally, and I don’t see any evidence that it’s performative (and others have backed that up with evidence).
I don't think AB's stance on homelessness is performative either. But I can understand why some may think that it is without traducing them personally in return. I can understand why someone might see political calculation in almost any high-profile policy announcement. Disagree with that judgement if you like, but it's quite a leap from "I think you're cynical" to "you don't experience a visceral reaction to human suffering".
One thing I would advise Andy Burnham on is to stop going on about not wearing a suit and tie . If he really wants to wear them less just quietly do so . By going on as if it’s a grand policy of his makes him look like more Kevin the Teenager than a PM of a top 10 economic power country
I haven't heard him mention it tbh. It seems to be mostly journalists and commentators astonished that he may choose not to wear the required uniform for a London club.
So he must have told them for them to make a fuss . I remember thinking what a nob Richard Branson was when reading his bio when he was going on about not wearing ties (fair enough if that’s what you personally want ) and cutting off ties of any employee or business acquaintance who wore one in a meeting with him.
More likely they have asked. What people wear seems to be an endless source of fascination for many. It always is a favourite topic for journalists. Makes a nice change to be about a bloke tbh.
Journalists are wanting to come across as knowing something about what's going on, but no announcements have been made about policies or Cabinet etc so are filling in time with inane nonsense like "he was not wearing a tie" which anyone who isn't blind looking at the picture of him can see.
One thing I would advise Andy Burnham on is to stop going on about not wearing a suit and tie . If he really wants to wear them less just quietly do so . By going on as if it’s a grand policy of his makes him look like more Kevin the Teenager than a PM of a top 10 economic power country
I haven't heard him mention it tbh. It seems to be mostly journalists and commentators astonished that he may choose not to wear the required uniform for a London club.
So he must have told them for them to make a fuss . I remember thinking what a nob Richard Branson was when reading his bio when he was going on about not wearing ties (fair enough if that’s what you personally want ) and cutting off ties of any employee or business acquaintance who wore one in a meeting with him.
More likely they have asked. What people wear seems to be an endless source of fascination for many. It always is a favourite topic for journalists. Makes a nice change to be about a bloke tbh.
Journalists are wanting to come across as knowing something about what's going on, but no announcements have been made about policies or Cabinet etc so are filling in time with inane nonsense like "he was not wearing a tie" which anyone who isn't blind looking at the picture of him can see.
We've previously seen Keir Starmer not wearing a tie without banging on about it.
One thing I would advise Andy Burnham on is to stop going on about not wearing a suit and tie . If he really wants to wear them less just quietly do so . By going on as if it’s a grand policy of his makes him look like more Kevin the Teenager than a PM of a top 10 economic power country
I haven't heard him mention it tbh. It seems to be mostly journalists and commentators astonished that he may choose not to wear the required uniform for a London club.
So he must have told them for them to make a fuss . I remember thinking what a nob Richard Branson was when reading his bio when he was going on about not wearing ties (fair enough if that’s what you personally want ) and cutting off ties of any employee or business acquaintance who wore one in a meeting with him.
More likely they have asked. What people wear seems to be an endless source of fascination for many. It always is a favourite topic for journalists. Makes a nice change to be about a bloke tbh.
Journalists are wanting to come across as knowing something about what's going on, but no announcements have been made about policies or Cabinet etc so are filling in time with inane nonsense like "he was not wearing a tie" which anyone who isn't blind looking at the picture of him can see.
We've previously seen Keir Starmer not wearing a tie without banging on about it.
Thatcher never wore a tie either (except on Spitting Image)
His Ukraine comments are weird too. The strategy of the EU et al is readily to apparent to all including VVP. Just try to keep the SMO going until 2029 and hope for a more biddable POTUS. To them, Ukraine is simply something to be expended. There is no theory of victory.
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.
Nationalise the industries which the state is held responsible for, privatise those which it isn't, and make the first group as small as possible. So that's trains, water, gas, electric, law enforcement, and the military in the former, and everything else in the latter. Pulse we need a state broadcaster and some other stuff.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
Fair enough. I don't think it's performative either. I think people often genuinely reach very different conclusions from the same facts.
Where I part company is when those differences are explained as "they don't care" or "they lack compassion". That's a much stronger claim than "I think they're wrong", and one that's very hard to substantiate.
Most people aren't devoid of empathy. They simply prioritise competing harms differently or disagree about what policies will actually reduce suffering.
And this is why the left so often lose. If you explain disagreement as a deficit of compassion rather than a difference in priorities or judgement, you stop trying to persuade. You end up preaching to people who already agree with you and wondering why everyone else isn't listening.
That may be true - but the observation here was about Burnham personally, and I don’t see any evidence that it’s performative (and others have backed that up with evidence).
I don't think AB's stance on homelessness is performative either. But I can understand why some may think that it is without traducing them personally in return. I can understand why someone might see political calculation in almost any high-profile policy announcement. Disagree with that judgement if you like, but it's quite a leap from "I think you're cynical" to "you don't experience a visceral reaction to human suffering".
