By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that politicians (such as Burnham) suggesting that they can solve things like the cost of living crisis and regional inequality is overplaying their hand, setting themselves up for a fall and bringing with it shades of "jam tomorrow"?
For what it is worth, this is the amusing passage in Alice in Wonderland from which the expression is derived.
"I'm sure I'll take you with pleasure!" the Queen said. "Two pence a week, and jam every other day." Alice couldn't help laughing, as she said, "I don't want you to hire me – and I don't care for jam." "It's very good jam," said the Queen. "Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate." "You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day." "It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected. "No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know." "I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!"
Starmer was actually making good progress on lots of stuff, but he wasn't shouting about it or making any bold predicitions about tomorrow was he? That's no good. We don't want a stable boring PM who gets things done, we want a noisy flamboyant PM who tells us all what he's going to do.
Starmer was actually making good progress on lots of stuff, but he wasn't shouting about it or making any bold predicitions about tomorrow was he? That's no good. We don't want a stable boring PM who gets things done, we want a noisy flamboyant PM who tells us all what he's going to do.
Like the many voters who went for Boris "cos he's a bit of a laugh"... or "he's a personality"...
So many people now want not just jam today but cream too.
Reminds me of a pal - generally intelligent etc - who, on being told that leaving the EU had cost the equivalent of £120 per person per year simply said: "That can't be right, cos when we were in the EU, no-gave me £120 a year". Frighteningly, he actually meant it.
devolution to regional mayors and 'number 10' sort of moving a bit to manchester.
when do we want it?:
imminently.
as political projects go, which engage with the things voters care about (cost of living, waiting lists, immigration), and deliver before the election, while i don't disagree with it, i can't say i'm inspired. in speaking to a small group of policy wonks and focusing on process it's slightly starmer-esque.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
devolution to regional mayors and 'number 10' sort of moving a bit to manchester.
when do we want it?:
imminently.
as political projects go, which engage with the things voters care about (cost of living, waiting lists, immigration), and deliver before the election, while i don't disagree with it, i can't say i'm inspired. in speaking to a small group of policy wonks and focusing on process it's slightly starmer-esque.
Those were my thoughts too.
These thoughts struck me too.
1. There could be said to be a read-across to Johnson's levelling-up agenda which turned out to be a damp squib.
2. Is it necessarily the case that devolution without extra funding will produce a better outcome, as opposed to shifting the responsibility and blame.
3. Manchesterism may work well in a discrete urban place like Greater Manchester but will it work so well in a place like, say, East Anglia where, for example, Ipswich and Norwich have little in common economically or otherwise?
4. My leftism, being grounded in the centralism of the 70s, has always been a bit sceptical about localism at least in the context of England.
1. There could be said to be a read-across to Johnson's levelling-up agenda which turned out to be a damp squib.
2. Is it necessarily the case that devolution without extra funding will produce a better outcome, as opposed to shifting the responsibility and blame.
3. Manchesterism may work well in a discrete urban place like Greater Manchester but will it work so well in a place like, say, East Anglia where, for example, Ipswich and Norwich have little in common economically or otherwise?
4. My leftism, being grounded in the centralism of the 70s, has always been a bit sceptical about localism at least in the context of England.
[Post edited 29 Jun 18:28]
He mentioned the East of England as an area that could benefit from devolved powers (along with the South West, London in the sense of its educational deficit, the North East of England as well as his pet project of the North West) and he mentioned Cambridge as one of the hubs of innovation. It was a much broader speech than you are giving him any credit for, another aspect was his specifically singling out the last decade's culture of finger pointing and blame as bad practice, something he wanted to eradicate and replace with a sense of personal responsibility at all levels.
The poster I would really like to hear comment on this, though, is Mullet as I think he is closest geographically to assess Burnham's performance as mayor and how that will translate to Prime Minister.
He mentioned the East of England as an area that could benefit from devolved powers (along with the South West, London in the sense of its educational deficit, the North East of England as well as his pet project of the North West) and he mentioned Cambridge as one of the hubs of innovation. It was a much broader speech than you are giving him any credit for, another aspect was his specifically singling out the last decade's culture of finger pointing and blame as bad practice, something he wanted to eradicate and replace with a sense of personal responsibility at all levels.
The poster I would really like to hear comment on this, though, is Mullet as I think he is closest geographically to assess Burnham's performance as mayor and how that will translate to Prime Minister.
[Post edited 29 Jun 20:43]
One thing that struck me about his devolution proposals is their impact on, and appeal in, Scotland.
My view is that Scottish devolution has largely been a success (eg. much lower child poverty than in England), so it is difficult to know what more he could do to improve it given Scotland already has tax-raising powers, and we may well be at the limit of what further powers could be given to Scotland. For example, Scotland needs people but I can't see the Home Office ever giving up control over immigration.
Putting it another way, his message seems rather Anglo-centric, and I am not sure how much that will appeal in Scotland, especially if there is no extra money involved.
The balance between taking the electorate with you and getting the job done well must be so much of a knife-edge to walk.
I'm not sure how much regionalisation is about vote winning and how much about efficient government but in a way, even if I feel it's a little bit performative, if that's what's needed to win the next GE then it might just be the number 1 priority.
