Westminster Politics 2024-2029

Maticmaker said:
Does Burnham have to give up his Mayoral role, before the bye election starts; or only if he wins the seat?
If it's the latter, then should he fail, he just toddles off back to being Mayor.
He is risking nothing if that's the case...not a good look for a 'swash- buckling' would be PM:lol:
Click to expand...
Needs to give up his seat I think.
 
dumbo said:
Based on mostly vibes I don't think he will win the seat. Too many in the Green party seem out for payback for him joining in on the attacks and if he doesn't position himself against Starmer's gang of rancid gammons then how will he energise the base of support. Starmer just got the kicking off his life, you can't win those people back with a more of the same message.
Click to expand...

The Green's won't be in the race in Makerfield, they won't even get into a discussion for them to assist with tactical voting. It'll be a straight two way fight between Labour and Reform.
 
VP89 said:
You all do understand he's said this to calm the markets right? Treasury yields were on the rise.

Funnily enough the financial markets would factor in every element of news, including a probability of him winning his seat. If they are reacting to his sentiment it's telling you something. He's also very smart to tail back the narrative until he's in the seat.
Click to expand...
 
VP89 said:
You genuinely think he's not aware of the chances of winning? I think the seat is more than likely his. I don't think itl be that close as people say it is, but this is also based on the markets pricing everything in and being sensitive to his words accordingly.
Click to expand...
He knows the factual vote share of 45% vs 31% from 2024 but with only about half the possible voters bothering. Reform seem to bring many non voters to the polls. He will also know that in his time in politics, the Labour share has steadily reduced. So, yes, he will have a broad idea of it being a decent chance (hence why he's doing it) but it's not a sure thing by any means. But you didn't answer my question...this is his last shot by all accounts, he has failed twice and he's contesting a seat people think he 'should' win now. He's not saying something to calm the markets, he's saying something pro Rayner to appeal to her backers given she is his closest rival looking at polls and odds.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
He knows the factual vote share of 45% vs 31% from 2024 but with only about half the possible voters bothering. Reform seem to bring many non voters to the polls. He will also know that in his time in politics, the Labour share has steadily reduced. So, yes, he will have a broad idea of it being a decent chance (hence why he's doing it) but it's not a sure thing by any means. But you didn't answer my question...this is his last shot by all accounts, he has failed twice and he's contesting a seat people think he 'should' win now. He's not saying something to calm the markets, he's saying something pro Rayner to appeal to her backers given she is his closest rival looking at polls and odds.
Click to expand...
Market turubluence as a result of his plans can be weaponised by rivals when making their case. So yes it's smart in my eyes to calm that.

Labour didn't lose their stock because they wanted to abide by fiscal rules. I don't see why this should harm him.
 
VP89 said:
Market turubluence as a result of his plans can be weaponised by rivals when making their case. So yes it's smart in my eyes to calm that.

Labour didn't lose their stock because they wanted to abide by fiscal rules. I don't see why this should harm him.
Click to expand...

Yeah markets need to know what will happen in the next 1-6 months. It's not usually an issue with general elections as you have the campaign but with leadership elections they're messy.

Leadership candidates should be laying out their principles more than policy. Actual policy comes from extensive civil service work and consultation not one man's opinion.
 
F-Red said:
The Green's won't be in the race in Makerfield, they won't even get into a discussion for them to assist with tactical voting. It'll be a straight two way fight between Labour and Reform.
Click to expand...
They've sent me a fair few campaigning emails already, so I don't think we can rule out their influence yet.
 
decorativeed said:
They've sent me a fair few campaigning emails already, so I don't think we can rule out their influence yet.
Click to expand...

You've signed up for a mailing list right? The previous election results had them as third and even the bookies have the Green's as fourth favourites, behind Restore Britain. I think we can confidently rule out their influence at this point.
 
VP89 said:
Ah so he can do both in parallel until he knows he's won the seat you mean?
Click to expand...
Yes, if he chooses he can stand for election as Mayor, if he wins he has to resign as Mayor, if he loses then he can carry on
 
F-Red said:
You've signed up for a mailing list right? The previous election results had them as third and even the bookies have the Green's as fourth favourites, behind Restore Britain. I think we can confidently rule out their influence at this point.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying theyre in with a chance of winning, but they are campaigning and will take some votes off Labour. Whether it'll be decisive is yet to be seen, but it certainly won't help Burnham.
 
Can see enough people here who don't appreciate fiscal considerations and loved Burnham when he said (incorrectly) that governments don't need to be in hock to the bond markets. That's like a house buyer saying "I don't care what my credit worthiness is". How is it even mildly up for debate
 
decorativeed said:
I'm not saying theyre in with a chance of winning, but they are campaigning and will take some votes off Labour. Whether it'll be decisive is yet to be seen, but it certainly won't help Burnham.
Click to expand...

