Mailwatch(ed) Forum

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.

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.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 8:04 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 7:53 pm 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.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 8:37 pm 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".

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 8:52 pm

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?

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.

mattomac wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 8:33 pm Labour lost because Andy Burnham was blocked.

Ok Angela….

Yup... utter bollocks. Manc Mafia.

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?

There's some more general stuff associated with this group.

Planning Reform: The group pushes for immediate, significant reforms to the planning system to speed up housebuilding and infrastructure development.
Infrastructure Investment: Focused on overcoming bottlenecks in energy, digital, and transport infrastructure to support economic expansion.

Pro-Business Regulation: The group advocates for a regulatory environment that encourages investment, including streamlining regulations for laboratories, data centers, and clean energy.

Economic Strategy: Supports utilizing public-private partnerships, such as the National Wealth Fund, to unlock private investment.

Regional Growth: Aims to spread productivity improvements and high-quality jobs across all regions of the UK.

Lots of this is in works already. Indeed some people regard the group as a Starmer front. Bozo and Cameron both tried to reform planning, but got beaten back by the media and backbenchers. It won't be popular with lots of people nor opportunistic opposition politicians. It's one of the things I was hoping Starmer could get done before departing in a "man don't give a fuck" way. Does Andy, Angela, Wes or whoever want to come in and deal with that?

Catherine West’s lunatic move is bad enough, but I’m also getting somewhat annoyed by a few backbenchers who are stopping short of supporting West, but are suggesting that Keir Starmer should “set out a clear timetable for his departure”, and abide by it. That is sheer lunacy. If Keir Starmer does that, he instantly becomes a “lame duck” Prime Minister, with seriouly diminished authority and frankly zero credibility. He would be declaring publicly that he is not up to the job of Prime Minister - which simply isn’t the case. He is not even two years into a 5 year term of government, to which he was elected with a massive landslide majority, and which he retains still. He is, by any measure, the best Prime Minister the UK has had for at least 20 years, particularly on the international stage - something that would be appallingly undermined by a “clear timetable for departure”. It’s the stupidest idea I’ve heard of since the last thing Zarah Sultana said.

I do understand that much of what some of these MPs are saying is motivated by the quite extraordinarily, almost unprecedentedly negative reaction to PM Starmer that many experienced from voters during the campaign, but I refuse to believe that that position is absolutely beyond retrieval. Much of it simply must be the product of a kind of negative feedback loop, as I’ve opined before now. Relentless and hostile news media incessantly pumping out the message that Keir Starmer is the worst prime minister in all history takes on, particularly in the consciousness of those who take only the most cursory interest in the government and politics of this country, the status of accepted fact, though totally false. The hostile news media can, and should, be taken on and neutralised as far as may be possible : Leveson has been touched on here.

The Labour Party, and the country, must keep faith with Keir Starmer and afford him the space to complete the project he has only just embarked on: nothing less than the total reconstruction of our devastated country.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 10:19 pm Catherine West’s lunatic move is bad enough, but I’m also getting somewhat annoyed by a few backbenchers who are stopping short of supporting West, but are suggesting that Keir Starmer should “set out a clear timetable for his departure”, and abide by it. That is sheer lunacy. If Keir Starmer does that, he instantly becomes a “lame duck” Prime Minister, with seriouly diminished authority and frankly zero credibility. He would be declaring publicly that he is not up to the job of Prime Minister - which simply isn’t the case. He is not even two years into a 5 year term of government, to which he was elected with a massive landslide majority, and which he retains still. He is, by any measure, the best Prime Minister the UK has had for at least 20 years, particularly on the international stage - something that would be appallingly undermined by a “clear timetable for departure”. It’s the stupidest idea I’ve heard of since the last thing Zarah Sultana said.

I do understand that much of what some of these MPs are saying is motivated by the quite extraordinarily, almost unprecedentedly negative reaction to PM Starmer that many experienced from voters during the campaign, but I refuse to believe that that position is absolutely beyond retrieval. Much of it simply must be the product of a kind of negative feedback loop, as I’ve opined before now. Relentless and hostile news media incessantly pumping out the message that Keir Starmer is the worst prime minister in all history takes on, particularly in the consciousness of those who take only the most cursory interest in the government and politics of this country. The hostile news media can, and should, be taken on and neutralised as far as may be possible : Leveson has been touched on here.

