The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
It doesn't seem to occur to Reform and all the associated online armchair prison officers and amateur shrinks that it is possible Rudukaban has been move because it was unsafe for the other prisoners and staff as he could not be managed even in a high security prison.
I have no idea nor do they but one of the reasons given was "could not be managed safely in a prison environment".
It’s pretty hard to endanger anyone if locked on your own for 24 hrs a day .
You can endanger yourself.
It is not especially uncommon that nasty, violent killers are Fucked In Da Head, and need head shrinking as well as being locked up. Hence the existence of secure psychiatric hospital wards.
I would think the risk of him endangering himself is not that high on people’s minds as a problem
If you are in charging of his custody, and you know of a risk to him, and he dies, you have legal responsibility.
Because he is in your custody. Your responsibility.
This chain of responsibility is a vital (and often neglected) part of modern society.
Clearly the polling shows Trump's tariffs on neighbours like Mexico and Canada are unpopular with US voters. They want tougher border controls with Mexico not tariffs, Trump should just focus on his promises on that. In terms of tariffs on Chinese imports there will likely be more support, even Biden had those. There are also allegations of forced labour by China, although China denies this 'China has previously said it opposed any form of unilateral tariff, and denied allegations of forced labour.
"There is no so-called forced labour in China, and we oppose using this as an excuse for political manipulation," Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said.
But several international human rights groups have said forced labour does exist in China, particularly among Muslim ethnic minorities in Xinjiang.'
It's amazing how everyone can be wrong (Well, they know they're wrong, they're just lying) about this.
Trump is just using 'forced labour' as an excuse to impose tariffs - no idea why now. Maybe market manipulation. Who knows. The United States has forced labour. So does China. So to, does almost every country in the world. There are plenty of people who are effectively slaves, despite slavery being illegal for 200 years.
It's just word salad by the US President, and lies by the Chinese. No surprise there then.
'Our first voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) conducted since Andy Burnham became prime minister shows no significant change, with a close race between the three largest parties
'Although our latest voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) shows all parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, it reaffirms the tightening of the race seen in recent months, with Labour up five points from its low of 16% recorded as recently as May'
Given how much Burnham's accession has been telegraphed in advance, I would have though much of any Burnham bounce is already accounted for. Will have to see if "cost of living" measures will have any impact but I suspect not - the Vat cut on electricity won't save much, the big bill in winter is gas. Buses most people don't use and the change isn't until January. Business rates for hospitality - technical, and the price of a pint isn't going to come down. Was there anything else? It just sounds like needless tinkering so far, but admittedly there wasn't much Burnham could do in Week 1
Everything in order! Goal one of the much maligned centrists is to avoid a Reform government. They are now about 7/1 against a majority - about level with the Tories. The route to a Tory majority in 2029 looks blocked in every direction. The chances of Labour led or Labour majority government are now high. Personally I would put it at 75%, making various bets value.
It's high summer and the non political majority have not thought about Burnham at all yet. September to Christmas will be interesting.
A number of people have asked me "since you are into politics", has this Burnham chap become PM? When did it happen? Who is he? They were all surprised by this.
So the fact of him actually becoming PM has entered the popular consciousness. The road to the job - not so much.
'Our first voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) conducted since Andy Burnham became prime minister shows no significant change, with a close race between the three largest parties
'Although our latest voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) shows all parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, it reaffirms the tightening of the race seen in recent months, with Labour up five points from its low of 16% recorded as recently as May'
Given how much Burnham's accession has been telegraphed in advance, I would have though much of any Burnham bounce is already accounted for. Will have to see if "cost of living" measures will have any impact but I suspect not - the Vat cut on electricity won't save much, the big bill in winter is gas. Buses most people don't use and the change isn't until January. Business rates for hospitality - technical, and the price of a pint isn't going to come down. Was there anything else? It just sounds like needless tinkering so far, but admittedly there wasn't much Burnham could do in Week 1
Everything in order! Goal one of the much maligned centrists is to avoid a Reform government. They are now about 7/1 against a majority - about level with the Tories. The route to a Tory majority in 2029 looks blocked in every direction. The chances of Labour led or Labour majority government are now high. Personally I would put it at 75%, making various bets value.
It's high summer and the non political majority have not thought about Burnham at all yet. September to Christmas will be interesting.
Good morning
3 years out of a GE with the polls showing stalemate it is ambitious to suggest a 75% chance of a laboir or labour led government not least because their recovery in Scotland and Wales would need to be spectacular
I simply do not dismiss reform quite so easily, nor declare the end of the conservative party, certainly when the right are polling around 45%
Wise council is to expect the unexpected and be mindful that events will dictate the next GE
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
I would, based purely on name recognition, expect Binface third behind Reclaim.
Indeed, if there is an upset Fox would be the likeliest beneficiary.
Which is about the only thing that would make me nostalgic for Farage.
It doesn't seem to occur to Reform and all the associated online armchair prison officers and amateur shrinks that it is possible Rudukaban has been move because it was unsafe for the other prisoners and staff as he could not be managed even in a high security prison.
I have no idea nor do they but one of the reasons given was "could not be managed safely in a prison environment".
I think the decision is fine. My assumption is that he is being pumped full of drugs to turn him into a drooling mess that makes him a lot easier to manage.
It doesn't seem to occur to Reform and all the associated online armchair prison officers and amateur shrinks that it is possible Rudukaban has been move because it was unsafe for the other prisoners and staff as he could not be managed even in a high security prison.
I have no idea nor do they but one of the reasons given was "could not be managed safely in a prison environment".
I think the decision is fine. My assumption is that he is being pumped full of drugs to turn him into a drooling mess that makes him a lot easier to manage.
This former policeman who has a specialist interest in interface between mental health and police etc etc has done a blog item:
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
'Our first voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) conducted since Andy Burnham became prime minister shows no significant change, with a close race between the three largest parties
'Although our latest voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) shows all parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, it reaffirms the tightening of the race seen in recent months, with Labour up five points from its low of 16% recorded as recently as May'
Given how much Burnham's accession has been telegraphed in advance, I would have though much of any Burnham bounce is already accounted for. Will have to see if "cost of living" measures will have any impact but I suspect not - the Vat cut on electricity won't save much, the big bill in winter is gas. Buses most people don't use and the change isn't until January. Business rates for hospitality - technical, and the price of a pint isn't going to come down. Was there anything else? It just sounds like needless tinkering so far, but admittedly there wasn't much Burnham could do in Week 1
Everything in order! Goal one of the much maligned centrists is to avoid a Reform government. They are now about 7/1 against a majority - about level with the Tories. The route to a Tory majority in 2029 looks blocked in every direction. The chances of Labour led or Labour majority government are now high. Personally I would put it at 75%, making various bets value.
It's high summer and the non political majority have not thought about Burnham at all yet. September to Christmas will be interesting.
Good morning
3 years out of a GE with the polls showing stalemate it is ambitious to suggest a 75% chance of a laboir or labour led government not least because their recovery in Scotland and Wales would need to be spectacular
I simply do not dismiss reform quite so easily, nor declare the end of the conservative party, certainly when the right are polling around 45%
Wise council is to expect the unexpected and be mindful that events will dictate the next GE
Agree. However but for the factors you mention I would place Labour most seats and lead the next government/Labour majority at above 75%. My reasoning is basically elimination. Only three parties are in the running for next government - Lab, Con, Reform. Reform are on the way out and even their friendly media have deserted or are deserting. The Tories have lost their centrists and have not overcome their abject fail; they don't have a USP and they keep making choices which lose voters. For the Tory problem I cannot improve on Mr Meeks's analysis, discussed recently:
Only Labour remain. They have a new leader, the promise of a 10 year plan (!), over 400 seats, the hard left on the margins, some populist policies, the Greens stuck, and when the election is called is in their gift. No-one deserves to lead the next government. Someone will. Only Labour are currently serious about it.
With all that, I place a non Labour party to lead the next government as high as 25%. Maybe that's too high!
if some bloke was swanning around offering such a gamble I'd assume the 50/50 chance is actually rigged in his favour in some way.
But also, not every pound is equal. The second pound is less useful than the first, the third less useful than the second, and so on.
Personally, I'm not sure that the first 50k would be more useful to me than the subsequent £950000, but I'm smugly comfortable. I can imagine people for who it's perfectly sensible.
See also: slowly increasing GDP is leaving people grumpy. As a nation, we are better off then we've ever been, but we are making a fuss over £1 off bus fares. Something deeper is going on, and I don't think we understand it.
Also see also: the exponential salaries that some top people seem to need to be motivated.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
For those who already dislike and distrust him maybe.
For people in the North? I doubt it.
We have been screwed over for years by selfish London based Civil Servants whose idea of investing in the North was building another trainline in London, starting with London to Birmingham leg, then cancelling everything North of Birmingham.
The selfish Civil Servants keep adding infrastructure where they are, but anyone else? Screw them.
Nothing will change until the leadership of the Civil Service is no longer in London. Had this been in place 10 years ago do you think HS2 would have been cancelled in the North? I am sceptical.
The only way of doing that is to move the capital. Parliament, Government, the works. Plenty of countries do it, usually when the old capital gets unsustainable as a city rather than to stop it sucking in resources.
If only there was an excuse to move Parliament? Like Parliament was a crumbling fire trap in urgent need of renovations that would be best served by vacating the premises anyway.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
You're prejudging the policy before you've seen what it will/might entail.
