Westminster Politics 2024-2029

I said I didn’t want to go through this again. I won’t bring up net zero in here again. You are right.
I'm not actually trying to win here or get you to concede. I genuinely want to at least try to use the available facts to see if they change your opinion.

It's easy to dismiss things, but if we do so on an arbitrary basis, such as the form of media or it's length, we can dismiss anything we like when it challenges our opinions. Learning is actually a good thing.
 
I'm not actually trying to win here or get you to concede. I genuinely want to at least try to use the available facts to see if they change your opinion.

It's easy to dismiss things, but if we do so on an arbitrary basis, such as the form of media or it's length, we can dismiss anything we like when it challenges our opinions. Learning is actually a good thing.
It’s not a case of wanting to dismiss it. I appreciate you input and perspective. It’s just something I don’t want to get into, and am open minded (indeed I now run my house on solar and batteries) but this thread can be tiresome going round the same things again and again, and that was my mistake for raising it.
 
Burnham will need to shop the inevitability of accessing the EU single market again in order to implement his own nationalisation policies and to avoid the barrage of cuts.
 
Thatcher called for a global treaty to tackle climate change in her address to the UN in 1989.

We still have her acolytes damning the move to renewable energy this quickly.
 

It’s amusing. But to be honest I’m sick of politicians spending more time on jokes than doing anything actually useful.

PMQs is the perfect example.

I’d cancel recess this year, and get every MP in over the summer to clear some actual legislation.
 
Just seen that Burnham wants to compensate the WASPI women. Not really sure how he is going to fund that or whether that is the actual best use of the limited funds we have where we have underinvested public services.
 
Just seen that Burnham wants to compensate the WASPI women. Not really sure how he is going to fund that or whether that is the actual best use of the limited funds we have where we have underinvested public services.
Starmer did the same then dropped it

G_1TJOjbUAEgGSk


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gj5r3d71ko
 
Burham also wants more detention centers



Andy Burnham has said Britain needs to make more use of immigration detention centres, and that he agrees with Reform leader Nigel Farage that the country needs to “get back to a sense of order”.

Speaking to BBC Radio Manchester, the Labour leadership hopeful said: “We need to make greater use of detention so that people who have got no basis for a claim are not actually admitted into the country. So that’s dealt with quickly and there’s a speedier return.”

He also criticised the Home Office for housing asylum seekers in more deprived areas of the country. “Local authorities are often just not consulted at all. The Home Office just does what it wants…. What I am calling for is the reform of these Home Office contracts. I do agree with what Farage is saying. What we’ve got to do is get back to a sense of order.”

Burnham is polling just ahead of the Reform UK candidate Robert Kenyon for the 18 June Makerfield byelection. The far-right party has dubbed him “open-borders Andy”. He needs to become an MP in order to run to replace Keir Starmer.

The Manchester mayor has rowed back on some of his more pro-immigration stances in the run-up to the byelection. He previously called for an end to the immigration benefits restriction known as “no recourse to public funds” (NRPF), which is a major cause of homelessness for asylum seekers since it prevents them from claiming benefits or accessing public housing.

But he is no longer calling for ministers to scrap the rule, The Guardian reported last month.

And earlier in May, he said he would not seek to water down home secretary Shabana Mahmood’s anti-immigration crackdown, which includes an end to permanent refugee status and a plan to increase the time required for indefinite leave to remain from five to ten years.

For those deemed to have entered the country “illegally”, that period could be as long as 30 years.

“What people don’t want to see is the chaos of the small boat crossings. I think the government is getting some order back into the system but there is definitely more to be done,” he said.
 
Just seen that Burnham wants to compensate the WASPI women. Not really sure how he is going to fund that or whether that is the actual best use of the limited funds we have where we have underinvested public services.

By the time he has to deliver it a lot of them will have died, that's why they love this sort of promise to fix a receding problem. He might still have underestimated the cost like Starmer did mind, would be surprised if he delivered on it.
 
Yup but I believe he has criticised politicians who made the promise and then reneged on it so not sure if will do the same but strange to raise it now.
It's a typical labour centrist strategy. Starmer has said the same thing before.



Although agree with you that it's strange for him to raise it now. But it's all short term thinking with this political class.
 
