I worked in defence procurement (for my shame: it was my first real job) and some projects delivered absolutely nothing whatsoever, after billions of pounds and decades of dithering and supposed development. I could name a few.
Meanwhile, I observed to a local Labour figure that one of the least attainable of Burnham's aspirations was to end factionalism in the Labour Party.
Discussing the factionalism of the right has suddenly become okay again, and you can hear it on the various political podcasts and it even occasionally breaks containment, as here:
A peerage and a cabinet post for the ghastly and deeply unpopular Anas Sarwar...
Wow. I cant see Burnham becoming popular in Scotland.
I suppose it's a way of tempting Sarwar to vacate the post of Scottish Labour leader which he's been clinging to despite most of his own party seemingly wanting him gone, so it does at least give them the chance to get someone who's not an utter disaster and gets him out of Holyrood, but it sticks in the craw to see someone rewarded who ran such a nasty illiberal campaign under a Labour banner.
(He said in May he wouldn't take a seat in the Lords - shows how far you can trust what he says!)
I thought it was always acceptable to talk about the factionalism of the right.
Yes, that must be why we found out about Labour Together in 2019 after they invited a bunch of journalists including Anushka Asthana to their little soiree, and why an in-depth interview with McSweeney was aired shortly afterwards.
More broadly, and beyond the boundaries of the Labour Party, the right is indeed factional. The Brexit Referendum was an attempt by Cameron to 'quench' that to an extent and look what happened.
Many of the more right-wing Tories have defected to Reform which itself is riven with factionalism.
As far as Labour goes, yes the Labour right is also highly fractious. As I mentioned in my post a Labour activist I know acknowledges that his own 'non-factional' position is by it's very nature a factional one.
It's like the term 'non-denominational' in churchy-speak. The term itself denotes a somewhat 'denominational' position even whilst claiming not to do so.
In a 'broad church' as @Barnabas62 observes it's going to be impossible to please everyone. I'm not carrying a particular candle for any of Burnham's Cabinet appointments, whichever end of the Labour spectrum. I have mixed views about some of them, am unsure about others, know next to nothing about some and am prepared to give others the benefit of the doubt.
Taken collectively I wish them well and hope they make a good go of it given the time they've got until the next General Election.
I'm intrigued and encouraged by some of the things Burnham is saying. Time will tell.
But I can't help but get the impression here that unless every single Cabinet member represented a particular flavour of Labour in a monolithic way then it wouldn't be good enough as far as some Shipmates are concerned.
Science and innovation was its own department but no longer. It is now part of the business department.
Patrick Vallance, the Science minister, is out of government. It seems likely other ministers are also likely gone as the department they were appointed to no longer exists.
There is a new minister for AI but it is not clear which department that work will be from unless that changed last night.
The whispers are that this means even further scrutiny on science (and probably every other research) grants with only those showing a clear business case being funded.
I have also heard that the talk yesterday about VAT cuts on domestic fuel announced yesterday will basically evaporate today. According to some commentators the amount of difference it will make will be small and for complicated reasons will not apply to customers who have dual-fuel contracts with the suppliers.
I have not checked this detail but even if it is wrong the difference is only going to be £50 for those with fairly large annual bills. Those with smaller bills will obviously benefit much less.
I this is correct, it feels like the first Burnham misstep.
I'm sorry I was wrong, there have been junior ministers appointed to the new department but none of them appear to be specifically responsible for science.
Wanting rid of notorious persecutors who drive moral panics against harmless vulnerable groups, causing suffering to many innocent folk who cannot defend themselves against both those attackers and the hateful media that feeds them, is entry level decency for any party meant to be progressive.
If that's wanting one 'monolithic' flavour of Labour, then good, I'm all for it and never settling for any party which fails on it. Bring on the monolith and carve on it 'Thou shalt not scapegoat vulnerable groups for votes'
Attacking disabled people, trans people and those who come to live and work here from abroad is a disgrace.
Keeping politicians notorious for doing that in the cabinet and bringing in others of their ilk is a disgrace.
Burnham is a disgrace unless and until he fixes this which I doubt he will.
There shouldn't be ANY cabinet ministers who lead, encourage and model these ugly and cruel persecutions. Parties should withdraw the whip even from backbench MPs who support these things and should vet out aspiring candidates who embrace such abuses of power at the very first sign of it.
Willingness to appoint and include such persons is disqualifying. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing known abusers the power to continue abusing others.
I dont know about others but I make my decisions by listening as much as I can to the people who are most affected by scapegoating/ demonising/ persecutory campaigns and what they say themselves about their experiences.
If people dont or won't listen to those being scapegoated and harmed - to trans people, people facing a rise in hatred and discrimination from xenophobes and racists emboldened by government positions or to disabled people facing potential destitution and increased prejudice and hardship through moves to paint them as fakes and scroungers who can simply be put 'back to work', then that tells me what I need to know about those who dont listen. That they dont care if those others are thrown under the bus and are prepared to look the other way or join in for perceived political advantage.
