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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
'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.
It is a real issue which iirc someone flagged up on pb – it represents (or can be misrepresented as) a subsidy for affluent EV owners charging at home.
Though imo the whole EV business wants looking at. There is no longer any reason for the Chancellor to write subsidy cheques to Elon Musk and President Xi now that electric cars are established and attractive in their own right.
'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.
There is a lot of truth in that
Whether it is labour, or the conservatives, or some coalition in government the broadcast media and social media will laser focus on their negatives on a 24/7 timescale unheard of years ago
I would not want to become an MP in this climate and expose my family to some of the rancid and unacceptable abuse out there
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
No peer review publications yet and some comment online has rubbished the materials he’s provided, so maybe some scepticism is in order.
But, yes, generative AI is transformative and it will be while before we understand all the changes it will lead to. When I talk to AI sceptics, I am full of praise for what AI can do… but when I talk to AI enthusiasts, I’m full of doubt about their claims.
Not as good as W1A or Twenty Twelve but it occurs to me it might seem better now we are more familiar with the issues thrown up by the actual World Cup. The running gag of bleeping FIFA was annoying iirc.
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
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
No peer review publications yet and some comment online has rubbished the materials he’s provided, so maybe some scepticism is in order.
But, yes, generative AI is transformative and it will be while before we understand all the changes it will lead to. When I talk to AI sceptics, I am full of praise for what AI can do… but when I talk to AI enthusiasts, I’m full of doubt about their claims.
My friend who went from non-techie to paid subscriber in short order said: I’m definitely finding out that AI is amazing AND frustrating both at the same time. It sounds like a university lecturer when it talks to you but has the initiative and awareness of a 2 year old kid
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why the hell in 2026 can the PM not work part time in Manchester? Give one good reason.
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
We had one of the most successful Prime Ministers in the pantheon of PB successful Prime Ministers occupy himself by writing a book on Shakespeare at Chequers during the first five COVID COBR meetings and he still got "all the big calls right".
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
It probably doesn't take much more time getting to Makerfield as Chequers, and easier to work on the train when travelling.
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why the hell in 2026 can the PM not work part time in Manchester? Give one good reason.
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
So long as he's not out and about with Camp David! (Ooh Mrs!)
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why the hell in 2026 can the PM not work part time in Manchester? Give one good reason.
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
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.
All routes from Clacton go past Colchester unless you use a boat
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
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.
Hey oop, cabinet secretary, make sure there’s enough coal in t’bath. Also, get that lazy bugger Larry mousing or we’re going to get a ferret on t’job.
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Trump Social, in which Trump has a 41 per cent stake, […] is offering advance access to his posts for subscriptions of $100,000 a month. That advantage would be in milliseconds, which would only be of interest to groups with the computing and AI scale to take advantage of it. Most smaller traders would be unable to afford the product. Either way, Trump is openly monetising privileged access to his thoughts. Truth API […] is making no pretence to be anything other than what it seems. In that respect, Truth API is a watershed in US public corruption. Its brazenness also gives rise to the suspicion that the scale of Trump’s moneymaking is vastly greater. How many times since February 28 have large market positions been taken minutes before a Trump announcement about Operation Epic Fury?
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.
All routes* from Clacton go past Colchester unless you use a boat
...on its way to Great Yarmouth Pier from Calais.
*Except Suffolk, Norfolk and anywhere in or to the West of Cambridgeshire.
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
We had one of the most successful Prime Ministers in the pantheon of PB successful Prime Ministers occupy himself by writing a book on Shakespeare at Chequers during the first five COVID COBR meetings and he still got "all the big calls right".
Given his abilities wasn't it better for the country that he wasn't there?
This video shows that the Wildberries warehouses did have air defence, in this case a Pantsir system shoots down a drone over the warehouse, but the system then runs out of missiles and subsequent drones impact the warehouse. https://t.me/istrebin/46956
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
It probably doesn't take much more time getting to Makerfield as Chequers, and easier to work on the train when travelling.
Apparently he flew from Glasgow to Manchester today
No, this is not a repost of an old story. It’s a new story, just with what is becoming a familiar pattern!
So three years for protestors, and three years to Digwa's mum for hiding the murder weapon (which in itself added to Nowak's suffering as the police did not believe he was the victim so slapped the handcuffs onto a dying man). Surely the definition of even-handed, one-tier justice.
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Trump simps for dictators: "Xi told me he would not give or sell Weapons to Iran. Considering our relationship, I take him at his word... Likewise, Putin told me that he would not sell Weapons to Iran... Therefore, 2 Countries people speak of in terms of Iran are, in my opinion, not participating"
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why the hell in 2026 can the PM not work part time in Manchester? Give one good reason.
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
Sure. But there are two issues that would make me think hard about this. One is getting civil servants to move from London to Manchester or covering the costs for their housing transport etc. And the second is what happens to N10N when its no longer PM Burnham?
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why the hell in 2026 can the PM not work part time in Manchester? Give one good reason.
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why can't the PM work from *anywhere*?
Too noisy in the Hacienda (RIP)?
Noise cancelling headphones.
The PM has meetings, reads documents and sends messages. That's the job. Oh, and voting in the HoC. So about 90% can be done on a laptop from anywhere. And with his majority, it's not as if he has to make every vote.
I'm sure that the kind of people who "want to be in the room" will whine about travelling to be where the PM is.
If Mayors are granted real powers, then how about an assembly of Mayors, once a week (or month)? When they get significant financial powers a chuck of the system (civil servants etc) will have to go with them, as it were.
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.
All routes from Clacton go past Colchester unless you use a boat
Well, you could do a loop round to the north via manningtree (actually did this once when there was a crash at the A12/a120 junction, messing up both roads). But on sensible land routes it's pretty much inevitable.
I'm trying to think of a way of getting Fingringhoe into the conversation, but struggling.
Trump Social, in which Trump has a 41 per cent stake, […] is offering advance access to his posts for subscriptions of $100,000 a month. That advantage would be in milliseconds, which would only be of interest to groups with the computing and AI scale to take advantage of it. Most smaller traders would be unable to afford the product. Either way, Trump is openly monetising privileged access to his thoughts. Truth API […] is making no pretence to be anything other than what it seems. In that respect, Truth API is a watershed in US public corruption. Its brazenness also gives rise to the suspicion that the scale of Trump’s moneymaking is vastly greater. How many times since February 28 have large market positions been taken minutes before a Trump announcement about Operation Epic Fury?