"Ending rough sleeping" is pretty much impossible. Reducing it is possible.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
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.
To me it suggests his vacuity instead; ending rough sleeping isn't possible; its a combination of economic issues, mental health issues, and a very small number of people who embrace the lifestyle (or in some cases, can't function any other way).
Betfair has suspended and is settling the next PM market. ETA now settled.
Hills has settled on Burnham PM.
Hills next PM after Burnham:- 9/4 Nigel Farage 5/1 Kemi Badenoch 8/1 Shabana Mahmood 8/1 Al Carns 12/1 Robert Jenrick 14/1 Angela Rayner 16/1 Ed Miliband 16/1 James Cleverly 16/1 Wes Streeting 16/1 Yvette Cooper 16/1 Zia Yusuf 16/1 Richard Tice 16/1 Rupert Lowe 22/1 Darren Jones 25/1 Zack Polanksi 33/1 Katie Lam 33/1 Louise Haigh 33/1 Lucy Powell 50/1 Claire Coutinho 50/1 John Healey 50/1 Boris Johnson 50/1 Ed Davey 50/1 Torsten Bell 66/1 Nick Timothy 66/1 Suella Braverman 66/1 Tom Tugendhat 66/1 Chris Philp 66/1 Hilary Benn 66/1 Peter Kyle 66/1 Sarah Sackman 100/1 Jeremy Hunt 100/1 Jeremy Corbyn 100/1 Hamish Falconer 100/1 Nadia Whittome 100/1 Dan Jarvis 100/1 Richard Burgon 100/1 David Lammy 100/1 Rebecca Long-Bailey
I am fairly confident that the next PM isn’t any of the top seven
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
Fair enough. I don't think it's performative either. I think people often genuinely reach very different conclusions from the same facts.
Where I part company is when those differences are explained as "they don't care" or "they lack compassion". That's a much stronger claim than "I think they're wrong", and one that's very hard to substantiate.
Most people aren't devoid of empathy. They simply prioritise competing harms differently or disagree about what policies will actually reduce suffering.
And this is why the left so often lose. If you explain disagreement as a deficit of compassion rather than a difference in priorities or judgement, you stop trying to persuade. You end up preaching to people who already agree with you and wondering why everyone else isn't listening.
That may be true - but the observation here was about Burnham personally, and I don’t see any evidence that it’s performative (and others have backed that up with evidence).
I don't think AB's stance on homelessness is performative either. But I can understand why some may think that it is without traducing them personally in return. I can understand why someone might see political calculation in almost any high-profile policy announcement. Disagree with that judgement if you like, but it's quite a leap from "I think you're cynical" to "you don't experience a visceral reaction to human suffering".
I suspect there are few easy votes in ending rough sleeping. It obviously requires investment in more than accommodation, as a lot of rough sleepers are substance abusers, ex-convicts or ex-military, sometimes all of the above.
But a bit like the "Broken Window" theory of crime control, it does make our streets less threatening, particularly to older people and women, so is a key part of visibly improving our town centres.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
Fair enough. I don't think it's performative either. I think people often genuinely reach very different conclusions from the same facts.
Where I part company is when those differences are explained as "they don't care" or "they lack compassion". That's a much stronger claim than "I think they're wrong", and one that's very hard to substantiate.
Most people aren't devoid of empathy. They simply prioritise competing harms differently or disagree about what policies will actually reduce suffering.
And this is why the left so often lose. If you explain disagreement as a deficit of compassion rather than a difference in priorities or judgement, you stop trying to persuade. You end up preaching to people who already agree with you and wondering why everyone else isn't listening.
That may be true - but the observation here was about Burnham personally, and I don’t see any evidence that it’s performative (and others have backed that up with evidence).
I don't think AB's stance on homelessness is performative either. But I can understand why some may think that it is without traducing them personally in return. I can understand why someone might see political calculation in almost any high-profile policy announcement. Disagree with that judgement if you like, but it's quite a leap from "I think you're cynical" to "you don't experience a visceral reaction to human suffering".
"Ending rough sleeping" is pretty much impossible. Reducing it is possible.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
Fair enough. I don't think it's performative either. I think people often genuinely reach very different conclusions from the same facts.
Where I part company is when those differences are explained as "they don't care" or "they lack compassion". That's a much stronger claim than "I think they're wrong", and one that's very hard to substantiate.
Most people aren't devoid of empathy. They simply prioritise competing harms differently or disagree about what policies will actually reduce suffering.
And this is why the left so often lose. If you explain disagreement as a deficit of compassion rather than a difference in priorities or judgement, you stop trying to persuade. You end up preaching to people who already agree with you and wondering why everyone else isn't listening.
That may be true - but the observation here was about Burnham personally, and I don’t see any evidence that it’s performative (and others have backed that up with evidence).
I don't think AB's stance on homelessness is performative either. But I can understand why some may think that it is without traducing them personally in return. I can understand why someone might see political calculation in almost any high-profile policy announcement. Disagree with that judgement if you like, but it's quite a leap from "I think you're cynical" to "you don't experience a visceral reaction to human suffering".