From a check of Electoral Calculus 24% of the Makerfield constituency is over 65, so that may be why?
Yes, this 'chimes' with other similar issues. E.G. that something like 0.5m people in the late 80's to mid 90's were enticed to make additional contributions to pension schemes that allowed them to take up offers of early retirement.
At some point in the run up to the millennium. The rules were change by government (not specified at the time) over a period of time, which meant these additional payments could not be taken until actual state registered retirement age was reached.
The value of these additional payments were then effectively frozen, and lost value.

Many of those affected ( still alive) will be now in their late 70's or early 80's...I am one and I will be watching with interest if any government makes good on the WASPI promises...!
 
Yes, this 'chimes' with other similar issues. E.G. that something like 0.5m people in the late 80's to mid 90's were enticed to make additional contributions to pension schemes that allowed them to take up offers of early retirement.
At some point in the run up to the millennium. The rules were change by government (not specified at the time) over a period of time, which meant these additional payments could not be taken until actual state registered retirement age was reached.
The value of these additional payments were then effectively frozen, and lost value.

Many of those affected ( still alive) will be now in their late 70's or early 80's...I am one and I will be watching with interest if any government makes good on the WASPI promises...!
Andy Burnham’s campaign has released a statement saying that when he spoke about “some recompense” for the Waspi women (see 11.50am), he was not talking about financial compensation. As the Times reports, a Burnham spokesperson issued a statement this morning saying:

Andy has always recognised the unfair way in which state pension equalisation was introduced.

As mayor of Greater Manchester, he supported Waspi women in the city-region with early access to concessionary travel, providing some recompense to them within affordability limits.

He accepts the final decision has been made in relation to financial compensation but has indicated an openness to considering similar schemes on the Greater Manchester model.
 
Burham also wants more detention centers


Clearly having to do this owing to recent events. A week or so ago I thought he was safe to get the seat, however recent events leads me to believe there will be a surge right on election day. This said, it looks like Restore may get more votes than people had initially anticipated and split the Right's vote.
 
Starmer should have done this when 80+ MP's called for him to resign, but surely now he has to set out a timetable for his resignation.
 
Probably the most credible minister in the cabinet has now left the building.
How depressing. Improving the UK's defence had cross-party support, is also absolutely necessary due to the geopolitical situation we are in, and the fact that austerity impacted the armed forces considerably. What is more, how many times did Starmer and Labour commit to this? As recently as February I think?
 
This is from Deborah Haynes, defence and security editor at Sky News, on John Healey’s resignation.

BREAKING: The Treasury only offered the Ministry of Defence an extra £10bn in real cash for its investment plan over four years - the actual settlement was an additional £13.5bn but £3.5bn of that was regarded by military chiefs as treasury trickery. John Healey told the Prime Minister the promised funding was not enough to keep the UK safe.
 
Andy Burnham’s campaign has released a statement saying that when he spoke about “some recompense” for the Waspi women (see 11.50am), he was not talking about financial compensation. As the Times reports, a Burnham spokesperson issued a statement this morning saying:
I have some sympathy for a small no of women affected. But blanket compensation is certainly not the right answer.

The reality is that people should take responsibility for their own planning.
 
This is from Deborah Haynes, defence and security editor at Sky News, on John Healey’s resignation.
Finding is also backloaded.

This should be explosive.

“Starmer is not funding the military to keep us safe”

It’s not an excessive ask. Of course Starmer doesn’t want to make the tough decisions and prefers inaction.
 
Badenoch saying she is happy for Fascist Farage to be PM. Despicable individual.


Let me know when we have a left wing government.

Also politically what the feck kind of move is that? :lol: The tories being the little brother in a coalition that will be disastrous would be a fecking abysmal outcome for them. Truly truly terrible.
 
Let me know when we have a left wing government.

Also politically what the feck kind of move is that? :lol: The tories being the little brother in a coalition that will be disastrous would be a fecking abysmal outcome for them. Truly truly terrible.
Would be beneficial to actually read the interview, and this take seems highly manipulated.

increasing the welfare bill, attacking businesses, VAT on private schools - feels very left wing to me.
 