My point is that there is no published policy, simply everyone taking the ECML train on Thursday rather than Friday.
When there’s a policy, we can debate it.
The policy is that the work is done in Manchester on Fridays instead of London. When MPs are already expected not to be in London anyway.
The more time Sir Humphrey spends out of a London bubble, the better.
Backbench MPs often return to their constituencies on Fridays, yes.
But not government ministers and civil servants.
It’s like the EU running between Brussels and Strasbourg, unless there’s actually some meat on the bone. Having meetings closer to home for the PM, isn’t a government policy.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
You're prejudging the policy before you've seen what it will/might entail.
My point is that there is no published policy, simply everyone taking the ECML train on Thursday rather than Friday.
When there’s a policy, we can debate it.
The policy is that the work is done in Manchester on Fridays instead of London. When MPs are already expected not to be in London anyway.
The more time Sir Humphrey spends out of a London bubble, the better.
Backbenches MPs often return to their constituencies on Fridays, yes.
But not government ministers and civil servants.
It’s like the EU running between Brussels and Strasbourg, unless there’s actually some meat on the bone. Having meetings closer to home for the PM, isn’t a government policy.
Well, it’s a government policy now. Because the PM says so.
Obviously it’s a distraction from the important stuff - such as The War On Pixies. But a competent manager can deal with two things at once.
'Our first voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) conducted since Andy Burnham became prime minister shows no significant change, with a close race between the three largest parties
'Although our latest voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) shows all parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, it reaffirms the tightening of the race seen in recent months, with Labour up five points from its low of 16% recorded as recently as May'
Given how much Burnham's accession has been telegraphed in advance, I would have though much of any Burnham bounce is already accounted for. Will have to see if "cost of living" measures will have any impact but I suspect not - the Vat cut on electricity won't save much, the big bill in winter is gas. Buses most people don't use and the change isn't until January. Business rates for hospitality - technical, and the price of a pint isn't going to come down. Was there anything else? It just sounds like needless tinkering so far, but admittedly there wasn't much Burnham could do in Week 1
Everything in order! Goal one of the much maligned centrists is to avoid a Reform government. They are now about 7/1 against a majority - about level with the Tories. The route to a Tory majority in 2029 looks blocked in every direction. The chances of Labour led or Labour majority government are now high. Personally I would put it at 75%, making various bets value.
It's high summer and the non political majority have not thought about Burnham at all yet. September to Christmas will be interesting.
A number of people have asked me "since you are into politics", has this Burnham chap become PM? When did it happen? Who is he? They were all surprised by this.
So the fact of him actually becoming PM has entered the popular consciousness. The road to the job - not so much.
Indeed. The general public only pays attention to politics when something happens. My wife rarely discusses politics, besides what she sees on TikTok.
Burnham was one of the few politicians she knew already, in part as Mayor of GM but also because she lived in Leigh when we met so he was her MP.
A few days before the by election she said something scathing about Starmer and I said he'll be going soon anyway, she had no idea. Asked who I expected to replace him and I said Burnham, to which her response was "what? Mascara Man?"
Besides recognising him as Mascara Man from his time as her MP, she has no firm opinions on Burnham either way.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
You're prejudging the policy before you've seen what it will/might entail.
My point is that there is no published policy, simply everyone taking the ECML train on Thursday rather than Friday.
When there’s a policy, we can debate it.
The policy is that the work is done in Manchester on Fridays instead of London. When MPs are already expected not to be in London anyway.
The more time Sir Humphrey spends out of a London bubble, the better.
Backbench MPs often return to their constituencies on Fridays, yes.
But not government ministers and civil servants.
It’s like the EU running between Brussels and Strasbourg, unless there’s actually some meat on the bone. Having meetings closer to home for the PM, isn’t a government policy.
Having Civil Servants having to venture out of their comfort zone is no bad thing.
Certainly agree though meat on the bone is needed, but no reason to oppose shaking up the civil service out of principle.
As you may have have noticed I have been nagging the PB Brains Trust about AI, to little effect: don't ask fish about water. So things like this are useful
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
You're prejudging the policy before you've seen what it will/might entail.
My point is that there is no published policy, simply everyone taking the ECML train on Thursday rather than Friday.
When there’s a policy, we can debate it.
The policy is that the work is done in Manchester on Fridays instead of London. When MPs are already expected not to be in London anyway.
The more time Sir Humphrey spends out of a London bubble, the better.
Two important catches, though.
Replacing a London bubble with a Manchester bubble does very little for Newcastle, Norwich or Newport. And Manchester can do a much better job of looking after itself than most provincial cities.
Besides- moving all the Sir Humphries to Manchester one day a week might change the location of the bubble, but it doesn't burst the bubbleness. That only happens when you disperse the power and responsibility away from the King -not by having the King's Court moving to a different patch of ground.
"These guys, the problem with them is you can’t make a deal with people unless they’re going to keep it, and these people make deals and then they break it almost immediately, or they decide, oh, let’s change the deal. That’s not how deals work. I mean, they violated the MOU within days of it being implemented. We kept our end of it. So now they’re paying the price for it."
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
I do think Burnham still hasn't quite realised being PM is far more than a mayor who is given money to spend as they wish, rather than having to source and provide the money
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
Whereas the Chipping Norton set have supper parties.
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
Burnham's power will be dictated in the Commons where it should be though moving 300 civil servants out of London is acceptable to me
Not sure about cabinet ministers working there permanently
Time will tell whether the public see it as a good thing
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
You're prejudging the policy before you've seen what it will/might entail.
My point is that there is no published policy, simply everyone taking the ECML train on Thursday rather than Friday.
When there’s a policy, we can debate it.
The policy is that the work is done in Manchester on Fridays instead of London. When MPs are already expected not to be in London anyway.
The more time Sir Humphrey spends out of a London bubble, the better.
Two important catches, though.
Replacing a London bubble with a Manchester bubble does very little for Newcastle, Norwich or Newport. And Manchester can do a much better job of looking after itself than most provincial cities.
Besides- moving all the Sir Humphries to Manchester one day a week might change the location of the bubble, but it doesn't burst the bubbleness. That only happens when you disperse the power and responsibility away from the King -not by having the King's Court moving to a different patch of ground.
He needs to devolve power to the English regions at least to the same extent as Scotland if he’s going to live up the rhetoric.
Abolish Education and Health. Possibly even energy and transport, and replace with a department for national infrastructure for the big stuff.
'Our first voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) conducted since Andy Burnham became prime minister shows no significant change, with a close race between the three largest parties
'Although our latest voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) shows all parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, it reaffirms the tightening of the race seen in recent months, with Labour up five points from its low of 16% recorded as recently as May'
Given how much Burnham's accession has been telegraphed in advance, I would have though much of any Burnham bounce is already accounted for. Will have to see if "cost of living" measures will have any impact but I suspect not - the Vat cut on electricity won't save much, the big bill in winter is gas. Buses most people don't use and the change isn't until January. Business rates for hospitality - technical, and the price of a pint isn't going to come down. Was there anything else? It just sounds like needless tinkering so far, but admittedly there wasn't much Burnham could do in Week 1
Everything in order! Goal one of the much maligned centrists is to avoid a Reform government. They are now about 7/1 against a majority - about level with the Tories. The route to a Tory majority in 2029 looks blocked in every direction. The chances of Labour led or Labour majority government are now high. Personally I would put it at 75%, making various bets value.
It's high summer and the non political majority have not thought about Burnham at all yet. September to Christmas will be interesting.
Good morning
3 years out of a GE with the polls showing stalemate it is ambitious to suggest a 75% chance of a laboir or labour led government not least because their recovery in Scotland and Wales would need to be spectacular
I simply do not dismiss reform quite so easily, nor declare the end of the conservative party, certainly when the right are polling around 45%
Wise council is to expect the unexpected and be mindful that events will dictate the next GE
Agree. However but for the factors you mention I would place Labour most seats and lead the next government/Labour majority at above 75%. My reasoning is basically elimination. Only three parties are in the running for next government - Lab, Con, Reform. Reform are on the way out and even their friendly media have deserted or are deserting. The Tories have lost their centrists and have not overcome their abject fail; they don't have a USP and they keep making choices which lose voters. For the Tory problem I cannot improve on Mr Meeks's analysis, discussed recently:
Only Labour remain. They have a new leader, the promise of a 10 year plan (!), over 400 seats, the hard left on the margins, some populist policies, the Greens stuck, and when the election is called is in their gift. No-one deserves to lead the next government. Someone will. Only Labour are currently serious about it.
With all that, I place a non Labour party to lead the next government as high as 25%. Maybe that's too high!
I think you underestimate Kemi and the Andy v Kemi show that will happen as she is the leader of the opposition
I have no problem with her decision on Barwell or Shapps for that matter as they are the old guard as are some of the others
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
Burnham's power will be dictated in the Commons where it should be though moving 300 civil servants out of London is acceptable to me
Not sure about cabinet ministers working there permanently
Time will tell whether the public see it as a good thing
To take a random example, Big_G, who do you think was more responsible for the frequent changes in HS2 plans - the Commons, or ministers and their civil servants ?
I suspect the move will be more consequential than you seem to think.
Another clear benefit to the tariffs in America is the conversion of parts of the left to economic literacy on trade at least.