I tend to feel that with honesty and integrity and transparency the most efficient government ought to be a centralised one, but those three qualities aren't necessarily easy to find in abundance.
The big priority is to stop and reverse the slide to the shallow, self-obsessed 'right' and re-engender a sense of society and co-operation and social justice. To educate the corporate world and the over-rich individual away from the anally retentive obsession with keeping their little fists dogmatically tightly curled around every last penny, meaningless to them in practicality, and to help them realise that a progressive tax system pulls the country back together and makes everything run smoother.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
The balance between taking the electorate with you and getting the job done well must be so much of a knife-edge to walk.
I'm not sure how much regionalisation is about vote winning and how much about efficient government but in a way, even if I feel it's a little bit performative, if that's what's needed to win the next GE then it might just be the number 1 priority.
I tend to feel that with honesty and integrity and transparency the most efficient government ought to be a centralised one, but those three qualities aren't necessarily easy to find in abundance.
The big priority is to stop and reverse the slide to the shallow, self-obsessed 'right' and re-engender a sense of society and co-operation and social justice. To educate the corporate world and the over-rich individual away from the anally retentive obsession with keeping their little fists dogmatically tightly curled around every last penny, meaningless to them in practicality, and to help them realise that a progressive tax system pulls the country back together and makes everything run smoother.
I suppose one issue with a move to localism is that there will be Reform councils not wishing to play ball.
Take the following as evidence of their obstructive nature.
The balance between taking the electorate with you and getting the job done well must be so much of a knife-edge to walk.
I'm not sure how much regionalisation is about vote winning and how much about efficient government but in a way, even if I feel it's a little bit performative, if that's what's needed to win the next GE then it might just be the number 1 priority.
I tend to feel that with honesty and integrity and transparency the most efficient government ought to be a centralised one, but those three qualities aren't necessarily easy to find in abundance.
The big priority is to stop and reverse the slide to the shallow, self-obsessed 'right' and re-engender a sense of society and co-operation and social justice. To educate the corporate world and the over-rich individual away from the anally retentive obsession with keeping their little fists dogmatically tightly curled around every last penny, meaningless to them in practicality, and to help them realise that a progressive tax system pulls the country back together and makes everything run smoother.
i've nothing against regionalism - it may well be very positive and lead to dynamism and some of the outcomes burnham predicts. it's a good thing to develop. but as the big idea in response to our current crises, i'm not so sure. what will it really deliver before the election? that isn't a reason for not doing it, but we do need some quick wins.
also, scotland carries some warnings. as the snp have shown, local can end up as insular, clique driven, with cronyism and something pretty close to corruption.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
The balance between taking the electorate with you and getting the job done well must be so much of a knife-edge to walk.
I'm not sure how much regionalisation is about vote winning and how much about efficient government but in a way, even if I feel it's a little bit performative, if that's what's needed to win the next GE then it might just be the number 1 priority.
I tend to feel that with honesty and integrity and transparency the most efficient government ought to be a centralised one, but those three qualities aren't necessarily easy to find in abundance.
The big priority is to stop and reverse the slide to the shallow, self-obsessed 'right' and re-engender a sense of society and co-operation and social justice. To educate the corporate world and the over-rich individual away from the anally retentive obsession with keeping their little fists dogmatically tightly curled around every last penny, meaningless to them in practicality, and to help them realise that a progressive tax system pulls the country back together and makes everything run smoother.
I'm in the opposite camp, I only want as much centralisation as is necessary for logical efficiency and for as much power as possible to be devolved away so that politicians can apply sensitivity to issues and respond constructively to their electorate.
Yes, and what's to stop those spotty, ill-qualified Ref*rm councils from continually "repurposing earmarked reserves" and driving our local government and all it provides into bankruptcy?
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Yes, and what's to stop those spotty, ill-qualified Ref*rm councils from continually "repurposing earmarked reserves" and driving our local government and all it provides into bankruptcy?
i've nothing against regionalism - it may well be very positive and lead to dynamism and some of the outcomes burnham predicts. it's a good thing to develop. but as the big idea in response to our current crises, i'm not so sure. what will it really deliver before the election? that isn't a reason for not doing it, but we do need some quick wins.
also, scotland carries some warnings. as the snp have shown, local can end up as insular, clique driven, with cronyism and something pretty close to corruption.
I did like that he said it was a two term / 10 year plan. About time we had some honesty that serious policies take time.
De-centralisation is essential to not only tackle regional inequality but take the pressure off the densely populated south east. People follow the opportunity. Devolution I’m not sure, just another layer of politicians taking money out of public funds which would better be deployed on services. We already have local authorities and mayors etc for that purpose.
I did like that he said it was a two term / 10 year plan. About time we had some honesty that serious policies take time.
De-centralisation is essential to not only tackle regional inequality but take the pressure off the densely populated south east. People follow the opportunity. Devolution I’m not sure, just another layer of politicians taking money out of public funds which would better be deployed on services. We already have local authorities and mayors etc for that purpose.
On your final two sentences, I think giving more power to local authorities and mayors is what Burnham envisages by his use of devolution for England. Maybe it would put another layer of politicians and administrators into the regions - by taking a layer out of Whitehall. And that would be good for the regions, just as devolution has been good for Scotland and Wales.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