Would be beneficial to actually read the interview, and this take seems highly manipulated.

increasing the welfare bill, attacking businesses, VAT on private schools - feels very left wing to me.
If you admit that you would go into partnership with an individual who is stirring racial hatred on our streets, has racist and xenophobic elements across his part and hasn't got a plan for the country to improve anything aside from race baiting, you lose all credibility.
 
Would be beneficial to actually read the interview, and this take seems highly manipulated.

increasing the welfare bill, attacking businesses, VAT on private schools - feels very left wing to me.
What context is it missing? As a Tory voter would you be happy for them to prop up a Reform government?

Corbyn would have been a left wing government. No left wing government would have made the “island of strangers” speech. I am not going to address your specifics as I sense we will just argue and never agree. :lol:
 
Starmer should have done this when 80+ MP's called for him to resign, but surely now he has to set out a timetable for his resignation.
There's just no accountability left in politics, unless your party forces you out there's no one left with enough morals or decency to walk away. Starmer should have gone the minute it became clear he had approved Mandelsohn, the fact we're watching this months later dragging on is ridiculous.
 
What context is it missing? As a Tory voter would you be happy for them to prop up a Reform government?

Corbyn would have been a left wing government. No left wing government would have made the “island of strangers” speech. I am not going to address your specifics as I sense we will just argue and never agree. :lol:
I would want to read the actual interview, rather than two quotes stitched together as they have been. You can see that?

I don’t trust someone on twitter. They could have it bang on, but I would want to see the original before firing out emojis and claiming it’s an extraordinary interview. Don’t you think that’s fair?

There are clearly degrees of left and right. We have a left government, that is obviously more moderate than that which comrade corbyn would have overseen. On the right obviously Tories and Reform are different.
 
I would want to read the actual interview, rather than two quotes stitched together as they have been. You can see that?

I don’t trust someone on twitter. They could have it bang on, but I would want to see the original before firing out emojis and claiming it’s an extraordinary interview. Don’t you think that’s fair?

There are clearly degrees of left and right. We have a left government, that is obviously more moderate than that which comrade corbyn would have overseen. On the right obviously Tories and Reform are different.
As a Tory voter would you be happy for them to prop up a Reform government?
 
If you admit that you would go into partnership with an individual who is stirring racial hatred on our streets, has racist and xenophobic elements across his part and hasn't got a plan for the country to improve anything aside from race baiting, you lose all credibility.
As I said above, I would want to read the original interview - don’t you?
 
As I said above, I would want to read the original interview - don’t you?
I think this is the entirely of it, paywall removed:

‘Rupert Lowe turns up for work, Nigel Farage doesn’t’: an interview with Kemi Badenoch​


https://archive.is/20260611060427/h...arage-doesnt-an-interview-with-kemi-badenoch/

There was a moment backstage, before I interviewed Kemi Badenoch for a Spectator event this week, when I felt like John Sergeant with Margaret Thatcher bearing down on him as he pronounced her leadership in difficulty. I suggested to Badenoch that she was a rare example of a politician I had changed my mind about. ‘You mean you were very negative before?’ she said, fixing me with the full alpha female glare.


I muttered something placatory, but the truth is that a year ago I thought she was rubbish – and that was the mainstream view in her own party. She was arrogant, flat-footed, absenting herself from a stage that was being dominated by Nigel Farage, resistant to advice, convinced she was great at PMQs when even Keir Starmer was wiping the floor with her. She thought the political ‘game’ was beneath her and the media was an impertinent nuisance.

At the 2024 party conference, I watched her imperiously dismiss anyone who questioned her approach. ‘I’m doing it my way,’ she proclaimed after a week of PR gaffes (capped with her statement that she ‘never has gaffes’). ‘I’m striding through the fire,’ she told me at the time. Those of us around the table WhatsApped each other the meme of the cartoon dog sitting in a burning room proclaiming: ‘Everything is fine.’


But Badenoch has since shown that she is one of the few politicians who can turn around public perceptions. Yes, most learn with experience to do their jobs better. Both Tony Blair and David Cameron say they were much better prime ministers the day they left than the day they arrived. But for many politicians their peak popularity comes when they are a blank slate onto which people can project their hopes. We are probably at peak Andy Burnham popularity now, before he starts making choices people don’t like.