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
Love the idea that only people on the right understand comparative advantage. You’re a proper numpty sometimes, particularly given it’s a right wing politician current disrupting world trade.
A reminder that the west's monopoly on advanced chip technology is only temporary.
After US export controls, China launched a Manhattan Project for semiconductors, led by Ding Xuexiang. This year marks a turning point for Chinese AI chips... https://x.com/kyleichan/status/2080536173420630318
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
I do think Burnham still hasn't quite realised being PM is far more than a mayor who is given money to spend as they wish, rather than having to source and provide the money
It's called Pairing and it means that an MP (and a similar opposition MP) don't need to be in Parliament for every vote because both sides will be down 1 vote.
Got to say one advantage of all of them being in the same building will be that speaking to them about something should be utterly painless they can just walk into a different room..
AEP warning about the coming winter and an energy crisis. We are too reliant on LNG from America and european stores of gas that are very low and not being filled for winter fast enough.
"Miatta Fahnbulleh, his new Energy Secretary, would reassure us better if she stopped chattering about 40 years of “neo-liberal” atrocities and told us how she plans to address a national energy crisis."
AEP warning about the coming winter and an energy crisis. We are too reliant on LNG from America and european stores of gas that are very low and not being filled for winter fast enough.
"Miatta Fahnbulleh, his new Energy Secretary, would reassure us better if she stopped chattering about 40 years of “neo-liberal” atrocities and told us how she plans to address a national energy crisis."
...Burnham's power will be dictated in the Commons where it should be though moving 300 civil servants out of London is acceptable to me...
No it won't. Parliament is in Westminster, but Government and the Civil Service are in Whitehall and other locations. Much of the governing part of Government has been divorced from Parliament and you can get an awful lot done without involving Parliament at all. The limiting factor here would be the courts and judicial reviews from the unions and others, not votes in Parliament.
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
I think there’s some serious problems with Burnham’s plans but yes, there’s a great deal of “not like that!”.
Substantive levelling up policies like nodal energy pricing, balanced investment and flat rate property taxes are suddenly unworkable.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
For those who already dislike and distrust him maybe.
For people in the North? I doubt it.
We have been screwed over for years by selfish London based Civil Servants whose idea of investing in the North was building another trainline in London, starting with London to Birmingham leg, then cancelling everything North of Birmingham.
The selfish Civil Servants keep adding infrastructure where they are, but anyone else? Screw them.
Nothing will change until the leadership of the Civil Service is no longer in London. Had this been in place 10 years ago do you think HS2 would have been cancelled in the North? I am sceptical.
Oh I agree entirely with you on that.
But all I actually see is the Northern MPs bumming out a day early from their commitments in Westminster.
If Burnham can however succeed in moving vast swathes of the civil service out of London, then I’m definitely in favour.
MPs have always spent Fridays working in their constituency, so that is not much change.
If Sir Humphrey is dragged North with Hacker every week, or even better Sir Humphrey's start living and working up here, then things might begin to change.
Up where? Manchester, a town that traditionally finds Liverpool too far to commute? Mind you, the old commuter model is breaking down in London too, and Burnham has been working closely with Liverpool's Steve Rotheram. But why not Birmingham, Newcastle or Taunton if regeneration needs the Prime Minister to be based there?
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
Burnham's power will be dictated in the Commons where it should be though moving 300 civil servants out of London is acceptable to me
Not sure about cabinet ministers working there permanently
Time will tell whether the public see it as a good thing
To take a random example, Big_G, who do you think was more responsible for the frequent changes in HS2 plans - the Commons, or ministers and their civil servants ?
I suspect the move will be more consequential than you seem to think.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
For those who already dislike and distrust him maybe.
For people in the North? I doubt it.
We have been screwed over for years by selfish London based Civil Servants whose idea of investing in the North was building another trainline in London, starting with London to Birmingham leg, then cancelling everything North of Birmingham.
The selfish Civil Servants keep adding infrastructure where they are, but anyone else? Screw them.
Nothing will change until the leadership of the Civil Service is no longer in London. Had this been in place 10 years ago do you think HS2 would have been cancelled in the North? I am sceptical.
Oh I agree entirely with you on that.
But all I actually see is the Northern MPs bumming out a day early from their commitments in Westminster.
If Burnham can however succeed in moving vast swathes of the civil service out of London, then I’m definitely in favour.
MPs have always spent Fridays working in their constituency, so that is not much change.
If Sir Humphrey is dragged North with Hacker every week, or even better Sir Humphrey's start living and working up here, then things might begin to change.
Up where? Manchester, a town that traditionally finds Liverpool too far to commute? Mind you, the old commuter model is breaking down in London too, and Burnham has been working closely with Liverpool's Steve Rotheram. But why not Birmingham, Newcastle or Taunton if regeneration needs the Prime Minister to be based there?
Because no-one outside of Birmingham wants to inflict the Brummie accent on other people.
AEP warning about the coming winter and an energy crisis. We are too reliant on LNG from America and european stores of gas that are very low and not being filled for winter fast enough.
"Miatta Fahnbulleh, his new Energy Secretary, would reassure us better if she stopped chattering about 40 years of “neo-liberal” atrocities and told us how she plans to address a national energy crisis."
It's scary to say it (as the default always has to be is AEP wrong, as he always is and the only question is where is he wrong) but I think AEP is reading things correctly and we are going to be in for an awkward winter if the weather is bad.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
For those who already dislike and distrust him maybe.
For people in the North? I doubt it.
We have been screwed over for years by selfish London based Civil Servants whose idea of investing in the North was building another trainline in London, starting with London to Birmingham leg, then cancelling everything North of Birmingham.
The selfish Civil Servants keep adding infrastructure where they are, but anyone else? Screw them.
Nothing will change until the leadership of the Civil Service is no longer in London. Had this been in place 10 years ago do you think HS2 would have been cancelled in the North? I am sceptical.
Oh I agree entirely with you on that.
But all I actually see is the Northern MPs bumming out a day early from their commitments in Westminster.
If Burnham can however succeed in moving vast swathes of the civil service out of London, then I’m definitely in favour.
MPs have always spent Fridays working in their constituency, so that is not much change.
If Sir Humphrey is dragged North with Hacker every week, or even better Sir Humphrey's start living and working up here, then things might begin to change.
Up where? Manchester, a town that traditionally finds Liverpool too far to commute? Mind you, the old commuter model is breaking down in London too, and Burnham has been working closely with Liverpool's Steve Rotheram. But why not Birmingham, Newcastle or Taunton if regeneration needs the Prime Minister to be based there?
Because no-one outside of Birmingham wants to inflict the Brummie accent on other people.
A pre Peaky Blinders and Jude Bellingham view of the world surely?😁
AEP warning about the coming winter and an energy crisis. We are too reliant on LNG from America and european stores of gas that are very low and not being filled for winter fast enough.
"Miatta Fahnbulleh, his new Energy Secretary, would reassure us better if she stopped chattering about 40 years of “neo-liberal” atrocities and told us how she plans to address a national energy crisis."
It's scary to say it (as the default always has to be is AEP wrong, as he always is and the only question is where is he wrong) but I think AEP is reading things correctly and we are going to be in for an awkward winter if the weather is bad.
If only we could accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel dependency, eh Daily Telegraph?
Prince Harry’s security review delayed as nine former PMs need protection
The Duke of Sussex was promised a risk assessment last year, but was still waiting in June as officials struggled to cope with record dem
The Duke of Sussex is being forced to wait for a decision about his security arrangements in Britain while officials grapple with protecting an unprecedented nine former prime ministers at once, The Times has learnt.
Prince Harry was told he would be granted a risk management board at the end of last year to reassess whether he should receive automatic police protection every time he visits the UK.
The review was due to be carried out in March by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec), an independent body overseen by the Home Office that decides which public figures should be given armed protection and at what level. However, it had still not taken place by the end of June.
You’d think with all the endless screeching about the terrorist threat and security for high profile public figures that the world’s most famous Afghan veteran (sorry Al Carns) might get priority. Makes one think that some of that screeching might not be entirely sincere.
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
Burnham's power will be dictated in the Commons where it should be though moving 300 civil servants out of London is acceptable to me
Not sure about cabinet ministers working there permanently
Time will tell whether the public see it as a good thing
To take a random example, Big_G, who do you think was more responsible for the frequent changes in HS2 plans - the Commons, or ministers and their civil servants ?
I suspect the move will be more consequential than you seem to think.
Cheryl Gillian (the ruinously expensive tunnels that she was able to pressure for because she was Welsh Secretary).
Rishi Sunak and James Forsyth (cutting it to something with most of the cost but not much of the benefit)
Thing is, I'm dubious that forcing any of them to work in Manchester one day a week would have changed their opinions.
AEP warning about the coming winter and an energy crisis. We are too reliant on LNG from America and european stores of gas that are very low and not being filled for winter fast enough.
"Miatta Fahnbulleh, his new Energy Secretary, would reassure us better if she stopped chattering about 40 years of “neo-liberal” atrocities and told us how she plans to address a national energy crisis."
It's scary to say it (as the default always has to be is AEP wrong, as he always is and the only question is where is he wrong) but I think AEP is reading things correctly and we are going to be in for an awkward winter if the weather is bad.