The brazenness and scale of Trump's corruption is matched only by the craven cowardice of Republican congressmen unwilling to do anything about it.
'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.
Point noted; however for whoever is in power to be replaced as governing or leading a minority/coalition government, there has to be a possible replacement.
Rather than pointing to X as the winner of the next election on account of their universal excellence, I suggest that the process of elimination is more likely to get a result. Start from two bases: (1) they are all terrible and attackable; (2) it doesn't matter that they are all terrible, someone still has to form/lead the next government after the next election.
My suggestion is that as no party (only two options, probably reduced to one by next year) comes close to being a replacement to the present one various facts and laws point to Labour carrying on.
A possible parallel, though incomplete, is that utterly forgettable election of 2005 when Labour carried on despite everyone being bored with them. Though Labour were only 2.8 points ahead of the Tories, most people didn't want Michael Howard as PM. Footnote: the three main parties get 90% of the votes!
Trump Social, in which Trump has a 41 per cent stake, […] is offering advance access to his posts for subscriptions of $100,000 a month. That advantage would be in milliseconds, which would only be of interest to groups with the computing and AI scale to take advantage of it. Most smaller traders would be unable to afford the product. Either way, Trump is openly monetising privileged access to his thoughts. Truth API […] is making no pretence to be anything other than what it seems. In that respect, Truth API is a watershed in US public corruption. Its brazenness also gives rise to the suspicion that the scale of Trump’s moneymaking is vastly greater. How many times since February 28 have large market positions been taken minutes before a Trump announcement about Operation Epic Fury?
The brazenness and scale of Trump's corruption is matched only by the craven cowardice of Republican congressmen unwilling to do anything about it.
The day of reckoning will finally come, mark my words.
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:
If Mayors are granted real powers, then how about an assembly of Mayors, once a week (or month)? When they get significant financial powers a chuck of the system (civil servants etc) will have to go with them, as it were.
The Government should get GCHQ to setup and run a fork of Signal, hosted in the UK. Usage would be mandatory for both politicians and civil servants. Message retention and security level on groups built in.
If Mayors are granted real powers, then how about an assembly of Mayors, once a week (or month)? When they get significant financial powers a chuck of the system (civil servants etc) will have to go with them, as it were.
A Witan of Mayors?
What about in York?
PM attends as the chair
For umpteenth time - leave York alone. It don’t need a Wasteful Odium of Mayors sitting there, chelping on and on.
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why the hell in 2026 can the PM not work part time in Manchester? Give one good reason.
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
No, this is not a repost of an old story. It’s a new story, just with what is becoming a familiar pattern!
So three years for protestors, and three years to Digwa's mum for hiding the murder weapon (which in itself added to Nowak's suffering as the police did not believe he was the victim so slapped the handcuffs onto a dying man). Surely the definition of even-handed, one-tier justice.
At least one doctor has suggested that the act of moving him and putting cuffs on him may have hastened his death or even removed any chance of him surviving. No idea if that's right but its not implausible. He was certainly more lucid when the police arrived and went rapidly downhill after they dragged him to cuff him.
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.
Yes, what looks irrational can be rational. Eg you're offered 10/1 odds on a 50/50 event, a coin toss say. The catch is you must stake £100k.
If £100k is all you have in the world you'll probably pass on that (esp if you're not young). Because if you lose you'll be left penniless. But if you're worth £1m you'll probably do it. 50% chance of doubling that to £2m. Otherwise you've dropped to £900k, no big deal.
It's an illustration of how making money is easy when you already have it and very difficult when you don't. Also of how easy it is for the poor to be exploited by the rich. Money allows you to accumulate and exploit, basically.
No, this is not a repost of an old story. It’s a new story, just with what is becoming a familiar pattern!
So three years for protestors, and three years to Digwa's mum for hiding the murder weapon (which in itself added to Nowak's suffering as the police did not believe he was the victim so slapped the handcuffs onto a dying man). Surely the definition of even-handed, one-tier justice.
At least one doctor has suggested that the act of moving him and putting cuffs on him may have hastened his death or even removed any chance of him surviving. No idea if that's right but its not implausible. He was certainly more lucid when the police arrived and went rapidly downhill after they dragged him to cuff him.
That will be up to the coroner to confirm - but if true, it's going to add pressure for the police involved to be prosecuted..
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.
Yes, what looks irrational can be rational. Eg you're offered 10/1 odds on a 50/50 event, a coin toss say. The catch is you must stake £100k.
If £100k is all you have in the world you'll probably pass on that (esp if you're not young). Because if you lose you'll be left penniless. But if you're worth £1m you'll probably do it. 50% chance of doubling that to £2m. Otherwise you've dropped to £900k, no big deal.
It's an illustration of how making money is easy when you already have it and very difficult when you don't. Also of how easy it is for the poor to be exploited by the rich. Money allows you to accumulate and exploit, basically.
That's my opportunity cost argument from earlier - most people can afford a lottery ticket but few can afford to give up £x000 regardless of what the odds of the big prize is.
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why the hell in 2026 can the PM not work part time in Manchester? Give one good reason.
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
I take your point but the UK is not a presidential system. Although many Parliamentary powers have been lost/abandoned, the PM still has to answer to it, which in the past has required physical attendance. The fount of all authority is the Crown, which is represented in Parliament by the Crown-in-Parliament. The PM has considerable authority delegated to him by the Crown and his membership of the Privy Council, but he still has to answer to the Crown and hence to Parliament. If he refuses to do that something has gone wrong.
As I get older the more I think that the Blair constitutional changes were misguided and is leaving us with headaches, the castration/sidelining of Parliament being one of them.
"The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has topped an opinion poll in Berlin for the first time, months before the German capital votes for its state parliament."
Another drop falls into the ocean of drivel spouted by this blundering oaf of a US president.
He was the person who eschewed diplomacy in the first place by breaking off talks for a nuclear deal - a deal to replace the one he tore up simply because Obama did it - in favour of a bombing campaign.
It's crazytown, Trump2, it really is. I don't envy future historians trying to explain it for posterity.
Another drop falls into the ocean of drivel spouted by this blundering oaf of a US president.