I suspect there are few easy votes in ending rough sleeping. It obviously requires investment in more than accommodation, as a lot of rough sleepers are substance abusers, ex-convicts or ex-military, sometimes all of the above.
But a bit like the "Broken Window" theory of crime control, it does make our streets less threatening, particularly to older people and women, so is a key part of visibly improving our town centres.
I agree, small things can make a real difference to our collective quality of life.
Betfair has suspended and is settling the next PM market. ETA now settled.
Hills has settled on Burnham PM.
Hills next PM after Burnham:- 9/4 Nigel Farage 5/1 Kemi Badenoch 8/1 Shabana Mahmood 8/1 Al Carns 12/1 Robert Jenrick 14/1 Angela Rayner 16/1 Ed Miliband 16/1 James Cleverly 16/1 Wes Streeting 16/1 Yvette Cooper 16/1 Zia Yusuf 16/1 Richard Tice 16/1 Rupert Lowe 22/1 Darren Jones 25/1 Zack Polanksi 33/1 Katie Lam 33/1 Louise Haigh 33/1 Lucy Powell 50/1 Claire Coutinho 50/1 John Healey 50/1 Boris Johnson 50/1 Ed Davey 50/1 Torsten Bell 66/1 Nick Timothy 66/1 Suella Braverman 66/1 Tom Tugendhat 66/1 Chris Philp 66/1 Hilary Benn 66/1 Peter Kyle 66/1 Sarah Sackman 100/1 Jeremy Hunt 100/1 Jeremy Corbyn 100/1 Hamish Falconer 100/1 Nadia Whittome 100/1 Dan Jarvis 100/1 Richard Burgon 100/1 David Lammy 100/1 Rebecca Long-Bailey
I am fairly confident that the next PM isn’t any of the top seven
If the event is the next GE, then Badenoch, but if Lab wins either a majority or minority government then likely to be a fresh field in 5-7 years time.
I think the Lab most seats at 2.8 and Lab majority at 6.8 are both value at present on BFX.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
Fair enough. I don't think it's performative either. I think people often genuinely reach very different conclusions from the same facts.
Where I part company is when those differences are explained as "they don't care" or "they lack compassion". That's a much stronger claim than "I think they're wrong", and one that's very hard to substantiate.
Most people aren't devoid of empathy. They simply prioritise competing harms differently or disagree about what policies will actually reduce suffering.
And this is why the left so often lose. If you explain disagreement as a deficit of compassion rather than a difference in priorities or judgement, you stop trying to persuade. You end up preaching to people who already agree with you and wondering why everyone else isn't listening.
That may be true - but the observation here was about Burnham personally, and I don’t see any evidence that it’s performative (and others have backed that up with evidence).
I don't think AB's stance on homelessness is performative either. But I can understand why some may think that it is without traducing them personally in return. I can understand why someone might see political calculation in almost any high-profile policy announcement. Disagree with that judgement if you like, but it's quite a leap from "I think you're cynical" to "you don't experience a visceral reaction to human suffering".
"Ending rough sleeping" is pretty much impossible. Reducing it is possible.
Yes. Ditto for most bad things. The 'end' is a rhetorical technique to add punch. Which is fine so long as the intention and follow through is there.
The amount of homeless people in Newcastle City Centre has increased quite significantly over the past few years, at least anecdotally from appearances.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
Fair enough. I don't think it's performative either. I think people often genuinely reach very different conclusions from the same facts.
Where I part company is when those differences are explained as "they don't care" or "they lack compassion". That's a much stronger claim than "I think they're wrong", and one that's very hard to substantiate.
Most people aren't devoid of empathy. They simply prioritise competing harms differently or disagree about what policies will actually reduce suffering.
And this is why the left so often lose. If you explain disagreement as a deficit of compassion rather than a difference in priorities or judgement, you stop trying to persuade. You end up preaching to people who already agree with you and wondering why everyone else isn't listening.
That may be true - but the observation here was about Burnham personally, and I don’t see any evidence that it’s performative (and others have backed that up with evidence).
I don't think AB's stance on homelessness is performative either. But I can understand why some may think that it is without traducing them personally in return. I can understand why someone might see political calculation in almost any high-profile policy announcement. Disagree with that judgement if you like, but it's quite a leap from "I think you're cynical" to "you don't experience a visceral reaction to human suffering".
"Ending rough sleeping" is pretty much impossible. Reducing it is possible.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
Fair enough. I don't think it's performative either. I think people often genuinely reach very different conclusions from the same facts.
Where I part company is when those differences are explained as "they don't care" or "they lack compassion". That's a much stronger claim than "I think they're wrong", and one that's very hard to substantiate.
Most people aren't devoid of empathy. They simply prioritise competing harms differently or disagree about what policies will actually reduce suffering.
And this is why the left so often lose. If you explain disagreement as a deficit of compassion rather than a difference in priorities or judgement, you stop trying to persuade. You end up preaching to people who already agree with you and wondering why everyone else isn't listening.
