National Politics 🔴 The Labour Party

[chuckbert]

He needs to inflict maximum damage before "ordinary northern man" (TM) Burnham jogs into Downing Street in his brand new Everton jacket.

He's just an ordinary northern man. Promise!

It’s certainly an interesting trope that you’re repeating. Is this a thing?

 

[Basham Wonderland]

It’s certainly an interesting trope that you’re repeating. Is this a thing?

Kind of - as the Spectator pointed out in May, "There's an old joke about Andy Burnham that has been recycled since he started making eyes at No. 10. A Blairite, a Brownite, a Milibandite, a Starmerite, an insider and an outsider walk into a bar. The barman asks: ‘What are you having, Andy?"

 

[chuckbert]

Kind of - as the Spectator pointed out in May, "There's an old joke about Andy Burnham that has been recycled since he started making eyes at No. 10. A Blairite, a Brownite, a Milibandite, a Starmerite, an insider and an outsider walk into a bar. The barman asks: ‘What are you having, Andy?"

That seems different to the ordinary working man thing though. That's more a Nige-style "accusation".

 

[Boris]

People quoting from the Telegraph and the Spectator... No wonder the country is fkd

 

[Basham Wonderland]

That seems different to the ordinary working man thing though. That's more a Nige-style "accusation".

Well then I must add a footnote:

* this joke is purely my own, based on my own opinion of Burnham's approach to his PR campaign, and is not based on any previous written source.

At all times, any reference to "trademark" or "(TM)" is part of the joke, and does not amount to an accusation about the legal status of his image or branding.

 

[QR]

Kind of - as the Spectator pointed out in May, "There's an old joke about Andy Burnham that has been recycled since he started making eyes at No. 10. A Blairite, a Brownite, a Milibandite, a Starmerite, an insider and an outsider walk into a bar. The barman asks: ‘What are you having, Andy?"

The Spectator you say.

 

[Sheik Djibouti]

That seems different to the ordinary working man thing though. That's more a Nige-style "accusation".

Reform had a golden opportunity to put up an "ordinary Northern man" for this by-election. That way they could really stick it to the political elite chameleon (aka "King of the North West") that is Andy Burnham.

And they best they could find was Rob Kenyon

It's almost like they didn't want to win . . .or that they're so far removed from reality (and their vetting process is so flawed), that they genuinely thought it was a good shout.

Must be getting a bit crowded with both Keir and Andy (and probably most of the other 400+ Labour MP's) currently sharing a rent free living space.

 

[Basham Wonderland]

The Spectator you say.

You do know that questioning a source only really works when someone is relying on a fact-based statement, and not a statement of opinion??

In this context I'm struggling to see why it's not a credible source for the question Chuckbert was asking.

 

[Essexyellows]

So the alternatives are only going to spend money in a single area of their responsibility?

Or they could, possibly, spend it more wisely?

Whilst they have done some good things, taking more rail into public ownership etc they haven`t used their large majority to be far more............"dynamic".

Its like the country needs a shot of adrenaline to wake it up and I can`t see the current front bench doing it.

 

[Marked Ox]

Or they could, possibly, spend it more wisely?

Whilst they have done some good things, taking more rail into public ownership etc they haven`t used their large majority to be far more............"dynamic".

Its like the country needs a shot of adrenaline to wake it up and I can`t see the current front bench doing it.

That doesn't really explain your previous comment. The alternatives will have to spend elsewhere as well, not just defence.

I'm sure plenty think spending on encouraging cycling by cycling paths is a good idea and necessary for numerous reasons such as health, reducing car travel/congestion etc. I appreciate you don't.

 

[Essexyellows]

That doesn't really explain your previous comment. The alternatives will have to spend elsewhere as well, not just defence.

I'm sure plenty think spending on encouraging cycling by cycling paths is a good idea and necessary for numerous reasons such as health, reducing car travel/congestion etc. I appreciate you don't.

To be fair Defence should be the "spend what we need" on it, it is the first job of any Government to protect its citizens from internal & external threats.

If you can`t defend yourself then you aren`t going to need cycle paths.

Whilst warfare has changed whole scale, as two recent conflicts have shown, we still need to be on point militarily.

Our current % of GDP spend puts us 12th of the NATO countries between Netherlands and Romania.

Given the choice between dishing out more Universal Credit and boosting the military I know which way i would go......... no votes in it though.

 

[Scotchegg]

Iran proved that you don't need to spend billions to be effective. A $15k drone was as effective as a $5m missile.

Personally, I'd rather see efficiency in what we spend rather than an arbitrary amount to appease Trump. Building stronger relations with Europe and Commonwealth countries whilst also building greater diplomatic relations with China should be the way forward.

And we might then be able to afford to look after our most vulnerable rather than going after children, the elderly and the disabled to pay for weapons to kill others.

 

[m]

To be fair Defence should be the "spend what we need" on it, it is the first job of any Government to protect its citizens from internal & external threats.

If you can`t defend yourself then you aren`t going to need cycle paths.

Whilst warfare has changed whole scale, as two recent conflicts have shown, we still need to be on point militarily.

Our current % of GDP spend puts us 12th of the NATO countries between Netherlands and Romania.

Given the choice between dishing out more Universal Credit and boosting the military I know which way i would go......... no votes in it though.

Thing is though, I think some aspects of military procurement make some aspects of NHS procurement look like good value!

The country needs to be defended as a priority, and this (obviously) needs to be funded adequately. That doesn't mean the whole answer is to throw more money at things.

 

[TL@69]

Would you except a lower standard of living if only temporarily to support the increase in defence spending & please don’t say cut benefits.

 

[Essexyellows]

Would you except a lower standard of living if only temporarily to support the increase in defence spending & please don’t say cut benefits.