To be fair to AEP he does get the necessity of net zero unlike most on his paper and the political parties it represents. Thanks to the activities of Putin and Trump we've been in a continuous fossil fuel supply crisis since 2022. That should be a massive incentive to pivot to renewables.
He has to do the necessary performative digs at Miliband and now Fahnbulleh, and does big up the irrelevant Jackdaw and Rough. He wants to keep his job at the Telegraph
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
Burnham's power will be dictated in the Commons where it should be though moving 300 civil servants out of London is acceptable to me
Not sure about cabinet ministers working there permanently
Time will tell whether the public see it as a good thing
To take a random example, Big_G, who do you think was more responsible for the frequent changes in HS2 plans - the Commons, or ministers and their civil servants ?
I suspect the move will be more consequential than you seem to think.
Cheryl Gillian (the ruinously expensive tunnels that she was able to pressure for because she was Welsh Secretary).
Rishi Sunak and James Forsyth (cutting it to something with most of the cost but not much of the benefit)
Thing is, I'm dubious that forcing any of them to work in Manchester one day a week would have changed their opinions.
They could have worked in Manchester 3 days a week then.
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
Burnham's power will be dictated in the Commons where it should be though moving 300 civil servants out of London is acceptable to me
Not sure about cabinet ministers working there permanently
Time will tell whether the public see it as a good thing
To take a random example, Big_G, who do you think was more responsible for the frequent changes in HS2 plans - the Commons, or ministers and their civil servants ?
I suspect the move will be more consequential than you seem to think.
Cheryl Gillian (the ruinously expensive tunnels that she was able to pressure for because she was Welsh Secretary).
Rishi Sunak and James Forsyth (cutting it to something with most of the cost but not much of the benefit)
Thing is, I'm dubious that forcing any of them to work in Manchester one day a week would have changed their opinions.
They could have worked in Manchester 3 days a week then.
Or we could base all of them in Harris five days a week.
Not that I have anything against Harris, but if they would take one for the rest of us it would be appreciated.
AEP warning about the coming winter and an energy crisis. We are too reliant on LNG from America and european stores of gas that are very low and not being filled for winter fast enough.
"Miatta Fahnbulleh, his new Energy Secretary, would reassure us better if she stopped chattering about 40 years of “neo-liberal” atrocities and told us how she plans to address a national energy crisis."
It's scary to say it (as the default always has to be is AEP wrong, as he always is and the only question is where is he wrong) but I think AEP is reading things correctly and we are going to be in for an awkward winter if the weather is bad.
If only we could accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel dependency, eh Daily Telegraph?
Be fair. They're doing their bit for wind production.
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
Burnham's power will be dictated in the Commons where it should be though moving 300 civil servants out of London is acceptable to me
Not sure about cabinet ministers working there permanently
Time will tell whether the public see it as a good thing
To take a random example, Big_G, who do you think was more responsible for the frequent changes in HS2 plans - the Commons, or ministers and their civil servants ?
I suspect the move will be more consequential than you seem to think.
Cheryl Gillian (the ruinously expensive tunnels that she was able to pressure for because she was Welsh Secretary).
Rishi Sunak and James Forsyth (cutting it to something with most of the cost but not much of the benefit)
Thing is, I'm dubious that forcing any of them to work in Manchester one day a week would have changed their opinions.
I remain to be convinced how effective any of this will be. But it will certainly be more effective than not trying at all.
There are rumours flying around various foreign media outlets that Joe Root is set to resume the England captaincy at any rate for now, with Marcus Trescothick being coach for the next few months to give them more time to appoint someone else.
With due respect to both of them, if correct this is another very stupid move by Rob Key.
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
Burnham's power will be dictated in the Commons where it should be though moving 300 civil servants out of London is acceptable to me
Not sure about cabinet ministers working there permanently
Time will tell whether the public see it as a good thing
To take a random example, Big_G, who do you think was more responsible for the frequent changes in HS2 plans - the Commons, or ministers and their civil servants ?
I suspect the move will be more consequential than you seem to think.
Cheryl Gillian (the ruinously expensive tunnels that she was able to pressure for because she was Welsh Secretary).
Rishi Sunak and James Forsyth (cutting it to something with most of the cost but not much of the benefit)
Thing is, I'm dubious that forcing any of them to work in Manchester one day a week would have changed their opinions.
I remain to be convinced how effective any of this will be. But it will certainly be more effective than not trying at all.
That sounds too much like "something must be done. This is something, therefore it must be done"
Burnham is a Labour Boris in the sense he's been put in by his party's MPs primarily for his perceived electoral appeal. This doesn't mean he's at all similar as a person or a politician. If he turns out to be 'like Boris' in that literal sense I would have to abandon Labour at the next election, look at Green or LD or an independent with a nice kind face instead - but I'm confident I won't have to face that trauma.
He does appear to be very similar to Johnson in terms of pushing political narratives. That's what everyone on here liked about Johnson. Where there was discomfort focused on Johnson's laziness , venality and corruption. So far Burnham doesn't appear to be lazy or corrupt.
'Our first voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) conducted since Andy Burnham became prime minister shows no significant change, with a close race between the three largest parties
'Although our latest voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) shows all parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, it reaffirms the tightening of the race seen in recent months, with Labour up five points from its low of 16% recorded as recently as May'
Given how much Burnham's accession has been telegraphed in advance, I would have though much of any Burnham bounce is already accounted for. Will have to see if "cost of living" measures will have any impact but I suspect not - the Vat cut on electricity won't save much, the big bill in winter is gas. Buses most people don't use and the change isn't until January. Business rates for hospitality - technical, and the price of a pint isn't going to come down. Was there anything else? It just sounds like needless tinkering so far, but admittedly there wasn't much Burnham could do in Week 1
Everything in order! Goal one of the much maligned centrists is to avoid a Reform government. They are now about 7/1 against a majority - about level with the Tories. The route to a Tory majority in 2029 looks blocked in every direction. The chances of Labour led or Labour majority government are now high. Personally I would put it at 75%, making various bets value.
It's high summer and the non political majority have not thought about Burnham at all yet. September to Christmas will be interesting.
The Telegraph have been relentless with their unhinged headlines since before Monday. Beyond the headlines the Telegraph narrative isn't quite as bad as it was under Starmer
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
Binface won't come second.
I think one of the further-right-wing candidates will come second, and possibly save their deposit.
There's a candidate standing against inheritance tax, and a farmer, both of whom might find support from natural Tory voters and do well.
Rejoin EU might do surprisingly well for one of the more Brexity constituencies in the country, as it might be a more tempting vote for Lab/Lib/Grn supporters than a joke candidate.
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
Binface won't come second.
I think one of the further-right-wing candidates will come second, and possibly save their deposit.
There's a candidate standing against inheritance tax, and a farmer, both of whom might find support from natural Tory voters and do well.
Rejoin EU might do surprisingly well for one of the more Brexity constituencies in the country, as it might be a more tempting vote for Lab/Lib/Grn supporters than a joke candidate.
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
Binface won't come second.
I think one of the further-right-wing candidates will come second, and possibly save their deposit.
There's a candidate standing against inheritance tax, and a farmer, both of whom might find support from natural Tory voters and do well.
Rejoin EU might do surprisingly well for one of the more Brexity constituencies in the country, as it might be a more tempting vote for Lab/Lib/Grn supporters than a joke candidate.
The fellow from Lewis who wasn't Lewis?
Laurence Fox for Reclaim has name recognition along with a party name almost the same as Reform to reap careless voters, so normally, in any other constituency, yes, but in this case Nigel Farage has higher name recognition and a party name that is exactly Reform.
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
Binface won't come second.
I think one of the further-right-wing candidates will come second, and possibly save their deposit.
There's a candidate standing against inheritance tax, and a farmer, both of whom might find support from natural Tory voters and do well.
Rejoin EU might do surprisingly well for one of the more Brexity constituencies in the country, as it might be a more tempting vote for Lab/Lib/Grn supporters than a joke candidate.
The fellow from Lewis who wasn't Lewis?
I don't know who among the further-right-wing candidates is able to mobilise activists to win the battle to come second on the right. It might be the BNP splitters.
I don't know if Fox has any party members. I think he might be someone more prominent on twitter, in the same way that binface is.
The fundamental cause of this problem was a failure to match prison places with demand, particularly in the early 2020s. In 2020, the Johnson government increased time in prison for certain serious offences by a third. In 2022, the Sunak government did the same for a much wider group of offences, attracting a sentence of four years or more.
But neither Boris or Rishi thought about where these extra prisoners would go.
Even if he hadn't been a venal, lying shagger, BoJo would still have been a terrible PM.
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
I do think Burnham still hasn't quite realised being PM is far more than a mayor who is given money to spend as they wish, rather than having to source and provide the money
I don't think Andy Burnham has quite realised that being a PM for the whole UK is not just a full time job, but it is also means he is on call 24/7 and this means he needs to be not only working out of No10 but it also means he needs to be living above the shop! This is a role that is far more important than the performative PR art form that is playing the down to earth local lad as former Mayor of Manchester who as you point out was given money to spend and target as he wished on local re-election winning policies rather than ever having to work out how to source, create or provide the money which comes with a far more heavy responsibility on what to invest in or cut elsewhere from public services or who to tax more across the whole country.