That may be true - but the observation here was about Burnham personally, and I don’t see any evidence that it’s performative (and others have backed that up with evidence).
I don't think AB's stance on homelessness is performative either. But I can understand why some may think that it is without traducing them personally in return. I can understand why someone might see political calculation in almost any high-profile policy announcement. Disagree with that judgement if you like, but it's quite a leap from "I think you're cynical" to "you don't experience a visceral reaction to human suffering".
I suspect there are few easy votes in ending rough sleeping. It obviously requires investment in more than accommodation, as a lot of rough sleepers are substance abusers, ex-convicts or ex-military, sometimes all of the above.
But a bit like the "Broken Window" theory of crime control, it does make our streets less threatening, particularly to older people and women, so is a key part of visibly improving our town centres.
I agree, small things can make a real difference to our collective quality of life.
The ex-military thing is of interest.
A few years back a charity tried verifying the claims of rough sleepers to be veterans.
Most who claim to be weren’t. A slack handful were military who’d seen combat.
A significant number of the genuine were those who’d been rejected in training and never actually got into the military. Often rejected as mentally unsuitable.
There is a bigger problem of *homelessness* among ex-military. But that is a different problem.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
Bollox. At worst they are realists infinitely preferable to the left hypocrisy which only see selective human suffering which fits their world view - hence the weird obsession with Gaza.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
Burnham had a major pledge on rough sleeping in Greater Manchester, and he's been donating 15% of his salary to a charity to deal with it. I think this is genuine on his part. A bit harsh for people to decry it as performative.
He wasn't successful as Mayor in dealing with the issue in Greater Manchester - said that he couldn't address the problem as one city alone. In this sense it's also a test of his commitment to devolution - what if Scotland or Wales are less committed to this? Or a future mayor somewhere decides to prioritise resources to achieving some other policy objective?
Mixed feeling. As a proportion of the population (under 5000 per night - how do they know?) the homeless by standard definition is minute. About 1 in 14000 people at any one time. In much of the country invisible, but probably most visible where talking heads and the powerful live. I notice it most in London, Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge. This is not coincidence.
And over the years I have met a number of shelterless people, some many times over many years, who have neither the capacity nor inclination to live under any sort of roof.
Betfair has suspended and is settling the next PM market. ETA now settled.
Hills has settled on Burnham PM.
Hills next PM after Burnham:- 9/4 Nigel Farage 5/1 Kemi Badenoch 8/1 Shabana Mahmood 8/1 Al Carns 12/1 Robert Jenrick 14/1 Angela Rayner 16/1 Ed Miliband 16/1 James Cleverly 16/1 Wes Streeting 16/1 Yvette Cooper 16/1 Zia Yusuf 16/1 Richard Tice 16/1 Rupert Lowe 22/1 Darren Jones 25/1 Zack Polanksi 33/1 Katie Lam 33/1 Louise Haigh 33/1 Lucy Powell 50/1 Claire Coutinho 50/1 John Healey 50/1 Boris Johnson 50/1 Ed Davey 50/1 Torsten Bell 66/1 Nick Timothy 66/1 Suella Braverman 66/1 Tom Tugendhat 66/1 Chris Philp 66/1 Hilary Benn 66/1 Peter Kyle 66/1 Sarah Sackman 100/1 Jeremy Hunt 100/1 Jeremy Corbyn 100/1 Hamish Falconer 100/1 Nadia Whittome 100/1 Dan Jarvis 100/1 Richard Burgon 100/1 David Lammy 100/1 Rebecca Long-Bailey
I am fairly confident that the next PM isn’t any of the top seven
If the event is the next GE, then Badenoch, but if Lab wins either a majority or minority government then likely to be a fresh field in 5-7 years time.
I think the Lab most seats at 2.8 and Lab majority at 6.8 are both value at present on BFX.
Yes, it is not an appealing market if Burnham is expected to remain for longer than the now-customary two or three years, unless you spot a rick that you can build a book around.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
Bollox. At worst they are realists infinitely preferable to the left hypocrisy which only see selective human suffering which fits their world view - hence the weird obsession with Gaza.
It’s weird for the UK to ally with a country committing a genocide. That’s the distinction.
Anyway, will be interesting to see how Burnham deals with that. Softly softly so far.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
Burnham had a major pledge on rough sleeping in Greater Manchester, and he's been donating 15% of his salary to a charity to deal with it. I think this is genuine on his part. A bit harsh for people to decry it as performative.
He wasn't successful as Mayor in dealing with the issue in Greater Manchester - said that he couldn't address the problem as one city alone. In this sense it's also a test of his commitment to devolution - what if Scotland or Wales are less committed to this? Or a future mayor somewhere decides to prioritise resources to achieving some other policy objective?
Mixed feeling. As a proportion of the population (under 5000 per night - how do they know?) the homeless by standard definition is minute. About 1 in 14000 people at any one time. In much of the country invisible, but probably most visible where talking heads and the powerful live. I notice it most in London, Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge. This is not coincidence.
