Labour could have been honest in 2024. They claimed, (and still do: Duty Minister on Radio 4's "Today" this morning) an “extraordinary and emphatic victory” in that election, but it was nothing of the sort. Rather it was an emphatic rejection of the Tories after a decade of disasters. Labour itself had received only a third of the votes cast and, given the low turnout, this amounted to the support of only a quarter of those entitled to vote.
It was in no way an endorsement of Labour’s programme or confidence in their ability to implement it.
Labour could have done the decent thing - recognised the paucity of their support and, noting that with the Liberal Democrat and Green votes, together with theirs, they would have the support of the majority of the voters, invited representatives of those parties (and possibly some nationalists) into their Government to form a Coalition of the Willing
When I argued this case at the time a close friend, former Labour Party stalwart and now a supporter of the Greens, commented: “Maybe true, but it isn’t going to happen.”
And, of course, it didn’t. The opportunity was missed and their government has blundered into the ground.
Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation and the anticipated succession Andy Burnham gives them, and more importantly the country, a second chance.
The new government will face exactly the same problems as Sir Keir’s did: with problems probably getting even worse. I suggest Mr Burnham promises, in the campaign for the succession if there is one, that he will recognise the truth and offer to share some posts with other “progressives.”
Why not offer Liberal Democrats, given our concerns for liberty and international development, the Home Office and Department of International Development (reconstituted and split off from Sir Keir’s Foreign Office)?
A Green MP could put in charge of the Department of Environment (releasing Ed Miliband to serve are Chancellor of the Exchequer?) along with cabinet posts for the nationalist leaders in the Scottish and Welsh Offices.
That would signal genuine change, and give the new government the “oomph” that the present one lacks.
Not only that, but it would anticipate the future, rather than leaving the UK to be reluctantly dragged into it, as has been the norm in the past.
Mr Burnham is in favour of proportional representation, and that will almost inevitably lead to coalitions in the future.
On present expectations PR is not to operate until the next General Election but one, but it could be brought forward. Even if it isn’t there is no reason why an optional coalition should not be tried before Labour is forced to participate in one if it is to share in government in the future..
We’ve had “winner takes all” for all of this century and seen where it has landed us.
Mr Burnham should take the lead and offer to bring in the future now.
with the Liberal Democrat and Green votes, together with theirs, they would have the support of the majority of the voters
ReplyDeleteAs I keep pointing out to you, this is simply not true. Just because someone votes for party X, that does not mean that they would have voted for a coalition of parties X, Y and Z.
For example, in 2010 lots of people voted for one or other of the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats, but did not at all support the coalition government which those two parties formed.
Mr Burnham is in favour of proportional representation
ReplyDeleteMr Burnham, of course, is never in favour of any one thing for very long before he is against it.
Yes, that's a worry. We shall see.
Deletemaybe we should forward this article to Burnham
Delete‘Make people dream’: how to build an economy for the common good
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/26/make-people-dream-build-economy-common-good-mariana-mazzucato
These ways of thinking, according to Mazzucato, get the problem the wrong way round. “In the old economics, doing good is a correction,” she says in her latest book. “In an economics of the common good, it is an objective we design and work on together.”
DeleteIf your solution to a problem is 'why can't everyone just agree with me what is important, and then work on it together?' then you don't really have a solution. Because at no time in history has everyone agreed what is important, and they're not about to start now.
That's why markets work better than any alternative: because they accept that everyone wants different things, and yet if they are all allowed to pursue their own ends in their own ways, spontaneous organisation will emerge that means most people can actually get what they want, and they way they do it is by helping others get what they want.
'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. '
Whereas if you try to impose organisation top-down, by declaring what is important and they trying to force everyone to work towards that one goal, you will fail.
So markets and global warming?
DeleteThe markets have caused the problem by chasing profits and not worrying about externalities aided and abetted by governments that haven't exercised sufficiet control over these externalities.
Can markets provide a solution to global warming? It's not in their interest to do so in a competitive marketplace and they're playing a zero sum game.
Can markets provide a solution to global warming? It's not in their interest to do so in a competitive marketplace
DeleteIt absolutely is — as people demand adjustments to deal with global warming (eg air conditioning), it will be in the interests of companies in s collective market to compete to supply those adjustments (eg, by inventing cheaper, more energy-efficient air conditioning units).