Sorry, but a 'The Thick of It' Northern No10 hub PR stunt where Andy Burnham gets to live at home in Manchester and play the local lad rather than being a serious PM for serious times for the whole country smacks of someone who wants to make the role of Prime Minister a part time hybrid work option! And I really don't think this approach will cut any parsnips in Devon or set the heather on fire up in Inverness!!
This whole thing smacks of man who fancied the job of finally becoming Labour leader and PM but not one who wants the job enough to give it 100% of his time.
The fundamental cause of this problem was a failure to match prison places with demand, particularly in the early 2020s. In 2020, the Johnson government increased time in prison for certain serious offences by a third. In 2022, the Sunak government did the same for a much wider group of offences, attracting a sentence of four years or more.
But neither Boris or Rishi thought about where these extra prisoners would go.
Even if he hadn't been a venal, lying shagger, BoJo would still have been a terrible PM.
Nigel has hit upon a bit of nail on the head mentioning HS2. It could be that Burnham will try to reinvigorate HS2 with his wangled 'extra headroom', to get it to Crewe.
I think I'd be broadly comfortable with this. I know it's good money after bad, but it seems completely dysfunctional if it doesn't get to Crewe.
Get it to Crewe and Euston, the former hopefully using private money, the latter public, and that will be some sort of legacy and a claim to be 'levelling up'.
Nigel has hit upon a bit of nail on the head mentioning HS2. It could be that Burnham will try to reinvigorate HS2 with his wangled 'extra headroom', to get it to Crewe.
I think I'd be broadly comfortable with this. I know it's good money after bad, but it seems completely dysfunctional if it doesn't get to Crewe.
Get it to Crewe and Euston, the former hopefully using private money, the latter public, and that will be some sort of legacy and a claim to be 'levelling up'.
That's the minimum to make it viable.
However Euston is a massive project with 3 separate parts to it
1) tunnel to Euston 2) new platforms at Euston 3) Rebuild of under ground station to cope with capacity.
The bit that isn't mentioned is that without Crossrail 2 the extra passengers are going to create big problems at Euston as TfL is also running at capacity...
There are rumours flying around various foreign media outlets that Joe Root is set to resume the England captaincy at any rate for now, with Marcus Trescothick being coach for the next few months to give them more time to appoint someone else.
With due respect to both of them, if correct this is another very stupid move by Rob Key.
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
I do think Burnham still hasn't quite realised being PM is far more than a mayor who is given money to spend as they wish, rather than having to source and provide the money
I don't think Andy Burnham has quite realised that being a PM for the whole UK is not just a full time job, but it is also means he is on call 24/7 and this means he needs to be not only working out of No10 but it also means he needs to be living above the shop! This is a role that is far more important than the performative PR art form that is playing the down to earth local lad as former Mayor of Manchester who as you point out was given money to spend and target as he wished on local re-election winning policies rather than ever having to work out how to source, create or provide the money which comes with a far more heavy responsibility on what to invest in or cut elsewhere from public services or who to tax more across the whole country.
Sorry, but a 'The Thick of It' Northern No10 hub PR stunt where Andy Burnham gets to live at home in Manchester and play the local lad rather than being a serious PM for serious times for the whole country smacks of someone who wants to make the role of Prime Minister a part time hybrid work option! And I really don't think this approach will cut any parsnips in Devon or set the heather on fire up in Inverness!!
This whole thing smacks of man who fancied the job of finally becoming Labour leader and PM but not one who wants the job enough to give it 100% of his time.
There is this amazing device that allows you to talk with people in other places. Even exchange moving pictures.
What *can't* be done from any basically secure location?
The fundamental cause of this problem was a failure to match prison places with demand, particularly in the early 2020s. In 2020, the Johnson government increased time in prison for certain serious offences by a third. In 2022, the Sunak government did the same for a much wider group of offences, attracting a sentence of four years or more.
But neither Boris or Rishi thought about where these extra prisoners would go.
Even if he hadn't been a venal, lying shagger, BoJo would still have been a terrible PM.
The proper historians still think it’s too early. But, eventually, the true story of how the never-should-have-been allowed-to-get-anywhere-near-power idiot-PM Johnson (as so many of us told our HY, back when he was a loyal footsoldier) utterly shafted both our politics and our country, will be told - for future generations to learn from (or, sadly and more likely, to ignore).
North-West dominates; private education surprisingly high, especially after Starmer's state-educated Cabinet.
Given the Sullivan Report and The Guardian's gender-critical stance, I'm surprised they didn't entitled it "Race, school, sex". The use of the word "gender" as a synonym for "sex" is proving sticky.
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
HOC - pairing. I doubt Cabinet Ministers are expected to be in Parliament for every vote. And if the Opposition doesn't cooperate with pairing, Labour has a mahoosive majority.
Cabinet - does the cabinet actually vote? In any case, formal meetings work really well online. Or cabinet ministers could have a business trip to London once a week.
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
I do think Burnham still hasn't quite realised being PM is far more than a mayor who is given money to spend as they wish, rather than having to source and provide the money
I don't think Andy Burnham has quite realised that being a PM for the whole UK is not just a full time job, but it is also means he is on call 24/7 and this means he needs to be not only working out of No10 but it also means he needs to be living above the shop! This is a role that is far more important than the performative PR art form that is playing the down to earth local lad as former Mayor of Manchester who as you point out was given money to spend and target as he wished on local re-election winning policies rather than ever having to work out how to source, create or provide the money which comes with a far more heavy responsibility on what to invest in or cut elsewhere from public services or who to tax more across the whole country.
Sorry, but a 'The Thick of It' Northern No10 hub PR stunt where Andy Burnham gets to live at home in Manchester and play the local lad rather than being a serious PM for serious times for the whole country smacks of someone who wants to make the role of Prime Minister a part time hybrid work option! And I really don't think this approach will cut any parsnips in Devon or set the heather on fire up in Inverness!!
This whole thing smacks of man who fancied the job of finally becoming Labour leader and PM but not one who wants the job enough to give it 100% of his time.
I am not a big fan of Burnham but I don't believe laziness is a fair accusation. So far it may all be noise, but he has been an absolute terrier in making that noise.
It strikes me that the people moaning about Burnham establishing a power base up north are the same people who've spent years moaning about the obscene concentration of power in the hands of the progressive London metropolitan elite who mainly live, apparently, in Islington and have lots of dinner parties.
Burnham's power will be dictated in the Commons where it should be though moving 300 civil servants out of London is acceptable to me
Not sure about cabinet ministers working there permanently
Time will tell whether the public see it as a good thing
I'll raise you Sir Geoffrey Cox.
Is an exotic Caribbean island a train and a Boris bus ride away from Westminster? Asking for a friend.
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
I do think Burnham still hasn't quite realised being PM is far more than a mayor who is given money to spend as they wish, rather than having to source and provide the money
I don't think Andy Burnham has quite realised that being a PM for the whole UK is not just a full time job, but it is also means he is on call 24/7 and this means he needs to be not only working out of No10 but it also means he needs to be living above the shop! This is a role that is far more important than the performative PR art form that is playing the down to earth local lad as former Mayor of Manchester who as you point out was given money to spend and target as he wished on local re-election winning policies rather than ever having to work out how to source, create or provide the money which comes with a far more heavy responsibility on what to invest in or cut elsewhere from public services or who to tax more across the whole country.
Sorry, but a 'The Thick of It' Northern No10 hub PR stunt where Andy Burnham gets to live at home in Manchester and play the local lad rather than being a serious PM for serious times for the whole country smacks of someone who wants to make the role of Prime Minister a part time hybrid work option! And I really don't think this approach will cut any parsnips in Devon or set the heather on fire up in Inverness!!
This whole thing smacks of man who fancied the job of finally becoming Labour leader and PM but not one who wants the job enough to give it 100% of his time.
This whole comment smacks of typical conservative knee-jerkism that can't conceive of changes to institutional practices to reflect the modern world.
Yes, there is a shift happening. I posted the other day about Laura Loomer being in Ukraine with a massive volte face on Ukraine, to the point of calling herself an “asshole” for her prior views against Ukraine and pro Russia.
Loomer has spent a couple of days in Kyiv, visiting everywhere from the famous bombed McDonald’s to the monastry droned a couple of weeks ago.
Don’t underestimate the influence she has with the administration, she’s very well connected to Trump’s team.
All good news for Ukraine.
Loomer's apparent influence history is that she complains about somebody, then Trump sacks them very soon afterwards. She also spreads misinformation. It has applied to very senior officials.
eg This possible (Trump denial afterwads etc...) case:
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
HOC - pairing. I doubt Cabinet Ministers are expected to be in Parliament for every vote. And if the Opposition doesn't cooperate with pairing, Labour has a mahoosive majority.
Cabinet - does the cabinet actually vote? In any case, formal meetings work really well online. Or cabinet ministers could have a business trip to London once a week.
Even when he was an MP, Nigel Farage didn't seem to know his way around either the Palace of Westminster nor his Clacton constituency.
It's a lovely day here, at 24C a civilised warm temperature. And the blackberries are (FFS) nearly ready to harvest. Two short videos:
A fun one. My favourite Canadian Youtuber explaining tariffs, with some excellent detail even in the "sources". I like the tariff on the invisible boxes used by mime artists. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pMXv2xA9290
And a more serious dive into the effects on ordinary people of Mr Trump's measures, that could help wash away his foundations. Heath Cox-Richardson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waXWDrQFgW0
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
Binface won't come second.