And over the years I have met a number of shelterless people, some many times over many years, who have neither the capacity nor inclination to live under any sort of roof.
It depends on definition.
But there are considered to be 300-400K people "homeless". With about 5,000 sleeping rough on the streets each night - as measured by the charities that are funded to work on this.
Betfair has suspended and is settling the next PM market. ETA now settled.
Hills has settled on Burnham PM.
Hills next PM after Burnham:- 9/4 Nigel Farage 5/1 Kemi Badenoch 8/1 Shabana Mahmood 8/1 Al Carns 12/1 Robert Jenrick 14/1 Angela Rayner 16/1 Ed Miliband 16/1 James Cleverly 16/1 Wes Streeting 16/1 Yvette Cooper 16/1 Zia Yusuf 16/1 Richard Tice 16/1 Rupert Lowe 22/1 Darren Jones 25/1 Zack Polanksi 33/1 Katie Lam 33/1 Louise Haigh 33/1 Lucy Powell 50/1 Claire Coutinho 50/1 John Healey 50/1 Boris Johnson 50/1 Ed Davey 50/1 Torsten Bell 66/1 Nick Timothy 66/1 Suella Braverman 66/1 Tom Tugendhat 66/1 Chris Philp 66/1 Hilary Benn 66/1 Peter Kyle 66/1 Sarah Sackman 100/1 Jeremy Hunt 100/1 Jeremy Corbyn 100/1 Hamish Falconer 100/1 Nadia Whittome 100/1 Dan Jarvis 100/1 Richard Burgon 100/1 David Lammy 100/1 Rebecca Long-Bailey
9/4 Farage is bonkers. Personally I would take 10/1 or longer. As for the rest, the next PM may be someone not on the list or any list. I think it's likely to be 6+ years away. So it's like betting on the 2028 Derby.
Betfair has suspended and is settling the next PM market. ETA now settled.
Hills has settled on Burnham PM.
Hills next PM after Burnham:- 9/4 Nigel Farage 5/1 Kemi Badenoch 8/1 Shabana Mahmood 8/1 Al Carns 12/1 Robert Jenrick 14/1 Angela Rayner 16/1 Ed Miliband 16/1 James Cleverly 16/1 Wes Streeting 16/1 Yvette Cooper 16/1 Zia Yusuf 16/1 Richard Tice 16/1 Rupert Lowe 22/1 Darren Jones 25/1 Zack Polanksi 33/1 Katie Lam 33/1 Louise Haigh 33/1 Lucy Powell 50/1 Claire Coutinho 50/1 John Healey 50/1 Boris Johnson 50/1 Ed Davey 50/1 Torsten Bell 66/1 Nick Timothy 66/1 Suella Braverman 66/1 Tom Tugendhat 66/1 Chris Philp 66/1 Hilary Benn 66/1 Peter Kyle 66/1 Sarah Sackman 100/1 Jeremy Hunt 100/1 Jeremy Corbyn 100/1 Hamish Falconer 100/1 Nadia Whittome 100/1 Dan Jarvis 100/1 Richard Burgon 100/1 David Lammy 100/1 Rebecca Long-Bailey
9/4 Farage is bonkers. Personally I would take 10/1 or longer. As for the rest, the next PM may be someone not on the list or any list. I think it's likely to be 6+ years away. So it's like betting on the 2028 Derby.
9/4 is a lay in any market offering anything like those odds...
I have given Supermanc's Mandelist government by and for the Bildungsburgertum a chance but I've decided that I fucking hate it. His time is up. He's got to go. Burnham out.
She chose Will from Surrey to be her date on a holiday to Gibraltar, but the pair did not hit it off.
Having quickly reunited, Burnham and van Heel were reportedly in a bar in Parliament 12 years later when Will walked in, having become the director of communications for the Conservative Party. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75y4q61eevo
Blimey, they all know each other. It's NU10k again, veering on the Chumocracy.
Betfair has suspended and is settling the next PM market. ETA now settled.
Hills has settled on Burnham PM.
Hills next PM after Burnham:- 9/4 Nigel Farage 5/1 Kemi Badenoch 8/1 Shabana Mahmood 8/1 Al Carns 12/1 Robert Jenrick 14/1 Angela Rayner 16/1 Ed Miliband 16/1 James Cleverly 16/1 Wes Streeting 16/1 Yvette Cooper 16/1 Zia Yusuf 16/1 Richard Tice 16/1 Rupert Lowe 22/1 Darren Jones 25/1 Zack Polanksi 33/1 Katie Lam 33/1 Louise Haigh 33/1 Lucy Powell 50/1 Claire Coutinho 50/1 John Healey 50/1 Boris Johnson 50/1 Ed Davey 50/1 Torsten Bell 66/1 Nick Timothy 66/1 Suella Braverman 66/1 Tom Tugendhat 66/1 Chris Philp 66/1 Hilary Benn 66/1 Peter Kyle 66/1 Sarah Sackman 100/1 Jeremy Hunt 100/1 Jeremy Corbyn 100/1 Hamish Falconer 100/1 Nadia Whittome 100/1 Dan Jarvis 100/1 Richard Burgon 100/1 David Lammy 100/1 Rebecca Long-Bailey
I am fairly confident that the next PM isn’t any of the top seven
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
Bollox. At worst they are realists infinitely preferable to the left hypocrisy which only see selective human suffering which fits their world view - hence the weird obsession with Gaza.