In one sense Badenoch has not changed – she remains abrasive, but she has shown the humility to take advice from Cameron (‘PMQs is not a courtroom, it’s panto,’ she explains). She weaponised the Peter Mandelson scandal and deals confidently with the public (witness her recently demolishing a pro-Palestinian protestor). Tom Tugendhat, who ran against her in the 2022 and 2024 leadership elections, says: ‘If I’d known she was this good, I wouldn’t have stood.’


More importantly, she knows her own mind and isn’t embarrassed about her views. When I asked who she was for, she gave a polished answer: ‘We are for the people in this country who produce, who work, who get up every day and actually make this country wealthy.’


Ask most politicians who they are against and they fudge. Not Badenoch: ‘We are not for the people who can work but choose not to work and would prefer to be on welfare. We are not for people who cheat the system. We are not for people who commit crimes… We are not for people who want to change our culture into something that it is not.’ She would ‘ban the pro-Palestinian supposed protests’ and is ‘actively looking at’ banning the Muslim Brotherhood. All this is not Badenochism; she calls it ‘Kemistry’.


The caveat to all this is that it may not matter a damn. The Tory brand, in her own words, remains ‘a distressed asset’. To revive it she is demanding that every candidate sign up to core conservative principles. ‘We are leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. If you won’t sign up to that, you will not be a Conservative MP.’ They’ll have to agree to ditch net zero. Her first decision on day one in No. 10 would be to ‘drill our oil and gas in the North Sea and get the tax revenue out’.


Badenoch has shown she is one of the few politicians who can turn around public perceptions

Ed Miliband’s insistence that these assets remain in the ground is ‘very much like what the Nigerian military dictatorships were doing in the 1980s and 1990s’. Bridget Phillipson, by raiding VAT on private school fees ‘has acted like a Gestapo officer’. Of Starmer she says: ‘I’ve grown to feel sorry for him, but I have also grown to dislike the way he does not take any responsibility.’


Badenoch also gave the clearest answer to what I find the most tedious question in British politics: whether there will be a pact or deal between Reform and the Tories. The truth is obvious: there won’t be unless there needs to be, though that is more likely after a general election than before it.


Badenoch says the Tories could win and claims there is a ‘high chance’ she will become prime minister. But asked explicitly whether she would be prepared to put Farage into No. 10 if he fell short of a majority, she made it clear the answer is yes: ‘This country cannot have another left-wing government.’


She ruled out standing down candidates or an arrangement to target resources so the two parties could focus on different seats, however. ‘We don’t need to do a pact… deals, non-aggression pacts. These things end up falling apart anyway.’ Instead, Badenoch implied she would accept a confidence and supply deal to ‘deliver a conservative agenda’.


She admitted she already has a casual arrangement with Rupert Lowe, the leader of Restore Britain, who took a Tory seat on the public accounts committee. ‘Rupert Lowe wants to cut spending in a way that Nigel Farage doesn’t,’ she explains. ‘Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want more nationalisation. They want the big state. They just want to be in charge of it.’ Asked if she would accept Lowe as a Tory one day, she says: ‘I don’t think I would go that far.’ But she adds: ‘I respect the fact that he turns up for work, which Nigel Farage doesn’t do. He does policy. He doesn’t run away.’

Thatcher, too, was dismissed early in her leadership as a lightweight who lacked people skills before going on to run one of the most consequential governments of the last century. You wouldn’t bet on Badenoch doing that but she has already defied political gravity. ‘I don’t like playing the game,’ she says. ‘I want to play my game.’ Her game is poker, at which she has repeatedly vanquished the editor of this magazine.


Like Michael Gove, she is also a fan of Game of Thrones. ‘I identify with Daenerys Targaryen before she went mad. She just kept building an army. Then eventually she rode the dragon and burned the city to the ground.’

If I have missed anything it is unintentional.
 
No. I want the Tories to win. I’ve never claimed anything different.

That interview is behind a paywall, so I don’t know what she’s actually said.
If they lose and reform have the most seats, but need the tories to form a majority, would you want them to do it or not? I’m curious to know where you’d stand there.