I think one of the further-right-wing candidates will come second, and possibly save their deposit.
There's a candidate standing against inheritance tax, and a farmer, both of whom might find support from natural Tory voters and do well.
Rejoin EU might do surprisingly well for one of the more Brexity constituencies in the country, as it might be a more tempting vote for Lab/Lib/Grn supporters than a joke candidate.
One of the indys has stood before as a Conservative candidate. Might they benefit from tacit party support? One of the indys had stood before as a Reform candidate!
I think Rejoin EU have a clear identity as John Stevens is a capable candidate. He won't win i presume, but could easily come second.
I think Binface supporters are getting in the way of some actual serious candidates!
It doesn't seem to occur to Reform and all the associated online armchair prison officers and amateur shrinks that it is possible Rudukaban has been move because it was unsafe for the other prisoners and staff as he could not be managed even in a high security prison.
I have no idea nor do they but one of the reasons given was "could not be managed safely in a prison environment".
I think the decision is fine. My assumption is that he is being pumped full of drugs to turn him into a drooling mess that makes him a lot easier to manage.
It doesn't seem to occur to Reform and all the associated online armchair prison officers and amateur shrinks that it is possible Rudukaban has been move because it was unsafe for the other prisoners and staff as he could not be managed even in a high security prison.
I have no idea nor do they but one of the reasons given was "could not be managed safely in a prison environment".
I think the decision is fine. My assumption is that he is being pumped full of drugs to turn him into a drooling mess that makes him a lot easier to manage.
That would probably be illegal and against good clinical practice.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
You're prejudging the policy before you've seen what it will/might entail.
My point is that there is no published policy, simply everyone taking the ECML train on Thursday rather than Friday.
When there’s a policy, we can debate it.
Like everything else, this imo is to form a definition and signal an intent. It will depend on follow through.
Here's a remarkable "story" built on the VAT off electricity change, stretched more than a little, and turned negative. The EV industry are translating it into a load on people who do not have driveways:
“Drivers will now save close to £900 (US$1,204) a year by charging an EV at home instead of filling up a petrol car - that’s enough to cover an annual insurance bill for many drivers.” ... “But millions of drivers without a driveway will not fully benefit because they can't easily access home charging,” she added. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/andy-burnham-900-plan-households-34337704
I think the important point is that all groups will always push their own interest to the max (and sod everything else) - I'm reminded of the of the savage opposition to the (Cameron's?) proposals to slightly adjust the child:childminder ratio to reduce costs by allowing slightly more children per childminder.
Mr Burnham will need a very strong resistance to ignoring shouty lobbying groups.
Prince Harry’s security review delayed as nine former PMs need protection
The Duke of Sussex was promised a risk assessment last year, but was still waiting in June as officials struggled to cope with record dem
The Duke of Sussex is being forced to wait for a decision about his security arrangements in Britain while officials grapple with protecting an unprecedented nine former prime ministers at once, The Times has learnt.
Prince Harry was told he would be granted a risk management board at the end of last year to reassess whether he should receive automatic police protection every time he visits the UK.
The review was due to be carried out in March by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec), an independent body overseen by the Home Office that decides which public figures should be given armed protection and at what level. However, it had still not taken place by the end of June.
Some might say Harry should bugger off and pay for his own security. I'd be among them. Wanting to no longer have the duties of a royal while retaining the privileges is nonsense.
Point may have been made, but ex-PMs no longer have the duties of a PM, while retaining the (security, some at least) privileges.
And most left, officially at least, of own volition (only Major, Brown and Sunak actually sacked, as such? Others, like Hazza, resigned.)
Suppose the amounts were £50m or 50/50 chance of £1bn - for most people it makes sense to actually go for the certain but lesser value choice.
Yes I understand . But passing why this would mean it pays to be a gambler per se ? Is there a real life example of this in betting ?
Not betting but in Deal or No Deal you’d often see people accept £80,000 even though they still had the £250,000.
Quite a few people would say the £80,000 would pay off their mortgage and that would make them financially secure for life.
Arguably the show doesn't want those kind of people on it - less drama, more rational thinking. Many on here (not everyone, for sure) would think yeah, 50 grand is nice but it won't change my world, a million would so I'll gamble.
Many people not on PB think I've never had 50 grand and I can definitely get it right now, I will thanks!
Sure - and gambling you play the odds and (hope to) come out ahead in the long run. This is one off.
I'd quite possibly go for the £50k as a one off, would put a nice dent in mortgage etc. Give me 10 goes and the mean result and I'll take the gambles.
It's a fair way with some quite different areas in between. A sensible road route might take you past Colchester (Lab) and Chelmsford (LD) and through a sea of Con.
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
I do think Burnham still hasn't quite realised being PM is far more than a mayor who is given money to spend as they wish, rather than having to source and provide the money
I don't think Andy Burnham has quite realised that being a PM for the whole UK is not just a full time job, but it is also means he is on call 24/7 and this means he needs to be not only working out of No10 but it also means he needs to be living above the shop! This is a role that is far more important than the performative PR art form that is playing the down to earth local lad as former Mayor of Manchester who as you point out was given money to spend and target as he wished on local re-election winning policies rather than ever having to work out how to source, create or provide the money which comes with a far more heavy responsibility on what to invest in or cut elsewhere from public services or who to tax more across the whole country.
Sorry, but a 'The Thick of It' Northern No10 hub PR stunt where Andy Burnham gets to live at home in Manchester and play the local lad rather than being a serious PM for serious times for the whole country smacks of someone who wants to make the role of Prime Minister a part time hybrid work option! And I really don't think this approach will cut any parsnips in Devon or set the heather on fire up in Inverness!!
This whole thing smacks of man who fancied the job of finally becoming Labour leader and PM but not one who wants the job enough to give it 100% of his time.
This whole comment smacks of typical conservative knee-jerkism that can't conceive of changes to institutional practices to reflect the modern world.
"Number 10 North" sounds slightly as if someone could make a satirical weekly sitcom about it.
It's a lovely day here, at 24C a civilised warm temperature. And the blackberries are (FFS) nearly ready to harvest. Two short videos:
A fun one. My favourite Canadian Youtuber explaining tariffs, with some excellent detail even in the "sources". I like the tariff on the invisible boxes used by mime artists. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pMXv2xA9290
And a more serious dive into the effects on ordinary people of Mr Trump's measures, that could help wash away his foundations. Heath Cox-Richardson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waXWDrQFgW0
Typo: that is Heather Cox-Richardson. I nearly turned her into Heath Cox-Robinson.
There are basically three costs: build, maintainance, fuel.
Gas: low, low, high Coal: medium, medium, medium Nuclear: high, high, low Wind: high, low, none Solar: high, very low, none
You missed the subsidy elements. For CCGT, and especially OCGT and engine sets, you make your money from availability payments. If you own an OCGT, the last thing you want is to have to run the thing to generate power at low efficiency from expensive natural gas, while also being hit with ETS costs.
I am merely looking at high level costs by type of powergen. I'm not looking at income or subsidies or anything like that.
The whole reason for the high electricity prices, is the complex web of contracts and subsidies that represent significant government intervention into the markets.
Which is why we now see data centres not just put solar panels on the roof, but installing turbine generators and even talking about SMR nuclear on-site, as it’s cheaper to set up their own power generation from scratch than to use the expensive grid power.
Robert's point is that the inefficiencies and absurdities of the electricity market have no bearing at all on whether solar is a cheap and efficient generating technology.
Robert is, of course, quite correct.
And my point is that whether or not solar is a cheap way of generating electricity (it is hardly efficient for your generation to stop at night or due to a cloudy day) is irrelevant when it is costing the consumer more than energy generated by gas. All the cheapness does is increase the profit margin of suppliers.
That's really not true at all.
The whole point about modern CCGTs is that they can be turned on and off at will. Operators love them for exactly that reason: they are extremely efficient.
Take that data center (for that is something I know a lot about at the moment): even if you have your own natural gas turbines (with no solar panels), they won't be running 24-7, because data center power demand varies. During the night, you need much less active cooling because ambient air temperatures are much lower. And therefore power demand is lower, and a lot of those turbines won't be running.
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
I do think Burnham still hasn't quite realised being PM is far more than a mayor who is given money to spend as they wish, rather than having to source and provide the money
I don't think Andy Burnham has quite realised that being a PM for the whole UK is not just a full time job, but it is also means he is on call 24/7 and this means he needs to be not only working out of No10 but it also means he needs to be living above the shop! This is a role that is far more important than the performative PR art form that is playing the down to earth local lad as former Mayor of Manchester who as you point out was given money to spend and target as he wished on local re-election winning policies rather than ever having to work out how to source, create or provide the money which comes with a far more heavy responsibility on what to invest in or cut elsewhere from public services or who to tax more across the whole country.
Sorry, but a 'The Thick of It' Northern No10 hub PR stunt where Andy Burnham gets to live at home in Manchester and play the local lad rather than being a serious PM for serious times for the whole country smacks of someone who wants to make the role of Prime Minister a part time hybrid work option! And I really don't think this approach will cut any parsnips in Devon or set the heather on fire up in Inverness!!
This whole thing smacks of man who fancied the job of finally becoming Labour leader and PM but not one who wants the job enough to give it 100% of his time.
This whole comment smacks of typical conservative knee-jerkism that can't conceive of changes to institutional practices to reflect the modern world.