He was the person who eschewed diplomacy in the first place by breaking off talks for a nuclear deal - a deal to replace the one he tore up simply because Obama did it - in favour of a bombing campaign.
It's crazytown, Trump2, it really is. I don't envy future historians trying to explain it for posterity.
"The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has topped an opinion poll in Berlin for the first time, months before the German capital votes for its state parliament."
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.
All routes from Clacton go past Colchester unless you use a boat
Well, you could do a loop round to the north via manningtree (actually did this once when there was a crash at the A12/a120 junction, messing up both roads). But on sensible land routes it's pretty much inevitable.
I'm trying to think of a way of getting Fingringhoe into the conversation, but struggling.
Has Rupes found any more charity small boats invading Yarmouth yet?
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:
"The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has topped an opinion poll in Berlin for the first time, months before the German capital votes for its state parliament."
"The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has topped an opinion poll in Berlin for the first time, months before the German capital votes for its state parliament."
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.
Yes, what looks irrational can be rational. Eg you're offered 10/1 odds on a 50/50 event, a coin toss say. The catch is you must stake £100k.
If £100k is all you have in the world you'll probably pass on that (esp if you're not young). Because if you lose you'll be left penniless. But if you're worth £1m you'll probably do it. 50% chance of doubling that to £2m. Otherwise you've dropped to £900k, no big deal.
It's an illustration of how making money is easy when you already have it and very difficult when you don't. Also of how easy it is for the poor to be exploited by the rich. Money allows you to accumulate and exploit, basically.
Its just the Kelly criterion - 10/1 implies 9% chance of winning if its really 50/50 your edge is 41%. So if you are brave enough to wager a full Kelly you wager 41% of your bank (ish).
'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.
It is a real issue which iirc someone flagged up on pb – it represents (or can be misrepresented as) a subsidy for affluent EV owners charging at home.
Though imo the whole EV business wants looking at. There is no longer any reason for the Chancellor to write subsidy cheques to Elon Musk and President Xi now that electric cars are established and attractive in their own right.
I wonder if Miliband being off to Ruritania, and the EV targets being eased up upon, will create headroom for that.
There are several billion budgeted for EV purchase grants over a period, and there's an argument for reducing the £37k upper limit; EV prices fell by 4% since 2025.
I'd go for that if we also dump the COVID subsidies (tax breaks if you prefer) for fossil fuels. Just that 5p duty reduction has cost £10 bn so far.
It could help pay for bus fair reductions, new tramways and light rail, and lots of modal filters.
Another drop falls into the ocean of drivel spouted by this blundering oaf of a US president.
He was the person who eschewed diplomacy in the first place by breaking off talks for a nuclear deal - a deal to replace the one he tore up simply because Obama did it - in favour of a bombing campaign.
It's crazytown, Trump2, it really is. I don't envy future historians trying to explain it for posterity.
There is now quite a debate lighting up over the pond about "after Trump".
Remember what I've said multiple times this week, without that early release program there isn't the capacity to hold the prisoners scheduled to be jailed...
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why the hell in 2026 can the PM not work part time in Manchester? Give one good reason.
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
I take your point but the UK is not a presidential system. Although many Parliamentary powers have been lost/abandoned, the PM still has to answer to it, which in the past has required physical attendance. The fount of all authority is the Crown, which is represented in Parliament by the Crown-in-Parliament. The PM has considerable authority delegated to him by the Crown and his membership of the Privy Council, but he still has to answer to the Crown and hence to Parliament. If he refuses to do that something has gone wrong.
As I get older the more I think that the Blair constitutional changes were misguided and is leaving us with headaches, the castration/sidelining of Parliament being one of them.
Some pundit or other recently opined there are two competing narratives on where it all went pear-shaped, each popular with one or other side of the Commons. 1979, Mrs Thatcher's economic changes; or 1997, Blair's constitutional changes. Tbh imo Cameron/Osborne ballsed things up a treat.
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why the hell in 2026 can the PM not work part time in Manchester? Give one good reason.
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
Extra cost
Surely he can Airbnb Number Ten out when he's not there?
Tory politicians need to STFU about the early release plans given their 14 years of ignoring the issue of prison capacity has led us to this situation.
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why the hell in 2026 can the PM not work part time in Manchester? Give one good reason.
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
I take your point but the UK is not a presidential system. Although many Parliamentary powers have been lost/abandoned, the PM still has to answer to it, which in the past has required physical attendance. The fount of all authority is the Crown, which is represented in Parliament by the Crown-in-Parliament. The PM has considerable authority delegated to him by the Crown and his membership of the Privy Council, but he still has to answer to the Crown and hence to Parliament. If he refuses to do that something has gone wrong.
As I get older the more I think that the Blair constitutional changes were misguided and is leaving us with headaches, the castration/sidelining of Parliament being one of them.
Some pundit or other recently opined there are two competing narratives on where it all went pear-shaped, each popular with one or other side of the Commons. 1979, Mrs Thatcher's economic changes; or 1997, Blair's constitutional changes. Tbh imo Cameron/Osborne ballsed things up a treat.
I have a variation on that. Maybe I should write it up.
'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.
It is a real issue which iirc someone flagged up on pb – it represents (or can be misrepresented as) a subsidy for affluent EV owners charging at home.
Though imo the whole EV business wants looking at. There is no longer any reason for the Chancellor to write subsidy cheques to Elon Musk and President Xi now that electric cars are established and attractive in their own right.
I wonder if Miliband being off to Ruritania, and the EV targets being eased up upon, will create headroom for that.
There are several billion budgeted for EV purchase grants over a period, and there's an argument for reducing the £37k upper limit; EV prices fell by 4% since 2025.
I'd go for that if we also dump the COVID subsidies (tax breaks if you prefer) for fossil fuels. Just that 5p duty reduction has cost £10 bn so far.
It could help pay for bus fair reductions, new tramways and light rail, and lots of modal filters.
And a 20mph default residential area limit .
Now schools have broken up, the number of young women in particular walking around staring at their phones and blindly stepping off the pavement makes me think 20 mph limits are a poor substitute for the Tufty Club.
Earlier I was waiting to cross the road where I got hit by a car
A Porsche came past doing about 50, in a 30 limit
Number plate was: 280DA
It couldn’t be… could it?
