[kreuzberger]

Queensbury Rules do not apply. That's their choice, not the choice of a decent man and his top team.

I am buggered if I know what the dirty fight-back looks like, or whether it would even be productive in the long-term, but Leveson 2.1 and moving Ali Campbell in to DCMS via the Lords would be a start.

This is little more than a Sundance Kid pub fight. You know you're going to get a sore one, but make sure that one of those cunts will wish they hadn't started it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see the mistake as Burnham trying to desert Greater Manchester in the first place, and doing it all in public. Didn't show the political touch that we keep hearing he has.

I've also not seen anyone connect Burnham with the results in Greater Manchester. If he's doing so well, shouldn't there have been a bit less Reform on the map? I certainly don't blame him for people voting Green because they can't afford a flat (though his overall record on delivering new properties hasn't been great, however many new flats there are in Ardwick etc) but he's tried to be blue collar in his appeal to outer boroughs too. Doesn't seem to have had much effect.

Perhaps I'm being unkind. Perhaps blue collar residents are voting for what they care about, and they actually want lower immigration more than they want economic growth and apprenticeships. This situation is not unique to England by any means.

[The Weeping Angel]

I've observed that those who want Starmer gone have never really set out what they would do differently beyond vague platitudes like govern competently. That's easier said than done when you've got the media on your case, willing to blow up the slightest thing.

I think they could reasonably say they'd at the very least tone down some of the Mahmood stuff, which hasn't pleased anybody. There shouldn't be any changes to the rights of people already here. Perhaps some of the more contentious mergers of council areas could be revisited. Beyond that, I don't know what they mean, that doesn't come back to chucking more money about. Failing that, as someone BTL in another place said, there's no guarantee that whoever replaces Reeves and Starmer doesn't cut back on climate investment. Or do other short term stuff like cutting water bills by cutting investment.

I'd go along with junking most of the Mahmood stuff. Sam Freedman pointed out in his Substack a few months ago that you'd end up with more continuity than most people think.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Queensbury Rules do not apply. That's their choice, not the choice of a decent man and his top team.

I am buggered if I know what the dirty fight-back looks like, or whether it would even be productive in the long-term, but Leveson 2.1 and moving Ali Campbell in to DCMS via the Lords would be a start.

This is little more than a Sundance Kid pub fight. You know you're going to get a sore one, but make sure that one of those cunts will wish they hadn't started it.

Leveson 2 was specifically about the press and the police. It's not particularly relevant now. I'd prefer something on the culture of the BBC. They're the ones who amplify the rubbish that the declining papers produce.

On that front. there's a new Director General and lots of members of the Board are coming up for renewal, and the whole appointments structure is likely to be changed in the Charter Renewal. This can be both Queensberry Rules and a pretty major change. Whatever you do, don't use the word "radical". I've no idea why so many politicians think people want that all the time, or that those who do have the same idea of what it means as they "do".

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'd go along with junking most of the Mahmood stuff. Sam Freedman pointed out in his Substack a few months ago that you'd end up with more continuity than most people think.

I'd be interested to read that. Do you have a link?

[kreuzberger]

I suggested 2.1. That was for a reason. I had hoped that you would understand that that meant a progression to where we currently find ourselves.

If you wish, take it as a notional Leveson 3 and the examination of toilet broadcasters and their weirdo hosts whose relation with the truth is, at best, estranged.

[Boiler]

Labour lost because Andy Burnham was blocked.

Ok Angela….

Yup... utter bollocks. Manc Mafia.

[Tubby Isaacs]

In a sign MPs are readying for a big debate about future direction, the Labour Growth Group is this week planning to present its blueprint for “a new economic settlement” to No 10 and the party more widely, calling for higher capital gains tax to fund a 2p cut to national insurance, among other policies.

Makes sense in terms of simplification, but does it raise that much more money? You'd either have to not raise capital gains tax very much (Reeves and Sunak have already raised it) or put in an inflation allowance.

National insurance is a major tax. Cutting it by 2p seems to cost £10bn a year. Can you really get that from capital gains tax, which in the latest year raised about £17bn. Reeves could reasonably argue that she's already raised more, as Sunak-Hunt did. Can she really get that up to £27bn a year?

I'd guess that they mean Employer NI, seeing they're the Growth Group, as Employers NI is indeed a tax on jobs, and sub-optimal for growth. But that's going to be noticed far less than a cut to Employee NI. Is that going to shift the dial?