I admire the optimism, but the numbers don't agree. They've got between 1100-1400 votes at the last few general elections, even with the popularity surge since Polanski took over they didn't even score that highly on the local election (c10% share). The only votes I can see being taken is Reform from Labour and potentially some for Restore Britain from Reform, however Restore Britain is a complete unknown.
 
F-Red said:
We need Chinese state sponsored approach to planning regulations.

2043 is a piss take.
Click to expand...

China would have built the whole thing in 5 years and it would be 10% of the cost.

Not just a political problem, this is a sign of how we are completely broken, and are incapable of delivering infrastructure.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
China would have built the whole thing in 5 years and it would be 10% of the cost.

Not just a political problem, this is a sign of how we are completely broken, and are incapable of delivering infrastructure.
Click to expand...

In this case it does link back to a political problem. Consecutive Conservative parties agreed a cost plus model for the contracts on HS2, there’s no surprise that a construction industry that would be seemingly not affected, but benefitted by inflation would drag their heels in delivering this. This is before you even get into the planning challenges that add further time/cost delays.
 
F-Red said:
I admire the optimism, but the numbers don't agree. They've got between 1100-1400 votes at the last few general elections, even with the popularity surge since Polanski took over they didn't even score that highly on the local election (c10% share). The only votes I can see being taken is Reform from Labour and potentially some for Restore Britain from Reform, however Restore Britain is a complete unknown.
Click to expand...
The last few general election results mean absolutely nothing in 2026. That much should be obvious.

In Denton, the Greens votes went from around 1000 in 2019, to 5000 in 2024 to 15,000 this year. You'd be daft to think it's going to stay at 2024 or earlier levels this time around.

And I also think that Restore will basically do what the Brexit Party did in 2019 and let the other conservative party (now Reform) take it.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
China would have built the whole thing in 5 years and it would be 10% of the cost.

Not just a political problem, this is a sign of how we are completely broken, and are incapable of delivering infrastructure.
Click to expand...
China is not a fair comparison and I would be very careful what I wish for. Because the reasons China can do stuff like this so quickly, lies within their complete disregard for human rights and natural preservation. It’s very easy to build stuff quickly, if you are allowed to be as reckless as you want.

Doesn’t mean these projects aren’t taking too long. But China ain’t the shining example you should aspire to. Unless you don’t mind the state nationalising your property, so they can build a highway, where your house stands.
 
decorativeed said:
The last few general election results mean absolutely nothing in 2026. That much should be obvious.

In Denton, the Greens votes went from around 1000 in 2019, to 5000 in 2024 to 15,000 this year. You'd be daft to think it's going to stay at 2024 or earlier levels this time around.

And I also think that Restore will basically do what the Brexit Party did in 2019 and let the other conservative party (now Reform) take it.
Click to expand...

Trying to compare Makerfield with Denton is slightly disingenuous and wrong. It’s a completely different make up of demographics for starters, Makerfield is 97% white, Gorton & Denton is 57% which shows trying to rely on Gorton & Denton as a yard stick for how the greens will perform in Makerfield is flawed.

The local elections are the most accurate reading for Makerfield which had the Green’s in third with a 11-12% share of vote.
 
VP89 said:
You all do understand he's said this to calm the markets right? Treasury yields were on the rise.

Funnily enough the financial markets would factor in every element of news, including a probability of him winning his seat. If they are reacting to his sentiment it's telling you something. He's also very smart to tail back the narrative until he's in the seat.
Click to expand...
That is my view as well.
We should all realise that the global financial institutions exercise a huge amount of control our UK government policies.
That is one of the main reasons why people say that there is hardly any difference between the political parties. That is the unfortunate reality.

Andy Burnham is well aware of that as is Starmer of course. We are all still affected by the idiot Liz Truss disaster.
 
I feel like the Liz Truss example is misused sometimes.
Its like some idiot chopping off their feet with a knife and deciding that no one should use knives anymore. Or that you should triple check with the markets to decide whether you can butter your toast today.
 
caid said:
I feel like the Liz Truss example is misused sometimes.
Its like some idiot chopping off their feet with a knife and deciding that no one should use knives anymore. Or that you should triple check with the markets to decide whether you can butter your toast today.
Click to expand...
Hope you don't think I was misusing it. Because there are many many people who's mortgage for example is still higher than it was before she became PM. I have friends and family members who are paying more. It is still real.
 
F-Red said:
In this case it does link back to a political problem. Consecutive Conservative parties agreed a cost plus model for the contracts on HS2, there’s no surprise that a construction industry that would be seemingly not affected, but benefitted by inflation would drag their heels in delivering this. This is before you even get into the planning challenges that add further time/cost delays.
Click to expand...