Are markets perfect? No, far from it. Markets have lots of problems. They aren’t magic.
All markets are is better than any other system ever tried.
Markets are bad, but their are the best system we’ve got because all attempts at top-down control will fail. Because top-down control runs contrary to human nature, while markets go with the grain of people’s self-interest.
so the solution to global warming is more air-con!
DeleteWhat planet are you on!
so the solution to global warming is more air-con!
DeleteIf it’s too hot, then course part of the solution is to create cold spaces. Just ask the residents of Texas.
How else do you think humans have managed to live all over this planet, including in places that would naturally be uncomfortable, hostile, or even deadly?
Just like when we find swamps, we drain them. Or when we find deserts, we irrigate them.
So that is the solution to making otherwise-uninhabitable places inhabitable, yes.
you must have been one of Liz Truss's advisors.
DeleteAircon currently contributes over 3% to total greenhouse gases. More aircon more global warming
Aircon treats the symptoms not the cause.
No wonder the world's in a mess with "thinking" like yours
I note from the English Sunday newspaper headlines that Burnham proposes more "devolution" for the "North" if he becomes PM
DeleteLiving in Scotland that brings a smile to my face as it's clearly an England agenda.
Of course it's long overdue for many of the regions in England who've lost out for decades to London & the SE.
He's talking about empowering local communities. Well and good but unless you back that with resources and budgets not much will change.
It will also be interesting to watch what - if anything - he says about DevoMax for Scotland - long promised but never delivered (we're even further North than Manchester Andy!)
Aircon treats the symptoms not the cause.
DeleteAnd what's wrong with treating symptoms? It's the symptoms that are the problem.
Lots of diseases are dealt with by treating symptoms.
It's only treating symptoms, for example, that keeps people with type 1 diabetes alive.
I'm all for treating symptoms!
"I'm all for treating symptoms!"
DeleteClueless
you're sat at home and notice the room is getting warmer. Better turn the aircon on you say. Meanwhile you're unaware the house has caught fire and is about to burn down around you.
DeleteGood luck treating the symptoms
Meanwhile you're unaware the house has caught fire
DeleteI don’t see how I could be. My smoke alarm would have gone off.
Good luck treating the symptoms
I certainly would treat the symptoms of the fire (by spraying water on the flames).
I certainly wouldn’t go, ‘well, a loose connection caused that fire — so I better live the rest of my life without electricity!’
I like electricity. I’m not going to give it up just because it can cause fires. I’m going to keep using it and deal with the dangers (eg, keep the wiring in good order).
I like my modern lifestyle. I’m not going to give it up just because it causes global warming. I’m going to keep living it and deal with the problems of global warming as they arise.
As I said - clueless
DeleteYou might find this interesting: https://www.willsolfiac.com/p/modern-folk-beliefs-iv-climate-change
DeleteBut you’re probably not interested in reality.
no, climate change won't lead to human extinction we're too resilient for that
DeleteWhat it will lead to are some major fundamental changes in the wider environment, weather patterns, agriculture & fishing, availability of natural resources such as fresh water, major demographic changes, changes in major urban environments, ... the list goes on
That is also likely to lead to increased social and military conflict, migration, lifestyles ....
https://climate.ec.europa.eu/climate-change/consequences-climate-change_en
Some societies/economies will adapt and survive, many won't
Stick your head in the sand - there's going to be a lot of it around
What it will lead to are some major fundamental changes in the wider environment, weather patterns, agriculture & fishing, availability of natural resources such as fresh water, major demographic changes, changes in major urban environments, ... the list goes on
DeleteYes indeed. These are what you call 'symptoms' and we will deal with them as they arise.
Clueless
DeleteBritain needs compromise, competence and grown‑up politics, but what it gets is tribal loyalty, “heroes and villains” and simple stories about who’s right and who’s to blame. The hard work of governing - negotiation, trade‑offs, accepting imperfect solutions - doesn’t satisfy a culture that increasingly demands ideological purity, impulsive decision making and someone to cheer or jeer. Until we rediscover the value of shared responsibility over spectacle, we’ll forgo maturity in politics and reward the exact opposite. I’ll give Andy Burnham six months before he’s in the exact same position as Keir Starmer. It is getting to the point where Britain is ungovernable.