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.
To me it suggests his vacuity instead; ending rough sleeping isn't possible; its a combination of economic issues, mental health issues, and a very small number of people who embrace the lifestyle (or in some cases, can't function any other way).
I tried to read that. It was very long on descriptions of the problem and very short on solutions, and even shorter on detailed solutions (eg what does "assertive outreach" mean in detail?).
Reeves rumoured to go to defence says Christopher Hope
Reeves to defence, Miliband to housing, Mahmoud to Treasury would be inexplicable. I don’t get it at all.
You’re not the only one ! Why force the COE brief onto Mahmoud when she clearly isn’t interested. I’d be shocked if Reeves gets such a high profile job and Miliband to Housing !
I have given Supermanc's Mandelist government by and for the Bildungsburgertum a chance but I've decided that I fucking hate it. His time is up. He's got to go. Burnham out.
She chose Will from Surrey to be her date on a holiday to Gibraltar, but the pair did not hit it off.
Having quickly reunited, Burnham and van Heel were reportedly in a bar in Parliament 12 years later when Will walked in, having become the director of communications for the Conservative Party. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75y4q61eevo
Blimey, they all know each other. It's NU10k again, veering on the Chumocracy.
Looks like the Burnhams had a child first then got married
'By this point, van Heel had given birth to their first child, Jimmy - and it was his birth in March 2000 which Burnham has said spurred them on to get married, after years of living together.
"I think marriage is better for kids," Burnham told the Daily Telegraph in 2007, external, adding: "I'm a bit old fashioned on these matters - although I have to admit that Jimmy, my eldest son, was at our wedding so I'm only old fashioned up to a point.
"When my wife got pregnant for the first time it was a complete shock. My first thought was, 'Oh my God, we'll have to get married'.
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.
And/or it's a nod to the left; this was to have been Corbyn's first action, had he won.
All of this is. It's performative.
He's trying to shore up his base.
Alternatively, he might actually care about stuff like this, particularly being a former mayor of a major (Alpha) city with its own problems with rough sleeping.
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
The assumption that disagreement can only be explained by a moral defect is a remarkably illiberal habit. Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
To invert it - I genuinely can’t comprehend how some PBers can be so callous about people living in Gaza, Trans people etc etc. But I don’t make the mistake of thinking that is performative - I’ve no doubt they and many others think like that, and take that into account when considering politics.
Fair enough. I don't think it's performative either. I think people often genuinely reach very different conclusions from the same facts.
Where I part company is when those differences are explained as "they don't care" or "they lack compassion". That's a much stronger claim than "I think they're wrong", and one that's very hard to substantiate.
Most people aren't devoid of empathy. They simply prioritise competing harms differently or disagree about what policies will actually reduce suffering.
And this is why the left so often lose. If you explain disagreement as a deficit of compassion rather than a difference in priorities or judgement, you stop trying to persuade. You end up preaching to people who already agree with you and wondering why everyone else isn't listening.
That may be true - but the observation here was about Burnham personally, and I don’t see any evidence that it’s performative (and others have backed that up with evidence).
I don't think AB's stance on homelessness is performative either. But I can understand why some may think that it is without traducing them personally in return. I can understand why someone might see political calculation in almost any high-profile policy announcement. Disagree with that judgement if you like, but it's quite a leap from "I think you're cynical" to "you don't experience a visceral reaction to human suffering".
I suspect there are few easy votes in ending rough sleeping. It obviously requires investment in more than accommodation, as a lot of rough sleepers are substance abusers, ex-convicts or ex-military, sometimes all of the above.
But a bit like the "Broken Window" theory of crime control, it does make our streets less threatening, particularly to older people and women, so is a key part of visibly improving our town centres.
Morally, it’s to Burnham’s credit. There are zero votes in dealing with rough sleeping, whatsoever. The oddity is that he’s so bullish about it despite his mixed experience in Manchester. Most rough sleepers are suffering from one of a myriad of mental health or addiction problems and those are not easily solved merely by providing supported accommodation and support.
Reeves rumoured to go to defence says Christopher Hope
Reeves to defence, Miliband to housing, Mahmoud to Treasury would be inexplicable. I don’t get it at all.
I find myself rather sad that Milliband and Mahmood are being moved from their departments, because they have shown passion and capability. With proper supervision (cancel CCS, cancel voluntary repatriation) they could be outstanding and change Britain in a way that others could not.
Betfair has suspended and is settling the next PM market. ETA now settled.
Hills has settled on Burnham PM.