I said it’s not just a political problem - I.e the planning issues etc.

The civil service would have specced up the contract, and set that out. So of course the government takes considerable blame - but so does the function that sets the detail. No matter the government, we have a system of delivery that does not work.
 
[

HTG said:
China is not a fair comparison and I would be very careful what I wish for. Because the reasons China can do stuff like this so quickly, lies within their complete disregard for human rights and natural preservation. It’s very easy to build stuff quickly, if you are allowed to be as reckless as you want.

Doesn’t mean these projects aren’t taking too long. But China ain’t the shining example you should aspire to. Unless you don’t mind the state nationalising your property, so they can build a highway, where your house stands.
Click to expand...

I don’t hold it up an a shining example. But an example nonetheless that things can be done far quicker and cheaper. Can you imagine the Germans overseeing this farce?
 
caid said:
I feel like the Liz Truss example is misused sometimes.
Its like some idiot chopping off their feet with a knife and deciding that no one should use knives anymore. Or that you should triple check with the markets to decide whether you can butter your toast today.
Click to expand...
It comes down to the fact that, both at national level and personal level, if you want to borrow more, you have to make a plausible explanation of what you will do with that money. With Liz Truss, it was to fund tax cuts to enable the already very wealthy to splurge on an extra holiday in St Barts. If a Labour (or other) PM can explain that the borrowing should generate a long-term return (in other words not for a welfare splurge or without relying on trickle down magic), then there should be no obstacle to more debt, even if the yield rises a bit in the short term.
 
F-Red said:
Trying to compare Makerfield with Denton is slightly disingenuous and wrong. It’s a completely different make up of demographics for starters, Makerfield is 97% white, Gorton & Denton is 57% which shows trying to rely on Gorton & Denton as a yard stick for how the greens will perform in Makerfield is flawed.

The local elections are the most accurate reading for Makerfield which had the Green’s in third with a 11-12% share of vote.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. I've spent time in both Denton and the Wigan/Leigh area and there's not much between them.

We'll see how it works out.
 
Buster15 said:
Hope you don't think I was misusing it. Because there are many many people who's mortgage for example is still higher than it was before she became PM. I have friends and family members who are paying more. It is still real.
Click to expand...
Wasn't really directed at you, just a jumping board really. I think im just becoming very suspicious of the reference
Maybe my silly metaphor would work better if i said chopped off half the countries feet.
 
MoskvaRed said:
It comes down to the fact that, both at national level and personal level, if you want to borrow more, you have to make a plausible explanation of what you will do with that money. With Liz Truss, it was to fund tax cuts to enable the already very wealthy to splurge on an extra holiday in St Barts. If a Labour (or other) PM can explain that the borrowing should generate a long-term return (in other words not for a welfare splurge or without relying on trickle down magic), then there should be no obstacle to more debt, even if the yield rises a bit in the short term.
Click to expand...
Yeah pretty much. I feel like some people took it to mean you just shouldn't borrow ever.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
I said it’s not just a political problem - I.e the planning issues etc.

The civil service would have specced up the contract, and set that out. So of course the government takes considerable blame - but so does the function that sets the detail. No matter the government, we have a system of delivery that does not work.
Click to expand...
How many public sector projects have you been involved in? Because if you think that the government hadn't already decided which companies would be carrying out the main works then you must be in the one part of the country that doesn't operate like the rest of it does.

Frameworks or not, if the main sponsor wants that money going somewhere you can guarantee it's already set out that way before any civil servant gets a chance to spec. Even the "client side" architects and engineers aren't really working for you.
 
Frosty said:
Does Michael Deacon class pensioners as unemployed?

All MPs lose their jobs when an election is called. Do they get a vote or do they count as unemployed too?
Click to expand...
Let's not forget that all of the Reform voters are upset that immigrants have taken all of the jobs. That's why they have so much time during the working week to climb up lampposts and hang flags.
 
Frosty said:
Does Michael Deacon class pensioners as unemployed?
Click to expand...
They are too old for Michael -
William Beveridge is best-known as the brains behind the welfare state. But in 1906, more than 35 years before he published “The Beveridge Report”, he made a proposal that was arguably even more radical. The “unemployable”, he argued, should be supported by the state – but, in return, they should relinquish “all citizen rights”, including “the franchise” and “fatherhood”. In other words: they should be banned from voting. And even from having children.

Most of Beveridge’s admirers today, I suspect, would recoil in horror at such a suggestion. In fact, I doubt many of them are aware he made it, otherwise this hero of the modern Left would long ago have been cancelled as a fascist. Even those of us who are not on the Left, though, would probably baulk at the idea of forcibly sterilising benefits claimants. Banning them from voting, however, would at the very least settle a long-running debate.
Click to expand...
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.