I do not know if you are motivated, but there is nothing to stop you running a discreet bodycam or headcam, and as a pedestrian reporting Careless Driving etc to Operation SNAP, and to make sure you have evidence of the next pooch that tries to eat you. Since rural roads are more dangerous (per mile driven) than urban roads, it would be a positive thing to do if you were inclined.
Given what you do, I think you could catch some of the more blatant dodgy driving - round the blind corner on the wrong side, zooming across Zebras instead of stopping or when someone is crossing, and so on. The best number I have for cases that require court attendance, for which willingness is required, is about 1 in 50 - which mitigates it.
The one I used for years is not much bigger than a fat packet of polos, and that was from about 15 years ago.
'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.
It is a real issue which iirc someone flagged up on pb – it represents (or can be misrepresented as) a subsidy for affluent EV owners charging at home.
Though imo the whole EV business wants looking at. There is no longer any reason for the Chancellor to write subsidy cheques to Elon Musk and President Xi now that electric cars are established and attractive in their own right.
I wonder if Miliband being off to Ruritania, and the EV targets being eased up upon, will create headroom for that.
There are several billion budgeted for EV purchase grants over a period, and there's an argument for reducing the £37k upper limit; EV prices fell by 4% since 2025.
I'd go for that if we also dump the COVID subsidies (tax breaks if you prefer) for fossil fuels. Just that 5p duty reduction has cost £10 bn so far.
It could help pay for bus fair reductions, new tramways and light rail, and lots of modal filters.
And a 20mph default residential area limit .
Now schools have broken up, the number of young women in particular walking around staring at their phones and blindly stepping off the pavement makes me think 20 mph limits are a poor substitute for the Tufty Club.
"How to be safe around roads as a pedestrian" training for children is something about which I do not know very much.
I know that Bikeability, which does 300-400k children per annum, is massively better than the Cycling Proficiency it replaced in 2007. I did it myself in Nottingham when I got back on a bike seriously in my late 30s.
Another drop falls into the ocean of drivel spouted by this blundering oaf of a US president.
He was the person who eschewed diplomacy in the first place by breaking off talks for a nuclear deal - a deal to replace the one he tore up simply because Obama did it - in favour of a bombing campaign.
It's crazytown, Trump2, it really is. I don't envy future historians trying to explain it for posterity.
There is now quite a debate lighting up over the pond about "after Trump".
What, whether or not there will be an after Trump ?
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why the hell in 2026 can the PM not work part time in Manchester? Give one good reason.
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
I take your point but the UK is not a presidential system. Although many Parliamentary powers have been lost/abandoned, the PM still has to answer to it, which in the past has required physical attendance. The fount of all authority is the Crown, which is represented in Parliament by the Crown-in-Parliament. The PM has considerable authority delegated to him by the Crown and his membership of the Privy Council, but he still has to answer to the Crown and hence to Parliament. If he refuses to do that something has gone wrong.
As I get older the more I think that the Blair constitutional changes were misguided and is leaving us with headaches, the castration/sidelining of Parliament being one of them.
Some pundit or other recently opined there are two competing narratives on where it all went pear-shaped, each popular with one or other side of the Commons. 1979, Mrs Thatcher's economic changes; or 1997, Blair's constitutional changes. Tbh imo Cameron/Osborne ballsed things up a treat.
It was actually Blair adopting rather than addressing Thatcher's mistakes, as much as anything else.
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
Time will tell if it gains public support
In my opinion I think it to be ballcocks, but if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had suggested it for levelling up the North you would be over it like a rash.
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
I support moving civil service jobs out of London and indeed our granddaughter works for HMRC in Leeds
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
Why the hell in 2026 can the PM not work part time in Manchester? Give one good reason.
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
I take your point but the UK is not a presidential system. Although many Parliamentary powers have been lost/abandoned, the PM still has to answer to it, which in the past has required physical attendance. The fount of all authority is the Crown, which is represented in Parliament by the Crown-in-Parliament. The PM has considerable authority delegated to him by the Crown and his membership of the Privy Council, but he still has to answer to the Crown and hence to Parliament. If he refuses to do that something has gone wrong.
As I get older the more I think that the Blair constitutional changes were misguided and is leaving us with headaches, the castration/sidelining of Parliament being one of them.
The PM does not traditionally attend Parliament on Fridays anyway though, so no change there.
Earlier I was waiting to cross the road where I got hit by a car
A Porsche came past doing about 50, in a 30 limit
Number plate was: 280DA
It couldn’t be… could it?
I do not know if you are motivated, but there is nothing to stop you running a discreet bodycam or headcam, and as a pedestrian reporting Careless Driving etc to Operation SNAP, and to make sure you have evidence of the next pooch that tries to eat you. Since rural roads are more dangerous (per mile driven) than urban roads, it would be a positive thing to do if you were inclined.
Given what you do, I think you could catch some of the more blatant dodgy driving - round the blind corner on the wrong side, zooming across Zebras instead of stopping or when someone is crossing, and so on. The best number I have for cases that require court attendance, for which willingness is required, is about 1 in 50 - which mitigates it.
The one I used for years is not much bigger than a fat packet of polos, and that was from about 15 years ago.
Just a thought.
SNAP would be overloaded. Have a look at the Abbey Road webcam and count the number of drivers that go through on red with pedestrians just about to step onto the crossing.
Remember what I've said multiple times this week, without that early release program there isn't the capacity to hold the prisoners scheduled to be jailed...
Build some jails.
Change the law to build them without planning bollocks.
'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.
It is a real issue which iirc someone flagged up on pb – it represents (or can be misrepresented as) a subsidy for affluent EV owners charging at home.
Though imo the whole EV business wants looking at. There is no longer any reason for the Chancellor to write subsidy cheques to Elon Musk and President Xi now that electric cars are established and attractive in their own right.
I wonder if Miliband being off to Ruritania, and the EV targets being eased up upon, will create headroom for that.
There are several billion budgeted for EV purchase grants over a period, and there's an argument for reducing the £37k upper limit; EV prices fell by 4% since 2025.
I'd go for that if we also dump the COVID subsidies (tax breaks if you prefer) for fossil fuels. Just that 5p duty reduction has cost £10 bn so far.
It could help pay for bus fair reductions, new tramways and light rail, and lots of modal filters.
And a 20mph default residential area limit .