ReplyDeleteBritain needs compromise, competence and grown‑up politics
DeleteIt needs competence, yes, but absolutely not compromise. That's what's got us into this mess: a succession of Prime Ministers who are far too willing to compromise and far too scared to take hard decisions and see them through, even at the cost of initial unpopularity.
Mrs May: tried to compromise and find a way to leave the European Union that would please everyone. As a result was an abject failure.
Mr Johnson: correctly ditched compromise over leaving the European Union and as a reslt was able to achieve something, but as soon as that was done revealed that his government had no vision beyond that and spent the rest of his time chasing popular causes (net zero, etc) and avoiding hard decisions (backing off planning reform, etc),
Mrs Truss: Okay, this one had a vision (and it was the right vision) but did lack competence.
Mr Sunak: was super-competent but again had no overriding vision and tried to muddle through (plus by that time the Conservatives were inevitably electorally doomed so he didn't have the political authority to actually do anything).
Mr Starmer: had political authority due to his masive election win but again was too ready to compromise; every time he tried to actually address a problem (eg, welfare reform) would fold to the slightest pressure from his back-benchers. The only things he really seeemd to care about were giving away British territory and making suicide available on the NHS, both of which he was fortunately thwarted in
And Mr Burham is no different: he gives every impression of being someoen who just wants to be liked, which means he too will try to compromise and please both sides of every issue, and as a result will end up doing nothing and being a total failure.
Fortunately we have Mrs Badenoch who will take over in a couple of years, and she clearly doesn't care two hoots what people think of her (and, on most issue, eg welfare reform, the deficit, sex, has her head screwed on right).
It is getting to the point where Britain is ungovernable
She's not ungovernable; it's just that no one has tried to govern her for about a decade.
Peter
DeleteI’m in Scotland and have been for almost 40 years where – understandably – there’s a different take on UK politics
As you’ll know for the Scottish Parliament elections there’s a PR system in place that was deliberately designed to try to ensure no big landslide victories for any one party and a split of seats linked to the proportion of votes that a party got
As a result, since devolution most Scottish govts have been either a formal coalition with power sharing or an informal one on a vote by vote basis
With the exception of independence this has meant – by and large – more consensus in terms of govt policies and less “extremism”. However with the election of Reform MSP’s earlier this year it will be interesting to see whether that continues and whether Burnham tries to introduce PR in Westminster
As for Burnham – assuming he’s the next PM – it will be interesting to see how he deals with the independence issue as part of his declared intent to re-balance political power around the UK
Genuine re-balancing with full fiscal autonomy for Scotland would probably stop the pro-independence groups in their tracks
With the exception of independence this has meant – by and large – more consensus in terms of govt policies and less “extremism”.
DeleteOh, I don't know. Wasn't the policy of putting men who identify as women -- one of the factors that led to the totally and completely innocent Nicola Sturgeon's resignation -- in women's prisons pretty extreme?
More to the point though, it has led to a distinct lack of competence in Scottish government. I mean, Westminster may be a bit of a mess but the Scottish government has been unable to build just two ferries; has seen educational achievement go backwards at a time when in England it has been improving massively; has led to Scottish universities putting caps on the number of Scottish students they will admit; has been unable to do even the most basic road improvements; has higher taxes and worse public services than other parts of the United Kingdom; and has got involved in a number of legal scandals due to inadequate oversight and cronyism.
If you want to come up with an advertisement for a proportional system on the basis of results, rather than principle, Scotland is most assuredly not it.
Oh dear it's you again.
Delete"Royal Navy's flagship aircraft carrier left 'marooned' after breaking down AGAIN"
HS2 debacle?
Thames Water versus Scottish Water (a govt agency)
Rail companies versus Scotrail (a public company)
No tuition fees in Scotland
No prescription charges
No toll roads
No leasehold property systems.