"Number 10 North" sounds slightly as if someone could make a satirical weekly sitcom about it.
Private Eye seem to be going with Coronation Street, with Andy as landlord of The Voters Return.
Which is more distinctive than the Cabinet WhatsApp they've been running since Boris.
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
I do think Burnham still hasn't quite realised being PM is far more than a mayor who is given money to spend as they wish, rather than having to source and provide the money
I don't think Andy Burnham has quite realised that being a PM for the whole UK is not just a full time job, but it is also means he is on call 24/7 and this means he needs to be not only working out of No10 but it also means he needs to be living above the shop! This is a role that is far more important than the performative PR art form that is playing the down to earth local lad as former Mayor of Manchester who as you point out was given money to spend and target as he wished on local re-election winning policies rather than ever having to work out how to source, create or provide the money which comes with a far more heavy responsibility on what to invest in or cut elsewhere from public services or who to tax more across the whole country.
Sorry, but a 'The Thick of It' Northern No10 hub PR stunt where Andy Burnham gets to live at home in Manchester and play the local lad rather than being a serious PM for serious times for the whole country smacks of someone who wants to make the role of Prime Minister a part time hybrid work option! And I really don't think this approach will cut any parsnips in Devon or set the heather on fire up in Inverness!!
This whole thing smacks of man who fancied the job of finally becoming Labour leader and PM but not one who wants the job enough to give it 100% of his time.
This whole comment smacks of typical conservative knee-jerkism that can't conceive of changes to institutional practices to reflect the modern world.
"Number 10 North" sounds slightly as if someone could make a satirical weekly sitcom about it.
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
I do think Burnham still hasn't quite realised being PM is far more than a mayor who is given money to spend as they wish, rather than having to source and provide the money
I don't think Andy Burnham has quite realised that being a PM for the whole UK is not just a full time job, but it is also means he is on call 24/7 and this means he needs to be not only working out of No10 but it also means he needs to be living above the shop! This is a role that is far more important than the performative PR art form that is playing the down to earth local lad as former Mayor of Manchester who as you point out was given money to spend and target as he wished on local re-election winning policies rather than ever having to work out how to source, create or provide the money which comes with a far more heavy responsibility on what to invest in or cut elsewhere from public services or who to tax more across the whole country.
Sorry, but a 'The Thick of It' Northern No10 hub PR stunt where Andy Burnham gets to live at home in Manchester and play the local lad rather than being a serious PM for serious times for the whole country smacks of someone who wants to make the role of Prime Minister a part time hybrid work option! And I really don't think this approach will cut any parsnips in Devon or set the heather on fire up in Inverness!!
This whole thing smacks of man who fancied the job of finally becoming Labour leader and PM but not one who wants the job enough to give it 100% of his time.
This whole comment smacks of typical conservative knee-jerkism that can't conceive of changes to institutional practices to reflect the modern world.
"Number 10 North" sounds slightly as if someone could make a satirical weekly sitcom about it.
No 10 north is apparently going to be the base for Haig, Rayner and Powell so how does that work on votes in the HOC and cabinet
I do think Burnham still hasn't quite realised being PM is far more than a mayor who is given money to spend as they wish, rather than having to source and provide the money
I don't think Andy Burnham has quite realised that being a PM for the whole UK is not just a full time job, but it is also means he is on call 24/7 and this means he needs to be not only working out of No10 but it also means he needs to be living above the shop! This is a role that is far more important than the performative PR art form that is playing the down to earth local lad as former Mayor of Manchester who as you point out was given money to spend and target as he wished on local re-election winning policies rather than ever having to work out how to source, create or provide the money which comes with a far more heavy responsibility on what to invest in or cut elsewhere from public services or who to tax more across the whole country.
Sorry, but a 'The Thick of It' Northern No10 hub PR stunt where Andy Burnham gets to live at home in Manchester and play the local lad rather than being a serious PM for serious times for the whole country smacks of someone who wants to make the role of Prime Minister a part time hybrid work option! And I really don't think this approach will cut any parsnips in Devon or set the heather on fire up in Inverness!!
This whole thing smacks of man who fancied the job of finally becoming Labour leader and PM but not one who wants the job enough to give it 100% of his time.
This whole comment smacks of typical conservative knee-jerkism that can't conceive of changes to institutional practices to reflect the modern world.
I have no problem with moving civil service jobs out of London, but Burnham's role has changed from mayor to PM and whilst his ministers may be able to work from No 10 Manchester, Burnham is going to find it far more difficult as demands on him will make it a rare occasion that he can be there
Didn't Starmer attend 49 international meetings in his time in office ?
And by the way there are reports of unease within labour itself
'Our first voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) conducted since Andy Burnham became prime minister shows no significant change, with a close race between the three largest parties
'Although our latest voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) shows all parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, it reaffirms the tightening of the race seen in recent months, with Labour up five points from its low of 16% recorded as recently as May'
Given how much Burnham's accession has been telegraphed in advance, I would have though much of any Burnham bounce is already accounted for. Will have to see if "cost of living" measures will have any impact but I suspect not - the Vat cut on electricity won't save much, the big bill in winter is gas. Buses most people don't use and the change isn't until January. Business rates for hospitality - technical, and the price of a pint isn't going to come down. Was there anything else? It just sounds like needless tinkering so far, but admittedly there wasn't much Burnham could do in Week 1
Everything in order! Goal one of the much maligned centrists is to avoid a Reform government. They are now about 7/1 against a majority - about level with the Tories. The route to a Tory majority in 2029 looks blocked in every direction. The chances of Labour led or Labour majority government are now high. Personally I would put it at 75%, making various bets value.
It's high summer and the non political majority have not thought about Burnham at all yet. September to Christmas will be interesting.
Good morning
3 years out of a GE with the polls showing stalemate it is ambitious to suggest a 75% chance of a laboir or labour led government not least because their recovery in Scotland and Wales would need to be spectacular
I simply do not dismiss reform quite so easily, nor declare the end of the conservative party, certainly when the right are polling around 45%
Wise council is to expect the unexpected and be mindful that events will dictate the next GE
Agree. However but for the factors you mention I would place Labour most seats and lead the next government/Labour majority at above 75%. My reasoning is basically elimination. Only three parties are in the running for next government - Lab, Con, Reform. Reform are on the way out and even their friendly media have deserted or are deserting. The Tories have lost their centrists and have not overcome their abject fail; they don't have a USP and they keep making choices which lose voters. For the Tory problem I cannot improve on Mr Meeks's analysis, discussed recently:
Only Labour remain. They have a new leader, the promise of a 10 year plan (!), over 400 seats, the hard left on the margins, some populist policies, the Greens stuck, and when the election is called is in their gift. No-one deserves to lead the next government. Someone will. Only Labour are currently serious about it.
With all that, I place a non Labour party to lead the next government as high as 25%. Maybe that's too high!
Social media (and bad actors on social media) are always going to attack the government of the day. I think it’s become harder for any party (but particularly those not liked by tech oligarchs like Elon Musk) to stay in power because of that.
Comments
Because he is in your custody. Your responsibility.
This chain of responsibility is a vital (and often neglected) part of modern society.
They would probably not pay on the 1 million, somehow.
Trump is just using 'forced labour' as an excuse to impose tariffs - no idea why now. Maybe market manipulation. Who knows.
The United States has forced labour. So does China. So to, does almost every country in the world. There are plenty of people who are effectively slaves, despite slavery being illegal for 200 years.
It's just word salad by the US President, and lies by the Chinese. No surprise there then.
So the fact of him actually becoming PM has entered the popular consciousness. The road to the job - not so much.
3 years out of a GE with the polls showing stalemate it is ambitious to suggest a 75% chance of a laboir or labour led government not least because their recovery in Scotland and Wales would need to be spectacular
I simply do not dismiss reform quite so easily, nor declare the end of the conservative party, certainly when the right are polling around 45%
Wise council is to expect the unexpected and be mindful that events will dictate the next GE
Indeed, if there is an upset Fox would be the likeliest beneficiary.
Which is about the only thing that would make me nostalgic for Farage.
https://mentalhealthcop.com/2026/07/24/belmarsh-to-broadmoor/
The more time Sir Humphrey spends out of a London bubble, the better.
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/rock-bottom-25ddbd298cce
Only Labour remain. They have a new leader, the promise of a 10 year plan (!), over 400 seats, the hard left on the margins, some populist policies, the Greens stuck, and when the election is called is in their gift. No-one deserves to lead the next government. Someone will. Only Labour are currently serious about it.
With all that, I place a non Labour party to lead the next government as high as 25%. Maybe that's too high!
Personally, I'm not sure that the first 50k would be more useful to me than the subsequent £950000, but I'm smugly comfortable. I can imagine people for who it's perfectly sensible.
See also: slowly increasing GDP is leaving people grumpy. As a nation, we are better off then we've ever been, but we are making a fuss over £1 off bus fares. Something deeper is going on, and I don't think we understand it.
Also see also: the exponential salaries that some top people seem to need to be motivated.
But not government ministers and civil servants.
It’s like the EU running between Brussels and Strasbourg, unless there’s actually some meat on the bone. Having meetings closer to home for the PM, isn’t a government policy.
Trans-Pennine Express not good enough for him?
Obviously it’s a distraction from the important stuff - such as The War On Pixies. But a competent manager can deal with two things at once.