Surely the £900 a year has to be the complete saving charging at home compared with public chargers. Vat is 5% on electric, it would imply you are spending £18,000 a year at home charging rates
Another drop falls into the ocean of drivel spouted by this blundering oaf of a US president.
He was the person who eschewed diplomacy in the first place by breaking off talks for a nuclear deal - a deal to replace the one he tore up simply because Obama did it - in favour of a bombing campaign.
It's crazytown, Trump2, it really is. I don't envy future historians trying to explain it for posterity.
There is now quite a debate lighting up over the pond about "after Trump".
What, whether or not there will be an after Trump ?
For example, Brian Taylor-Cohen has a book which has just come out this week called "THE DAY AFTER: How to Wield Power in a Post-Trump World."
Mainly about what needs to change, and how to do it. It is considering what a "reconstruction" period would look like, in order to recover, and make more resilient, US democracy.
Another drop falls into the ocean of drivel spouted by this blundering oaf of a US president.
He was the person who eschewed diplomacy in the first place by breaking off talks for a nuclear deal - a deal to replace the one he tore up simply because Obama did it - in favour of a bombing campaign.
It's crazytown, Trump2, it really is. I don't envy future historians trying to explain it for posterity.
There is now quite a debate lighting up over the pond about "after Trump".
Good to hear. It's important to remember that there will be an end to it.
For me the biggest negative of Trump is not about policy it's about his impact on discourse and standards. On life generally in other words. He's a wrecking ball.
He holds the most exalted elected office in the world. There is no higher profile role model in democratic politics than the US president. And here we have in this guy a validation and empowerment of all the worst aspects of human nature.
You don't (can't) see the baleful effect of this in official data sets on the economy or whatever, it's insidious, but imo it's huge and will linger well beyond him. That's why I'd like to see him tried and convicted for his crimes. That would help undo the damage, I think.
Remember what I've said multiple times this week, without that early release program there isn't the capacity to hold the prisoners scheduled to be jailed...
Build some jails.
Change the law to build them without planning bollocks.
Build prisons where? There are problems putting them near housing because of noise and lights, yet they can't be in the middle of nowhere because prison officers need to get to work easily. If I were in charge, I'd be looking at disused industrial estates, but maybe the government has already checked these.
'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.
It is a real issue which iirc someone flagged up on pb – it represents (or can be misrepresented as) a subsidy for affluent EV owners charging at home.
Though imo the whole EV business wants looking at. There is no longer any reason for the Chancellor to write subsidy cheques to Elon Musk and President Xi now that electric cars are established and attractive in their own right.
I wonder if Miliband being off to Ruritania, and the EV targets being eased up upon, will create headroom for that.
There are several billion budgeted for EV purchase grants over a period, and there's an argument for reducing the £37k upper limit; EV prices fell by 4% since 2025.
I'd go for that if we also dump the COVID subsidies (tax breaks if you prefer) for fossil fuels. Just that 5p duty reduction has cost £10 bn so far.
It could help pay for bus fair reductions, new tramways and light rail, and lots of modal filters.
And a 20mph default residential area limit .
Surely the £900 a year has to be the complete saving charging at home compared with public chargers. Vat is 5% on electric, it would imply you are spending £18,000 a year at home charging rates
It is indeed the complete saving.
But this is the British wanting clicks, and tangling with numbers bigger than two - which is confusing.
Remember what I've said multiple times this week, without that early release program there isn't the capacity to hold the prisoners scheduled to be jailed...
Build some jails.
Change the law to build them without planning bollocks.
The number of people who think it possible to design and build a fucking prison (not a house, a prison, a building that by definition has to be secured) in a matter of weeks and just stick it somewhere where no-one is going to object is staggering.
I'm a solicitor and I'm sure someone better placed than me can correct me if I'm wrong -
Feasibility and Architecture (3–6 months): Creating blueprints, engineering plans, and budgeting.
Site Preparation (1–2 months): Clearing land, grading, and excavation.
Deep Foundations (2–6 months): Driving steel piles and pouring massive concrete foundation slabs which need to be deeper than normal to prevent tunnelling.
Superstructure (6–12+ months): Constructing the steel, concrete (or timber if you're feeling kinky) skeleton frame floor by floor.
Building Enclosure / Envelope (3–6 months): Installing exterior walls and roofing to make the shell weatherproof
Staff training (2-4 months): training on the new building will be required even for experienced prison officers.
If there's a stage here you can skip please let me know. As I say I'm not in construction. But the dribblings of people on here who say you can turn out a new shitting PRISON by the Autumn does make me wonder about the basic comprehension skills involved.
Joe Root GOAT (English Batsman) beyond doubt. But not a great captain. Sadly.
He was actually a pretty good captain when he first took over. But by the finish, he just looked lost. Maybe that would be remedied with a better coach - say Dawson or Fleming, who are believed to be the front runners at the moment - but I have my doubts.
(Incidentally, I wouldn't go so far as to say he was the greatest English batsmen of all time. He'd be in the top five though and the only one since the War who might be greater is Ken Barrington.)
Remember what I've said multiple times this week, without that early release program there isn't the capacity to hold the prisoners scheduled to be jailed...
Build some jails.
Change the law to build them without planning bollocks.
Build prisons where? There are problems putting them near housing because of noise and lights, yet they can't be in the middle of nowhere because prison officers need to get to work easily. If I were in charge, I'd be looking at disused industrial estates, but maybe the government has already checked these.
Dartmoor Prison is in planning hell - remediating Radon is actually pretty trivial, but it has been bike shedded to hell and back.
This may surprise some of you, especially if you rely on the Guardian:
In 1849, James S. Calhoun was appointed official Indian agent of Indian Affairs for the Southwest Territory of the U.S. He had headquarters in Santa Fe and was responsible for all of the Indian residents of the area. The first formal meeting between the Hopi and the U.S. government occurred in 1850 when seven Hopi leaders made the trip to Santa Fe to meet with Calhoun. They wanted the government to provide protection against the Navajo, a Southern Athabascan-speaking tribe who were distinct from Apaches. At this time, the Hopi leader was Nakwaiyamtewa.
The US established Fort Defiance in 1851 in Arizona, and placed troops in Navajo country to deal with their threats to the Hopi. General James J. Carleton, with the assistance of Kit Carson, was assigned to travel through the area. They "captured" the Navajo people and forced them to the fort. As a result of the Long Walk of the Navajo, the Hopi enjoyed a short period of peace.