Hills next PM after Burnham:- 9/4 Nigel Farage 5/1 Kemi Badenoch 8/1 Shabana Mahmood 8/1 Al Carns 12/1 Robert Jenrick 14/1 Angela Rayner 16/1 Ed Miliband 16/1 James Cleverly 16/1 Wes Streeting 16/1 Yvette Cooper 16/1 Zia Yusuf 16/1 Richard Tice 16/1 Rupert Lowe 22/1 Darren Jones 25/1 Zack Polanksi 33/1 Katie Lam 33/1 Louise Haigh 33/1 Lucy Powell 50/1 Claire Coutinho 50/1 John Healey 50/1 Boris Johnson 50/1 Ed Davey 50/1 Torsten Bell 66/1 Nick Timothy 66/1 Suella Braverman 66/1 Tom Tugendhat 66/1 Chris Philp 66/1 Hilary Benn 66/1 Peter Kyle 66/1 Sarah Sackman 100/1 Jeremy Hunt 100/1 Jeremy Corbyn 100/1 Hamish Falconer 100/1 Nadia Whittome 100/1 Dan Jarvis 100/1 Richard Burgon 100/1 David Lammy 100/1 Rebecca Long-Bailey
9/4 Farage is bonkers. Personally I would take 10/1 or longer. As for the rest, the next PM may be someone not on the list or any list. I think it's likely to be 6+ years away. So it's like betting on the 2028 Derby.
The last five PMs have lasted a collective ten years. Why are you so confident that Burnham can defy recent history and last at least as long as Cameron?
Comments
Plod and outreach came and although some lived in properties outside the area and bused in others who slept rough didn’t want to go into accomodation.
Some people like the lifestyle.
Not holding out much hope.
Seriously has he achieved anything on this in Manchester ? You would think being a long term mayor he should have if it’s his mission
Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey may be the most pro-Western civilization film Hollywood has made in decades - not because it flatters the Greeks, but because it understands civilization as a moral achievement rather than an ethnic possession.
The identitarian far-left and far-right share a premise: that the Western canon is ethnic property. One side condemns it on that basis; the other guards it on the same basis. Nolan refuses the premise, populating Homer's world with various identities while treating the story with absolute seriousness. That’s not a repudiation of the canon but evidence of its triumph: Homer can be inhabited by, and speak to, anyone.
The film’s deepest commitment is to individual moral agency. Odysseus cannot hide behind Greece, military orders, or victory. His choices are his own, and so is his guilt. No collective cause dissolves individual moral responsibility; his final heroism lies not in conquest, but atonement.
That principle extends to hospitality: treat the stranger as you would wish to be treated. When the Greeks violate it, they become the barbarians they fear. Penelope's devastating realization - "You're the people from the sea" - underscores that the enemies of civilization are sometimes its self-appointed defenders, exempting themselves from the principles they claim to uphold.
This is Western civilization at its best - not an ethnicity or a triumphalist myth, but a tradition built around the dignity of the individual, moral responsibility, and atonement. And a civilization strong enough to preserve stories that judge its own heroes remains a civilization worth defending.
https://x.com/tylerhnorris/status/2078960088258363722
He's trying to shore up his base.
You Lefties need saving from yourselves.
https://x.com/artemisfornow/status/2079175329575317630
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8K9itC48bM
"Its my first day".
"Let me enjoy the moment"
"Moment's over sir"
It’s a blind spot for some people on the right - they see things like Palestine protests as performative because they don’t experience the same visceral and overwhelming reaction to human suffering as others do.
Though it has increased in recent years, it initially went down significantly and has recently rebounded (but is still down overall).
Which is not unusual for a problem like this. Fixing it entails dealing with a myriad of issues like drugs, mental health etc and the fact some people actually do like the lifestyle or prefer it over getting clean etc
It may be possible to do something but elimination is not realistic.
*For clarity - Steve Bray, NOT Burnham...
Politics has become a competition to prove who's the better person, rather than who's got the better argument.
If your political philosophy requires you to believe your opponents are less compassionate human beings, it's probably compensating for something.
TBH I like him too, and think he is one for the future.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgrkv8e8l9qt?post=asset:08aefc0c-f5d1-4e9a-bca1-5d1137853699#post
That pattern of decline since 2017 until 2021 then increase since then mirrors what has happened in the rest of the country, though in the rest of the country it is now at a record high whereas in Manchester it is still significantly below where it was in 2017.
Where I part company is when those differences are explained as "they don't care" or "they lack compassion". That's a much stronger claim than "I think they're wrong", and one that's very hard to substantiate.
Most people aren't devoid of empathy. They simply prioritise competing harms differently or disagree about what policies will actually reduce suffering.
And this is why the left so often lose. If you explain disagreement as a deficit of compassion rather than a difference in priorities or judgement, you stop trying to persuade. You end up preaching to people who already agree with you and wondering why everyone else isn't listening.
He wasn't successful as Mayor in dealing with the issue in Greater Manchester - said that he couldn't address the problem as one city alone. In this sense it's also a test of his commitment to devolution - what if Scotland or Wales are less committed to this? Or a future mayor somewhere decides to prioritise resources to achieving some other policy objective?