Also I've seen those TPE trains - it's understandable..
Burnham was one of the few politicians she knew already, in part as Mayor of GM but also because she lived in Leigh when we met so he was her MP.
A few days before the by election she said something scathing about Starmer and I said he'll be going soon anyway, she had no idea. Asked who I expected to replace him and I said Burnham, to which her response was "what? Mascara Man?"
Besides recognising him as Mascara Man from his time as her MP, she has no firm opinions on Burnham either way.
Certainly agree though meat on the bone is needed, but no reason to oppose shaking up the civil service out of principle.
- https://x.com/Qiaoqiao2001/status/2080003441821163958
Git repository- Top: https://github.com/ShouqiaoW/erdos
- Top: https://github.com/ShouqiaoW/erdos/tree/main
- 788: https://github.com/ShouqiaoW/erdos/tree/main/788
- 788 PDF: https://github.com/ShouqiaoW/erdos/blob/main/788/paper.pdf
- 788 TEX: https://github.com/ShouqiaoW/erdos/blob/main/788/paper.tex
- 788 Prompt: https://github.com/ShouqiaoW/erdos/blob/main/788/prompt.md
- 788 Prompt (raw): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ShouqiaoW/erdos/refs/heads/main/788/prompt.md
Other- CDC conjecture prompt: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/04d1d1e4-bc75-476a-97cf-49055cd98d31/cdc_prompt.pdf
As you may have have noticed I have been nagging the PB Brains Trust about AI, to little effect: don't ask fish about water. So things like this are usefulReplacing a London bubble with a Manchester bubble does very little for Newcastle, Norwich or Newport. And Manchester can do a much better job of looking after itself than most provincial cities.
Besides- moving all the Sir Humphries to Manchester one day a week might change the location of the bubble, but it doesn't burst the bubbleness. That only happens when you disperse the power and responsibility away from the King -not by having the King's Court moving to a different patch of ground.
https://x.com/ralexdc/status/2080404311339893218
Rubio says the more Trump’s gotten to know Iran's current rulers, the more he’s come to realization that they are not serious.
"These guys, the problem with them is you can’t make a deal with people unless they’re going to keep it, and these people make deals and then they break it almost immediately, or they decide, oh, let’s change the deal. That’s not how deals work. I mean, they violated the MOU within days of it being implemented. We kept our end of it. So now they’re paying the price for it."
I do think Burnham still hasn't quite realised being PM is far more than a mayor who is given money to spend as they wish, rather than having to source and provide the money
Not sure about cabinet ministers working there permanently
Time will tell whether the public see it as a good thing
Abolish Education and Health. Possibly even energy and transport, and replace with a department for national infrastructure for the big stuff.
I have no problem with her decision on Barwell or Shapps for that matter as they are the old guard as are some of the others
New blood is needed
I suspect the move will be more consequential than you seem to think.
I guess it’s difficult to come to terms with.
After US export controls, China launched a Manhattan Project for semiconductors, led by Ding Xuexiang. This year marks a turning point for Chinese AI chips...
https://x.com/kyleichan/status/2080536173420630318
Avanti WCML requires a change in Lancastsr
Got to say one advantage of all of them being in the same building will be that speaking to them about something should be utterly painless they can just walk into a different room..
"Miatta Fahnbulleh, his new Energy Secretary, would reassure us better if she stopped chattering about 40 years of “neo-liberal” atrocities and told us how she plans to address a national energy crisis."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/07/24/burnham-fiddles-with-bus-fares-as-the-world-burns/
"Miatta Fahnbulleh, his new Energy Secretary, would reassure us better if she stopped chattering about 40 years of “neo-liberal” atrocities and told us how she plans to address a national energy crisis."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/07/24/burnham-fiddles-with-bus-fares-as-the-world-burns/
Substantive levelling up policies like nodal energy pricing, balanced investment and flat rate property taxes are suddenly unworkable.
Women have half the seats at the top table for the first time, but Oxbridge maintains its grip
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/24/demographic-makeup-of-andy-burnham-cabinet-charts
North-West dominates; private education surprisingly high, especially after Starmer's state-educated Cabinet.
Rishi Sunak and James Forsyth (cutting it to something with most of the cost but not much of the benefit)
Thing is, I'm dubious that forcing any of them to work in Manchester one day a week would have changed their opinions.
He has to do the necessary performative digs at Miliband and now Fahnbulleh, and does big up the irrelevant Jackdaw and Rough. He wants to keep his job at the Telegraph
Not that I have anything against Harris, but if they would take one for the rest of us it would be appreciated.
But it will certainly be more effective than not trying at all.
With due respect to both of them, if correct this is another very stupid move by Rob Key.
I think one of the further-right-wing candidates will come second, and possibly save their deposit.
There's a candidate standing against inheritance tax, and a farmer, both of whom might find support from natural Tory voters and do well.
Rejoin EU might do surprisingly well for one of the more Brexity constituencies in the country, as it might be a more tempting vote for Lab/Lib/Grn supporters than a joke candidate.
I don't know if Fox has any party members. I think he might be someone more prominent on twitter, in the same way that binface is.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/public-protection-prison-releases
Key paragraph;
The fundamental cause of this problem was a failure to match prison places with demand, particularly in the early 2020s. In 2020, the Johnson government increased time in prison for certain serious offences by a third. In 2022, the Sunak government did the same for a much wider group of offences, attracting a sentence of four years or more.
But neither Boris or Rishi thought about where these extra prisoners would go.
Even if he hadn't been a venal, lying shagger, BoJo would still have been a terrible PM.
Sorry, but a 'The Thick of It' Northern No10 hub PR stunt where Andy Burnham gets to live at home in Manchester and play the local lad rather than being a serious PM for serious times for the whole country smacks of someone who wants to make the role of Prime Minister a part time hybrid work option! And I really don't think this approach will cut any parsnips in Devon or set the heather on fire up in Inverness!!
This whole thing smacks of man who fancied the job of finally becoming Labour leader and PM but not one who wants the job enough to give it 100% of his time.
I think I'd be broadly comfortable with this. I know it's good money after bad, but it seems completely dysfunctional if it doesn't get to Crewe.
Get it to Crewe and Euston, the former hopefully using private money, the latter public, and that will be some sort of legacy and a claim to be 'levelling up'.
However Euston is a massive project with 3 separate parts to it
1) tunnel to Euston
2) new platforms at Euston
3) Rebuild of under ground station to cope with capacity.
The bit that isn't mentioned is that without Crossrail 2 the extra passengers are going to create big problems at Euston as TfL is also running at capacity...
Gardaí intercept a bomb on its way to the underside of a car in the North.
What *can't* be done from any basically secure location?
The boyos want something. Again.
Cabinet - does the cabinet actually vote? In any case, formal meetings work really well online. Or cabinet ministers could have a business trip to London once a week.
Is an exotic Caribbean island a train and a Boris bus ride away from Westminster? Asking for a friend.
eg This possible (Trump denial afterwads etc...) case:
The Trump administration has fired the head of both the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, the BBC's US partner CBS has reported.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgerl183j3o
Really it's just another dimension of Trump surrounding himself with MAGA loofs.
A fun one. My favourite Canadian Youtuber explaining tariffs, with some excellent detail even in the "sources". I like the tariff on the invisible boxes used by mime artists.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pMXv2xA9290
And a more serious dive into the effects on ordinary people of Mr Trump's measures, that could help wash away his foundations. Heath Cox-Richardson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waXWDrQFgW0
I think Rejoin EU have a clear identity as John Stevens is a capable candidate. He won't win i presume, but could easily come second.
I think Binface supporters are getting in the way of some actual serious candidates!
Here's a remarkable "story" built on the VAT off electricity change, stretched more than a little, and turned negative. The EV industry are translating it into a load on people who do not have driveways:
“Drivers will now save close to £900 (US$1,204) a year by charging an EV at home instead of filling up a petrol car - that’s enough to cover an annual insurance bill for many drivers.”
...
“But millions of drivers without a driveway will not fully benefit because they can't easily access home charging,” she added.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/andy-burnham-900-plan-households-34337704
I think the important point is that all groups will always push their own interest to the max (and sod everything else) - I'm reminded of the of the savage opposition to the (Cameron's?) proposals to slightly adjust the child:childminder ratio to reduce costs by allowing slightly more children per childminder.
Mr Burnham will need a very strong resistance to ignoring shouty lobbying groups.
And most left, officially at least, of own volition (only Major, Brown and Sunak actually sacked, as such? Others, like Hazza, resigned.)
I'd quite possibly go for the £50k as a one off, would put a nice dent in mortgage etc. Give me 10 goes and the mean result and I'll take the gambles.
The whole point about modern CCGTs is that they can be turned on and off at will. Operators love them for exactly that reason: they are extremely efficient.
Take that data center (for that is something I know a lot about at the moment): even if you have your own natural gas turbines (with no solar panels), they won't be running 24-7, because data center power demand varies. During the night, you need much less active cooling because ambient air temperatures are much lower. And therefore power demand is lower, and a lot of those turbines won't be running.
Which is more distinctive than the Cabinet WhatsApp they've been running since Boris.
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2080613170775756813
(Burnham sounds a lot better at 1.25x playback, IMO. Less stuttery.)
Didn't Starmer attend 49 international meetings in his time in office ?
And by the way there are reports of unease within labour itself
Time will tell if it gains public support