'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.
It is a real issue which iirc someone flagged up on pb – it represents (or can be misrepresented as) a subsidy for affluent EV owners charging at home.
Though imo the whole EV business wants looking at. There is no longer any reason for the Chancellor to write subsidy cheques to Elon Musk and President Xi now that electric cars are established and attractive in their own right.
I wonder if Miliband being off to Ruritania, and the EV targets being eased up upon, will create headroom for that.
There are several billion budgeted for EV purchase grants over a period, and there's an argument for reducing the £37k upper limit; EV prices fell by 4% since 2025.
I'd go for that if we also dump the COVID subsidies (tax breaks if you prefer) for fossil fuels. Just that 5p duty reduction has cost £10 bn so far.
It could help pay for bus fair reductions, new tramways and light rail, and lots of modal filters.
And a 20mph default residential area limit .
Surely the £900 a year has to be the complete saving charging at home compared with public chargers. Vat is 5% on electric, it would imply you are spending £18,000 a year at home charging rates
It is indeed the complete saving.
But this is the British wanting clicks, and tangling with numbers bigger than two - which is confusing.
So if the saving is £900 a year, the reduction in VAT has just saved you about £42. Big deal. And I bet you have to drive zillions of miles too.
Remember what I've said multiple times this week, without that early release program there isn't the capacity to hold the prisoners scheduled to be jailed...
Build some jails.
Change the law to build them without planning bollocks.
Build prisons where? There are problems putting them near housing because of noise and lights, yet they can't be in the middle of nowhere because prison officers need to get to work easily. If I were in charge, I'd be looking at disused industrial estates, but maybe the government has already checked these.
Frigging anywhere. Pick a site or some sites and JFDI.
Another drop falls into the ocean of drivel spouted by this blundering oaf of a US president.
He was the person who eschewed diplomacy in the first place by breaking off talks for a nuclear deal - a deal to replace the one he tore up simply because Obama did it - in favour of a bombing campaign.
It's crazytown, Trump2, it really is. I don't envy future historians trying to explain it for posterity.
There is now quite a debate lighting up over the pond about "after Trump".
Good to hear. It's important to remember that there will be an end to it.
For me the biggest negative of Trump is not about policy it's about his impact on discourse and standards. On life generally in other words. He's a wrecking ball.
He holds the most exalted elected office in the world. There is no higher profile role model in democratic politics than the US president. And here we have in this guy a validation and empowerment of all the worst aspects of human nature.
You don't (can't) see the baleful effect of this in official data sets on the economy or whatever, it's insidious, but imo it's huge and will linger well beyond him. That's why I'd like to see him tried and convicted for his crimes. That would help undo the damage, I think.
After yet more threats from Trump just now, the EU should quadruple the fine on Google and open the pending cases more rapidly. F**k him.
Remember what I've said multiple times this week, without that early release program there isn't the capacity to hold the prisoners scheduled to be jailed...
Build some jails.
Change the law to build them without planning bollocks.
The number of people who think it possible to design and build a fucking prison (not a house, a prison, a building that by definition has to be secured) in a matter of weeks and just stick it somewhere where no-one is going to object is staggering.
I'm a solicitor and I'm sure someone better placed than me can correct me if I'm wrong -
Feasibility and Architecture (3–6 months): Creating blueprints, engineering plans, and budgeting.
Site Preparation (1–2 months): Clearing land, grading, and excavation.
Deep Foundations (2–6 months): Driving steel piles and pouring massive concrete foundation slabs which need to be deeper than normal to prevent tunnelling.
Superstructure (6–12+ months): Constructing the steel, concrete (or timber if you're feeling kinky) skeleton frame floor by floor.
Building Enclosure / Envelope (3–6 months): Installing exterior walls and roofing to make the shell weatherproof
Staff training (2-4 months): training on the new building will be required even for experienced prison officers.
If there's a stage here you can skip please let me know. As I say I'm not in construction. But the dribblings of people on here who say you can turn out a new shitting PRISON by the Autumn does make me wonder about the basic comprehension skills involved.
So a range of 18 to 36 months.
The government was elected over 2 years ago. Using your timescale it could be nearly open by now, or on the optimistic end actually open already.
Another drop falls into the ocean of drivel spouted by this blundering oaf of a US president.
He was the person who eschewed diplomacy in the first place by breaking off talks for a nuclear deal - a deal to replace the one he tore up simply because Obama did it - in favour of a bombing campaign.
It's crazytown, Trump2, it really is. I don't envy future historians trying to explain it for posterity.
There is now quite a debate lighting up over the pond about "after Trump".
Good to hear. It's important to remember that there will be an end to it.
For me the biggest negative of Trump is not about policy it's about his impact on discourse and standards. On life generally in other words. He's a wrecking ball.
He holds the most exalted elected office in the world. There is no higher profile role model in democratic politics than the US president. And here we have in this guy a validation and empowerment of all the worst aspects of human nature.
You don't (can't) see the baleful effect of this in official data sets on the economy or whatever, it's insidious, but imo it's huge and will linger well beyond him. That's why I'd like to see him tried and convicted for his crimes. That would help undo the damage, I think.
After yet more threats from Trump just now, the EU should quadruple the fine on Google and open the pending cases more rapidly. F**k him.
Are you saying we should make him go through some Stormy times?
Remember what I've said multiple times this week, without that early release program there isn't the capacity to hold the prisoners scheduled to be jailed...
Build some jails.
Change the law to build them without planning bollocks.
The number of people who think it possible to design and build a fucking prison (not a house, a prison, a building that by definition has to be secured) in a matter of weeks and just stick it somewhere where no-one is going to object is staggering.
I'm a solicitor and I'm sure someone better placed than me can correct me if I'm wrong -
Feasibility and Architecture (3–6 months): Creating blueprints, engineering plans, and budgeting.
Site Preparation (1–2 months): Clearing land, grading, and excavation.
Deep Foundations (2–6 months): Driving steel piles and pouring massive concrete foundation slabs which need to be deeper than normal to prevent tunnelling.
Superstructure (6–12+ months): Constructing the steel, concrete (or timber if you're feeling kinky) skeleton frame floor by floor.