It seems to be mostly journalists and commentators astonished that he may choose not to wear the required uniform for a London club.
However, Bradford takes the prize.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-immigration-sky-37449637
Glad we have sorted that out.
It will not just end it as a politicians solution. Certainly not by the next election, for example.
Hills next PM after Burnham:-
9/4 Nigel Farage
5/1 Kemi Badenoch
8/1 Shabana Mahmood
8/1 Al Carns
12/1 Robert Jenrick
14/1 Angela Rayner
16/1 Ed Miliband
16/1 James Cleverly
16/1 Wes Streeting
16/1 Yvette Cooper
16/1 Zia Yusuf
16/1 Richard Tice
16/1 Rupert Lowe
22/1 Darren Jones
25/1 Zack Polanksi
33/1 Katie Lam
33/1 Louise Haigh
33/1 Lucy Powell
50/1 Claire Coutinho
50/1 John Healey
50/1 Boris Johnson
50/1 Ed Davey
50/1 Torsten Bell
66/1 Nick Timothy
66/1 Suella Braverman
66/1 Tom Tugendhat
66/1 Chris Philp
66/1 Hilary Benn
66/1 Peter Kyle
66/1 Sarah Sackman
100/1 Jeremy Hunt
100/1 Jeremy Corbyn
100/1 Hamish Falconer
100/1 Nadia Whittome
100/1 Dan Jarvis
100/1 Richard Burgon
100/1 David Lammy
100/1 Rebecca Long-Bailey
What people wear seems to be an endless source of fascination for many.
It always is a favourite topic for journalists.
Makes a nice change to be about a bloke tbh.
Cutting other people's property absolutely make you a nob. Not wearing one yourself does not.
Then the war came.
The men were all conscripted into the army. Many ended up in punishment battalions on the Eastern front. A number ended up in the Dirlewanger Brigade. The children were generally forcibly adopted into "normal" families.
Oh, and the "problem" never actually went away,
But I can understand why some may think that it is without traducing them personally in return.
I can understand why someone might see political calculation in almost any high-profile policy announcement. Disagree with that judgement if you like, but it's quite a leap from "I think you're cynical" to "you don't experience a visceral reaction to human suffering".
His Ukraine comments are weird too. The strategy of the EU et al is readily to apparent to all including VVP. Just try to keep the SMO going until 2029 and hope for a more biddable POTUS. To them, Ukraine is simply something to be expended. There is no theory of victory.
We’ve done all the pleasantries now it’s time for the bitter recriminations.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/met-axe-road-policing-cuts-b1290540.html
Soft southerners with their fancy road police...
But a bit like the "Broken Window" theory of crime control, it does make our streets less threatening, particularly to older people and women, so is a key part of visibly improving our town centres.
I think the Lab most seats at 2.8 and Lab majority at 6.8 are both value at present on BFX.
A few years back a charity tried verifying the claims of rough sleepers to be veterans.
Most who claim to be weren’t. A slack handful were military who’d seen combat.
A significant number of the genuine were those who’d been rejected in training and never actually got into the military. Often rejected as mentally unsuitable.
There is a bigger problem of *homelessness* among ex-military. But that is a different problem.
And over the years I have met a number of shelterless people, some many times over many years, who have neither the capacity nor inclination to live under any sort of roof.
Anyway, will be interesting to see how Burnham deals with that. Softly softly so far.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75y4q61eevo
https://x.com/MarkJCarney/status/2079188053159989315?s=20
https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/2079188762463277323?s=20
https://x.com/GiorgiaMeloni/status/2079172563746361419?s=20
https://x.com/AlboMP/status/2079166811090911723?s=20
https://x.com/CyrilRamaphosa/status/2079188258945118694?s=20
https://x.com/MichealMartinTD/status/2079165379922776092?s=20
But there are considered to be 300-400K people "homeless". With about 5,000 sleeping rough on the streets each night - as measured by the charities that are funded to work on this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg0xlrvv4mo
She chose Will from Surrey to be her date on a holiday to Gibraltar, but the pair did not hit it off.
Having quickly reunited, Burnham and van Heel were reportedly in a bar in Parliament 12 years later when Will walked in, having become the director of communications for the Conservative Party.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75y4q61eevo
Blimey, they all know each other. It's NU10k again, veering on the Chumocracy.
He's had long enough to turn things around.
His best chance of avoiding criticism on here is never to announce them.
'By this point, van Heel had given birth to their first child, Jimmy - and it was his birth in March 2000 which Burnham has said spurred them on to get married, after years of living together.
"I think marriage is better for kids," Burnham told the Daily Telegraph in 2007, external, adding: "I'm a bit old fashioned on these matters - although I have to admit that Jimmy, my eldest son, was at our wedding so I'm only old fashioned up to a point.
"When my wife got pregnant for the first time it was a complete shock. My first thought was, 'Oh my God, we'll have to get married'.