The Labour Party, and the country, must keep faith with Keir Starmer and afford him the space to complete the project he has only just embarked on: nothing less than the total reconstruction of our devastated country.

I'm pretty convinced most people, when asked about Starmer, would say 'nah don't like him', and it'd just be gut. I'm not talking the left here, who will list policies they wish weren't abandoned etc, but yer average 'punter'.

The gut is not nothing, but nor is it everything. Except when it is. Sigh.

Jesus, look at this reprobate. Not James, but Jolyon Maugham. And look at the mugs falling for it below his post.

What does a Government do when it tries to improve NHS data and save your life, and gets accused of a sinister plot? "Wasn't in the manifesto"? How much detail does he expect there to be in a manifesto? This is one of the things that would have happened already if Cameron and Clegg hadn't chucked out NHS IT work in their initial burst of enthusiasm for cutting "waste"

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 9:31 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 8:52 pm

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?

https://samf.substack.com/p/after-starmer

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 10:19 pm Catherine West’s lunatic move is bad enough, but I’m also getting somewhat annoyed by a few backbenchers who are stopping short of supporting West, but are suggesting that Keir Starmer should “set out a clear timetable for his departure”, and abide by it. That is sheer lunacy. If Keir Starmer does that, he instantly becomes a “lame duck” Prime Minister, with seriouly diminished authority and frankly zero credibility. He would be declaring publicly that he is not up to the job of Prime Minister - which simply isn’t the case. He is not even two years into a 5 year term of government, to which he was elected with a massive landslide majority, and which he retains still. He is, by any measure, the best Prime Minister the UK has had for at least 20 years, particularly on the international stage - something that would be appallingly undermined by a “clear timetable for departure”. It’s the stupidest idea I’ve heard of since the last thing Zarah Sultana said.

I do understand that much of what some of these MPs are saying is motivated by the quite extraordinarily, almost unprecedentedly negative reaction to PM Starmer that many experienced from voters during the campaign, but I refuse to believe that that position is absolutely beyond retrieval. Much of it simply must be the product of a kind of negative feedback loop, as I’ve opined before now. Relentless and hostile news media incessantly pumping out the message that Keir Starmer is the worst prime minister in all history takes on, particularly in the consciousness of those who take only the most cursory interest in the government and politics of this country, the status of accepted fact, though totally false. The hostile news media can, and should, be taken on and neutralised as far as may be possible : Leveson has been touched on here.

The Labour Party, and the country, must keep faith with Keir Starmer and afford him the space to complete the project he has only just embarked on: nothing less than the total reconstruction of our devastated country.

"Timetable for departure" is absurd stuff, I agree, like "orderly transition". Labour themselves certainly wouldn't have allowed Bozo to hang about at the convenience of his party, while some other candidate currently out of the Commons fights a by-election and then fought a leadership contest. It's just absurd stuff.

I don't see Sir Keir romping home in too many elections, but I do see him building on his very good relations with EU leaders, getting some contentious but necessary policy through the Commons that a successor might not fancy doing. And he (and Reeves) at least won't raise too many fears of a Truss budget in the meantime.

Catherine West seems to have upset lots of people in doing this while Burnham is out of the picture.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 10:19 pm The hostile news media can, and should, be taken on and neutralised as far as may be possible : Leveson has been touched on here.

Some would call that state censorship.

Agreed, the media is hugely hostile to the current government but perhaps we need to look harder at media ownership in the UK first and set out clearer, firmer guidelines on impartiality and the remits of operating licences. No offshoring for tax purposes, no non-resident/non-domiciled owners. No ownership of multiple titles.

Oh, and get rid of that gravy train called OFCOM and end the marking of their own homework that is IPSO.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 10:40 pm

https://samf.substack.com/p/after-starmer

Paywalled, sadly.