Building Enclosure / Envelope (3–6 months): Installing exterior walls and roofing to make the shell weatherproof
Staff training (2-4 months): training on the new building will be required even for experienced prison officers.
If there's a stage here you can skip please let me know. As I say I'm not in construction. But the dribblings of people on here who say you can turn out a new shitting PRISON by the Autumn does make me wonder about the basic comprehension skills involved.
Does that include the Prime Minister?
I mean, we all know that he thinks his predecessor was an utter wally, but his apparent disbelief that Starmer and Timpson might have considered the downside of early release is, at best, cynical game-playing.
Remember what I've said multiple times this week, without that early release program there isn't the capacity to hold the prisoners scheduled to be jailed...
Build some jails.
Change the law to build them without planning bollocks.
The number of people who think it possible to design and build a fucking prison (not a house, a prison, a building that by definition has to be secured) in a matter of weeks and just stick it somewhere where no-one is going to object is staggering.
I'm a solicitor and I'm sure someone better placed than me can correct me if I'm wrong -
Feasibility and Architecture (3–6 months): Creating blueprints, engineering plans, and budgeting.
Site Preparation (1–2 months): Clearing land, grading, and excavation.
Deep Foundations (2–6 months): Driving steel piles and pouring massive concrete foundation slabs which need to be deeper than normal to prevent tunnelling.
Superstructure (6–12+ months): Constructing the steel, concrete (or timber if you're feeling kinky) skeleton frame floor by floor.
Building Enclosure / Envelope (3–6 months): Installing exterior walls and roofing to make the shell weatherproof
Staff training (2-4 months): training on the new building will be required even for experienced prison officers.
If there's a stage here you can skip please let me know. As I say I'm not in construction. But the dribblings of people on here who say you can turn out a new shitting PRISON by the Autumn does make me wonder about the basic comprehension skills involved.
Building more open prisons would surely be simpler as the security needs are somewhat less.
Plus none of this work is starting from scratch. The knowledge of what is needed can help speed the timelines.
It is not a quick process. But it need not be drawn out.
Comments
Personally (as someone here suggested) I would move the whole Westminster shebang to Solihull and be done with it.
Though imo the whole EV business wants looking at. There is no longer any reason for the Chancellor to write subsidy cheques to Elon Musk and President Xi now that electric cars are established and attractive in their own right.
Whether it is labour, or the conservatives, or some coalition in government the broadcast media and social media will laser focus on their negatives on a 24/7 timescale unheard of years ago
I would not want to become an MP in this climate and expose my family to some of the rancid and unacceptable abuse out there
But, yes, generative AI is transformative and it will be while before we understand all the changes it will lead to. When I talk to AI sceptics, I am full of praise for what AI can do… but when I talk to AI enthusiasts, I’m full of doubt about their claims.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m002stzw/twenty-twenty-six
Not as good as W1A or Twenty Twelve but it occurs to me it might seem better now we are more familiar with the issues thrown up by the actual World Cup. The running gag of bleeping FIFA was annoying iirc.
The idea our PM can work part time in Manchester is a non starter, and I doubt any previous PMs would have taken it on board
The US President works out of Mar-a-Lago and most recent Presidents have split their time across other venues too and its not problematic (other things he does is far more problematic than where he does them).
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/24/most-people-arrested-during-henry-nowak-protests-had-been-reported-for-domestic-abuse
No, this is not a repost of an old story. It’s a new story, just with what is becoming a familiar pattern!
Trump Social, in which Trump has a 41 per cent stake, […] is offering advance access to his posts for subscriptions of $100,000 a month. That advantage would be in milliseconds, which would only be of interest to groups with the computing and AI scale to take advantage of it. Most smaller traders would be unable to afford the product. Either way, Trump is openly monetising privileged access to his thoughts. Truth API […] is making no pretence to be anything other than what it seems. In that respect, Truth API is a watershed in US public corruption. Its brazenness also gives rise to the suspicion that the scale of Trump’s moneymaking is vastly greater. How many times since February 28 have large market positions been taken minutes before a Trump announcement about Operation Epic Fury?
*Except Suffolk, Norfolk and anywhere in or to the West of Cambridgeshire.
https://t.me/istrebin/46956
Trump simps for dictators: "Xi told me he would not give or sell Weapons to Iran. Considering our relationship, I take him at his word... Likewise, Putin told me that he would not sell Weapons to Iran... Therefore, 2 Countries people speak of in terms of Iran are, in my opinion, not participating"
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mrfnnd57322y
The PM has meetings, reads documents and sends messages. That's the job. Oh, and voting in the HoC. So about 90% can be done on a laptop from anywhere. And with his majority, it's not as if he has to make every vote.
I'm sure that the kind of people who "want to be in the room" will whine about travelling to be where the PM is.
If Mayors are granted real powers, then how about an assembly of Mayors, once a week (or month)? When they get significant financial powers a chuck of the system (civil servants etc) will have to go with them, as it were.
A Witan of Mayors?
What about in York?
PM attends as the chair
I'm trying to think of a way of getting Fingringhoe into the conversation, but struggling.
Rather than pointing to X as the winner of the next election on account of their universal excellence, I suggest that the process of elimination is more likely to get a result. Start from two bases: (1) they are all terrible and attackable; (2) it doesn't matter that they are all terrible, someone still has to form/lead the next government after the next election.
My suggestion is that as no party (only two options, probably reduced to one by next year) comes close to being a replacement to the present one various facts and laws point to Labour carrying on.
A possible parallel, though incomplete, is that utterly forgettable election of 2005 when Labour carried on despite everyone being bored with them. Though Labour were only 2.8 points ahead of the Tories, most people didn't want Michael Howard as PM. Footnote: the three main parties get 90% of the votes!
😄
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoral_Council_for_England
(See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British–Irish_Council )
The Government should get GCHQ to setup and run a fork of Signal, hosted in the UK. Usage would be mandatory for both politicians and civil servants. Message retention and security level on groups built in.
If £100k is all you have in the world you'll probably pass on that (esp if you're not young). Because if you lose you'll be left penniless. But if you're worth £1m you'll probably do it. 50% chance of doubling that to £2m. Otherwise you've dropped to £900k, no big deal.
It's an illustration of how making money is easy when you already have it and very difficult when you don't. Also of how easy it is for the poor to be exploited by the rich. Money allows you to accumulate and exploit, basically.
No doubt the Chinese are watching with interest.