Depends how a "lower standard of living" is defined. A few quid a week, no problem. A few hundred a month big problem.

I would like to see a root & branch audit from the top of public bodies downwards.

Start with the Chief Exec/Directors, see what "value" they add, or in some cases what they actually do. Then work downwards.

Every single Management of Change process I`ve been involved in has gone from the bottom UP and is always dressed up as cost saving, yet there are never empty chairs in the middle tier of managers.

Then I would take a hard look at contracts & procurement because that is so fragmented and complex its happily ignored as too difficult both on paper and "politically".

There are savings to be made across the board if folk looked for the hundreds of dripping taps not the burst water main.

 

[Basham Wonderland]

I think people are perfectly happy to make sacrifices if their money will be spent wisely and carefully.

That's why people don't want to pay tax anymore - it just gets spaffed up the wall and isn't used to actually help anyone.

 

[chuckbert]

I think people are perfectly happy to make sacrifices if their money will be spent wisely and carefully.

That's why people don't want to pay tax anymore - it just gets spaffed up the wall and isn't used to actually help anyone.

Its interesting that they don't think that not enough tax is taken to actually pay for the things that need doing, because they have been fed this line that we can do more for less for nearly 5 decades.

 

[Matty Greens Left Boot]

People quoting from the Telegraph and the Spectator... No wonder the country is fkd

Of course only the mirror and guardian is acceptable for you.

 

[Basham Wonderland]

Its interesting that they don't think that not enough tax is taken to actually pay for the things that need doing, because they have been fed this line that we can do more for less for nearly 5 decades.

And at the same time, we've had to sit through HS2, ever spiralling NHS costs with a vastly reduced service, crumbling roads, £21bn in wasted COVID 19 spending and fraud etc.

The system just feels way too leaky for many people. I think people could easily be convinced that more tax is worthwhile, but public confidence in the system has been at an all time low for many years now.

 

[chuckbert]

And at the same time, we've had to sit through HS2, ever spiralling NHS costs with a vastly reduced service, crumbling roads, £21bn in wasted COVID 19 spending and fraud etc.

The system just feels way too leaky for many people. I think people could easily be convinced that more tax is worthwhile, but public confidence in the system has been at an all time low for many years now.

The idea that you can fix struggling public services without paying more is a mirage. That DOGE b*****s in the US showed quite clinically how poor a concept it is.

 

[Basham Wonderland]

The idea that you can fix struggling public services without paying more is a mirage. That DOGE b*****s in the US showed quite clinically how poor a concept it is.

Yeah but the point I'm making is that there needs to be public backing for tax increases, and the public won't back tax increases if the perception is that every time tax is increased, there's no tangible improvement to public services.

 

[Marked Ox]

Yeah but the point I'm making is that there needs to be public backing for tax increases, and the public won't back tax increases if the perception is that every time tax is increased, there's no tangible improvement to public services.

What is the timeframe for those improvements?

 

[chuckbert]

Yeah but the point I'm making is that there needs to be public backing for tax increases, and the public won't back tax increases if the perception is that every time tax is increased, there's no tangible improvement to public services.

I know your point. I just think the public perception you are characterising is unrealistic.

 

[Boris]

Of course only the mirror and guardian is acceptable for you.

Is it? Where did I say that, or are you making assumptions based on evidence that doesn't exist?

 

[QR]

Is it? Where did I say that, or are you making assumptions based on evidence that doesn't exist?

Seeing as he usually posts tweets from X (is that a thing?) that others have made up I see this as progress.

 

[Essexyellows]

What is the timeframe for those improvements?

That is Part 2 of the problem............. government (any tie colour) look solely at electoral cycles.

The decisions/budgets/structure on big things (NHS, Defence etc) should be made by a cross party group and set for 10, 15, 20 years*

*allowances/changes for technology factored in.

 

[SteMerritt]

Is it today the big by-election is being held? I can hardly contain my excitement for the result.

 

[Essexyellows]

Is it today the big by-election is being held? I can hardly contain my excitement for the result.

There are three in fact...............stay calm.

 

[SteMerritt]

There are three in fact...............stay calm.

Three? My god, Christmas has come early.

 

[Scotchegg]

Is it today the big by-election is being held? I can hardly contain my excitement for the result.

I'm a bit sad, but I think this is a really important day.

If Reform beat Burnham then they'd be on course for a landslide and Labour will be stuck with Starmer or Streeting, who I like but I doubt would inspire the changes they need.

And Restore will bs seen as completely irrelevant.

However, I doubt that will happen.

Burnham looks nailed on to win, and has maintained a fairly respectful campaign. He looks likely to make a leadership challenge and will appeal to grassroot Labour supporters, particularly those in the North. Streeting could be given a more senior role and could appeal to the London Labour. And a rejuvenated Labour party could be in a much stronger position in 2 years if people can start to see actual change.

Reform will find that 30%+ support counts for little if the "anyone but Reform" vote unites behind a single candidate. This could see gains for Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru, at the expense of some Labour and Lib Dems seats, but importantly, it will stop Reform making the kind of gains that are predicted.

And a (relatively) strong showing from Restore (7/8%) will show that they can disrupt Reform and look to capture those on the furthest right. The Tories are not relevant right now, but Badenoch is gradually building a bit of momentum internally even if this isn't reflected in elections. If they can recapture the more centre rights, then Reform are stuck in a position where they're too extreme for some and not extreme enough for others.

We could then see a power struggle from those who were promised the Reform dream only to realise that things aren't quite as rosy as they first thought. Farage has shown his colours and I wouldn't be surprised if he walks before the next election. And if he does, they're left with a whole bunch of odious individuals fighting between themselves.

So, not quite Christmas, but an interesting turning point within UK politics which could mould our future long after these counts.