Lower property prices and rents
No council house sales
free bus travel for young people
higher welfare payments for low-income households
lower income tax for low-income households
That's what PR can deliver - what the people want & need
"Royal Navy's flagship aircraft carrier left 'marooned' after breaking down AGAIN"
DeleteIf it was a Scottish ferry it would never even have set sail.
HS2 debacle?
How many lanes is the A9, still?
Thames Water versus Scottish Water (a govt agency)
If there's one thing Scotland will never be short of, it's water.
Rail companies versus Scotrail (a public company)
No tuition fees in Scotland
And because of that, caps on Scottish student numbers mean Scottish students are forced to go elsewhere while Scottish universities fill up with foreigners.
No prescription charges
Funded by English taxpayers via the Barnett block grant.
No toll roads
Which is why all the roads are shit, presumably.
No leasehold property systems.
Scottish law has never had leasehold, so this is nothing to do with the Scottish legislative assembly, which was only set up in 1999.
Lower property prices and rents
Because nobody wants to live there, due to the high taxes and the weather.
No council house sales
Given that was an eighties policy, I don't see what it has to do with the Scottish assembly which, against, was set up in 1999.
free bus travel for young people
Not free -- taxpayer-funded.
higher welfare payments for low-income households
More wasted taxpayer money.
lower income tax for low-income households
Higher income tax on everyone else.
That's what PR can deliver - what the people want & need
How long have the doctors let you out for this time?
DeleteI hope you're still taking your medication. Of curse if you were in Scotland it would be free
Of curse if you were in Scotland it would be free
DeleteNo, it wouldn't. It would be paid for by taxpayers, using money that could be better spent on other things.
No, you really need that medication
Delete"Britain needs compromise"
DeleteCan't disagree but we've become an increasingly polarised society where positions are taken and defended - often without hard evidence - and there's little appetite for a middle ground.
It starts at the top with our politicians.
When did you last hear one saying to the opposition - you know, you've got a really good idea there let's work on it together.
When did you last hear one saying to the opposition - you know, you've got a really good idea there let's work on it together.
DeleteLast September, Mrs Badenoch reached out to Mr Starmer offering to help him find a way to pass the welfare changes to which his own backbenchers were opposed; the compromise to be that the final package had to bring down the total welfare bill, not just move spending from one pot to another.
Is that the kind of thing you mean?
https://www.conservatives.com/news/kemi-to-keir-lets-work-together-to-fix-welfare
Yes - and no.
Delete(Couldn't access the link so I'm not sure of the details)
In principle, the so-called big issues do require a cross-party policy (welfare, defence etc)
However, with the current political culture such offers of "cooperation" may well be just political manoevering and point-scoring rather than a genuine attempt at compromise a bit like Putin's offer of "ceasefire"
The problem - how to tell the difference?
with the current political culture such offers of "cooperation" may well be just political manoevering and point-scoring
DeleteI think you just answered your question, then, didn't you?
Why do politicians not make offers to work together with their opponents to solve problems?
Because every time they do, they get accused of 'political manoeuvring and point-scoring'.
So why do it?
Because politics and leadership are different.
DeleteThe UK has long lacked anyone with real leadership qualities - we have petty minded politicians whose sole focus is on getting elected rather than focussing on the real national interests
As Peter's original post commented the current "winner takes all" system has got us to where we are
Because politics and leadership are different.
DeleteAh, so Mrs Badenoch was showing leadership while Mr Starmer was playing politics (badly)?
Got you.
wrong again. Both were playing politics.
DeleteStarmer couldn't afford to alienate yet more of this own MPs by collaborating with the Tories on welfare.
Badenoch sees the writing on the wall with Farage & Reform taking former tory voters
Both were playing politics
DeleteRight. So, why don't politicians ever offer to work with their opposite numbers to work out compromises to effect change?
Because if they offer -- they are accused of playing politics.
If they refuse -- they are accused of playing politics.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
So if they're going to be accused of playing politics whatever they do, the best thing they can do is obviously to actually play politics.
as I said politics and leadership are different. Neither of this pair show real leadership qualities (look them up in the academic research that's been done before you reply)
Deleteas I said politics and leadership are different
DeleteOkay, but to get things done you need to be able to do politics. You can't get stuff done just with leadership alone.