Gregory Brew
@gbrew24
Trump is "fed up," and in "revenge mode." [WSJ]
While he was excited to sign the MOU and end the conflict, he now has little confidence in diplomacy.
"He has told people that he thinks he can break the Iranians’ will through an aggressive bombing campaign."
https://x.com/gbrew24/status/2080625026743595509
As I get older the more I think that the Blair constitutional changes were misguided and is leaving us with headaches, the castration/sidelining of Parliament being one of them.
https://tvpworld.com/94494741/germany-insa-poll-shows-afd-leading-berlin-election-race-for-first-time
https://inews.co.uk/sport/cricket/england-joe-root-captain-reappointed-4667673
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
Enten: "Two in three Americans blame Republicans for higher gas prices ... it is quite unlikely they'll be able to escape the blame at the ballot box"
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2080649763096006690
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
Enten: "Two in three Americans blame Republicans for higher gas prices ... it is quite unlikely they'll be able to escape the blame at the ballot box"
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2080649763096006690
He was the person who eschewed diplomacy in the first place by breaking off talks for a nuclear deal - a deal to replace the one he tore up simply because Obama did it - in favour of a bombing campaign.
It's crazytown, Trump2, it really is. I don't envy future historians trying to explain it for posterity.
"Be alert; Britain needs more lerts.
No. Don't be alert. Be aloof. Britain has enough lerts already."
There are several billion budgeted for EV purchase grants over a period, and there's an argument for reducing the £37k upper limit; EV prices fell by 4% since 2025.
I'd go for that if we also dump the COVID subsidies (tax breaks if you prefer) for fossil fuels. Just that 5p duty reduction has cost £10 bn so far.
It could help pay for bus fair reductions, new tramways and light rail, and lots of modal filters.
And a 20mph default residential area limit
"Burnham has a law and order crisis"
https://news.sky.com/video/early-prison-releases-the-problem-andy-burnham-s-new-prisons-minister-is-facing-13566338
A Porsche came past doing about 50, in a 30 limit
Number plate was: 280DA
It couldn’t be… could it?
Given what you do, I think you could catch some of the more blatant dodgy driving - round the blind corner on the wrong side, zooming across Zebras instead of stopping or when someone is crossing, and so on. The best number I have for cases that require court attendance, for which willingness is required, is about 1 in 50 - which mitigates it.
The one I used for years is not much bigger than a fat packet of polos, and that was from about 15 years ago.
Just a thought.
I know that Bikeability, which does 300-400k children per annum, is massively better than the Cycling Proficiency it replaced in 2007. I did it myself in Nottingham when I got back on a bike seriously in my late 30s.
But for the Tufty Club ... no idea.
Documentaries • 1hour 30minutes
9 pm, Channel 5.
https://www.earthcam.com/world/england/london/abbeyroad/?cam=abbeyroad_uk
Change the law to build them without planning bollocks.
Mainly about what needs to change, and how to do it. It is considering what a "reconstruction" period would look like, in order to recover, and make more resilient, US democracy.
He does say "if we get the opportunity."
https://www.harpercollins.com/pages/thedayafter
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Day-After-Wield-Power-Post-Trump/dp/0063495104
For me the biggest negative of Trump is not about policy it's about his impact on discourse and standards. On life generally in other words. He's a wrecking ball.
He holds the most exalted elected office in the world. There is no higher profile role model in democratic politics than the US president. And here we have in this guy a validation and empowerment of all the worst aspects of human nature.
You don't (can't) see the baleful effect of this in official data sets on the economy or whatever, it's insidious, but imo it's huge and will linger well beyond him. That's why I'd like to see him tried and convicted for his crimes. That would help undo the damage, I think.
But this is the British wanting clicks, and tangling with numbers bigger than two - which is confusing.
I'm a solicitor and I'm sure someone better placed than me can correct me if I'm wrong -
- Feasibility and Architecture (3–6 months): Creating blueprints, engineering plans, and budgeting.
- Site Preparation (1–2 months): Clearing land, grading, and excavation.
- Deep Foundations (2–6 months): Driving steel piles and pouring massive concrete foundation slabs which need to be deeper than normal to prevent tunnelling.
- Superstructure (6–12+ months): Constructing the steel, concrete (or timber if you're feeling kinky) skeleton frame floor by floor.
- Specialist infrastructure: Vacuum plumbing, security (cameras etc), riot ventilation systems (2-3 months)
- Building Enclosure / Envelope (3–6 months): Installing exterior walls and roofing to make the shell weatherproof
- Staff training (2-4 months): training on the new building will be required even for experienced prison officers.
If there's a stage here you can skip please let me know. As I say I'm not in construction. But the dribblings of people on here who say you can turn out a new shitting PRISON by the Autumn does make me wonder about the basic comprehension skills involved.(Incidentally, I wouldn't go so far as to say he was the greatest English batsmen of all time. He'd be in the top five though and the only one since the War who might be greater is Ken Barrington.)
On the general question, this book is invaluable: https://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126/ref=sr_1_1?crid=S4IXRBKUAL97&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.JIfyLoYL88XddGqPWVbL_w.ftKt7-aUWpYwEGf-0s0R8GvpH3n-MAy8acEPFig2KjE&dib_tag=se&keywords=war+before+civilization+the+myth+of+the+peaceful+savage&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1784914178&sprefix=War+Before+,aps,182&sr=8-1
This may surprise some of you, especially if you rely on the Guardian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi#Hopi-U.S._relations,_1849–1946
(The Hopi had enjoyed similar protection from the Mexican government, and before then, the Spanish government.)
There is no shortage of land suitable.
It has been pointed out that the prime minister is heading the wrong way on a one-way street:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2026/jul/24/andy-burnham-labour-no-10-north-uk-politics-latest-news-updates?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with:block-6a6339068f08990d2f69dbd5#block-6a6339068f08990d2f69dbd5
The government was elected over 2 years ago. Using your timescale it could be nearly open by now, or on the optimistic end actually open already.
Where are we up to instead?
I mean, we all know that he thinks his predecessor was an utter wally, but his apparent disbelief that Starmer and Timpson might have considered the downside of early release is, at best, cynical game-playing.
Plus none of this work is starting from scratch. The knowledge of what is needed can help speed the timelines.
It is not a quick process. But it need not be drawn out.