Conversely without leadership, you will get drift no matter how good you are at politics.
DeleteCould do politics, no leadership: Johnson, Sunak
No leadership, also couldn't do politics: May, Starmer
Weirdly, had leadership (at least n the sense of a clear goal) but terrible at politics: Truss
What does Mr Burnham lack? Well, his inability to stick to any one position for the length of a single interview proves he has no leadership. The fact that the previous two times he tried to be leader he lost to Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn -- not exactly going out to Brazil in the quarter-finals, more embarrassingly failing to qualify on penalties after a dismal performance against San Marino -- suggests his political skills aren't up to much either.
So it looks like we're in for another round of May/Starmer, until Mrs Badenoch takes over in 2029.
you don't listen do you?
DeleteI said look this up before replying
"You can't get stuff done just with leadership alone"
Of course you can - one of the key leadership qualities is political ability
.
one of the key leadership qualities is political ability
Deletepolitics and leadership are different
If you're just going to contradict yourself then there's really no point.
Oh dear.
DeleteI did advise reading up on this before replying.
Try this:
Effective leadership requires certain political skills.
Being an effective politician does NOT require leadership skills
I can suggest some online courses in reasoning and logic if that's too difficult for you to understand.
Effective leadership requires certain political skills.
DeleteSo politics and leadership are not different, then. Because politics is part of leadership.
So you're contradicting yourself.
It makes conversing very confusing if you keep contradicting yourself.
Oh dear again. The old adage ... you can lead a horse to water ....
DeleteLet's have a look at the Anon response Anonymous23 June 2026 at 17:11
DeleteThe WWW is a wonderful thing – it means you can easily check for the correct information before wasting other people’s time - shame the respondent didn't do that
(BTW the WWW is credited to Tim Berners Lee while working at CERN – a public sector organisation! But it’s a great example of how public and private sector feed off each other in a positive way)
No tuition fees in Scotland
And because of that, caps on Scottish student numbers mean Scottish students are forced to go elsewhere while Scottish universities fill up with foreigners.
Surely you can’t object that - it’s supply and demand, basic market economics.
But to correct your misunderstanding.
Scottish undergraduates get their tuition fees paid whether they study in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK.
Foreign students are self-funded and the vast majority are postgraduate not undergraduate students
Following the introduction of fees In England in 1998/99 the Labour/LibDem govt in Scotland decided not to follow suit
No prescription charges
Funded by English taxpayers via the Barnett block grant.
Oh dear – that old red herring! You really need to stop reading the Daily Express and Daily Mail.
No, a conscious decision by the Scottish Parliament (not just the SNP) in 2011 on how to spend its budget
Worth noting that in England only around 10% of prescriptions are actually paid for by the patient.
The cost-effectiveness of the English prescription charge system is highly contested (by the NAO amongst others) with evidence suggesting it may be economically inefficient when administrative costs, penalty costs and downstream health impacts are considered
No leasehold property systems.
Scottish law has never had leasehold, so this is nothing to do with the Scottish legislative assembly, which was only set up in 1999.
Wrong again.
It’s called feuhold in Scotland - as I know to my personal cost – although it’s different in some respects to the English system.
The Scottish Parliament introduced various pieces of legislation from 2000 onwards to remove this.
No council house sales
Given that was an eighties policy, I don't see what it has to do with the Scottish assembly which, against, was set up in 1999.
Wrong again (are you seeing a pattern here?) (BTW It' not an "assembly")
The Right to Buy was imposed on Scotland by Westminster in 1980 with around 500,000 homes sold off at below market prices and contributing to the social housing shortage.
The RtB was abolished by the Scottish Parliament in 2016 (opposed only by the few Tories)
lower income tax for low-income households
Higher income tax on everyone else.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies: 55% of income taxpayers in Scotland will be better off this financial year than people in the rest of the UK earning the same amount.
That's what PR can deliver - what the people want & need
Scotland continues to have the highest drug-related death rate in Europe.
ReplyDeleteand that's to do with the PR system is it?
ReplyDeleteIt’s what PR has delivered.
ReplyDeletehow long have the doctors let you out for this time?
ReplyDeleteIf you lives in Scotland your medications would be free!