I've heard quite enough from those affected by the policies Labour have implemented and advocated which stoke discrimination and surf on moral panics to feel entirely happy saying those responsible and their fellow travellers dont belong in government.
I understand that and presume you are Green rather than Labour. Apologies if my assumption is incorrect.
My question is a broader one than an 'individual' one insofar as I'm wondering where any political party which considers itself a 'broad church' should draw its boundary lines and who decides on the criteria?
I fear that the Labour Party is now in practice a bit of a lost cause when it comes to at least some disadvantaged minorities.
For family reasons I’m particularly bothered about trans minorities. My daughter has moved to Ireland, having given up hope of any conceivable UK government in the near future which would reverse the Supreme Court nonsense.
Sadly, it appears that to be electable in the UK these days means some kowtowing to the prejudiced. Restoring a more enlightened view of the human rights of the disadvantaged looks like a long and painful job in the UK. I hope we may be able to maintain respect for the European standards and in particular retain possibilities of appeals to the European Court of Human Rights.
(My daughter advises me that there are quite a lot of emigrants from various countries living like her in or around Cork, which is quite cosmopolitan.)
Sadly, it appears that to be electable in the UK these days means some kowtowing to the prejudiced.
The trans panic is largely a concoction of the media and a few well funded groups, public attitudes have - in general - not shifted noticeably and are if anything slightly more positive than they used to be.
I see it differently Barney - parties that have refused to indulge in the various forms of scapegoating Starmer has supported are snapping up Labour voters - they're losing far more to their left than to the right and crucially, as I think has been mentioned before here, there is good research that the 'far-right lite' strategy doesn't work electorally as it's been tried in various European countries and keeps failing.
The SNP (while I dont think they did enough on defending trans people and voted Green) actually won the Scottish election against Labour and Reform while fully repudiating most of Labour's various hard right scapegoating positions and this was despite the shadow of the then unresolved Murrell case hanging over them - so basically won with one hand tied behind their back by just being that bit better than Labour.
To beat the far right, Labour actually need to stop aping them and to fight their basic underlying premises.
They will continue losing votes if they dont change tack on the appeasement of the Starmer years.
Happy to talk detail on the Epiphanies issues in Epiphanies but I think the broader point that aping the far right doesn't work needs to be made in the light of some of Burnham's terrible choices.
Comments
Discussing the factionalism of the right has suddenly become okay again, and you can hear it on the various political podcasts and it even occasionally breaks containment, as here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002z5yv
(From about 12 minutes in)
When has it not been?
Wow. I cant see Burnham becoming popular in Scotland.
I suppose it's a way of tempting Sarwar to vacate the post of Scottish Labour leader which he's been clinging to despite most of his own party seemingly wanting him gone, so it does at least give them the chance to get someone who's not an utter disaster and gets him out of Holyrood, but it sticks in the craw to see someone rewarded who ran such a nasty illiberal campaign under a Labour banner.
(He said in May he wouldn't take a seat in the Lords - shows how far you can trust what he says!)
But to quote Bob Dylan, one the secrets is this.
Yes, that must be why we found out about Labour Together in 2019 after they invited a bunch of journalists including Anushka Asthana to their little soiree, and why an in-depth interview with McSweeney was aired shortly afterwards.
Many of the more right-wing Tories have defected to Reform which itself is riven with factionalism.
As far as Labour goes, yes the Labour right is also highly fractious. As I mentioned in my post a Labour activist I know acknowledges that his own 'non-factional' position is by it's very nature a factional one.
It's like the term 'non-denominational' in churchy-speak. The term itself denotes a somewhat 'denominational' position even whilst claiming not to do so.
In a 'broad church' as @Barnabas62 observes it's going to be impossible to please everyone. I'm not carrying a particular candle for any of Burnham's Cabinet appointments, whichever end of the Labour spectrum. I have mixed views about some of them, am unsure about others, know next to nothing about some and am prepared to give others the benefit of the doubt.
Taken collectively I wish them well and hope they make a good go of it given the time they've got until the next General Election.
I'm intrigued and encouraged by some of the things Burnham is saying. Time will tell.
But I can't help but get the impression here that unless every single Cabinet member represented a particular flavour of Labour in a monolithic way then it wouldn't be good enough as far as some Shipmates are concerned.
Patrick Vallance, the Science minister, is out of government. It seems likely other ministers are also likely gone as the department they were appointed to no longer exists.
There is a new minister for AI but it is not clear which department that work will be from unless that changed last night.
The whispers are that this means even further scrutiny on science (and probably every other research) grants with only those showing a clear business case being funded.
How this will affect universities is unclear.
I have not checked this detail but even if it is wrong the difference is only going to be £50 for those with fairly large annual bills. Those with smaller bills will obviously benefit much less.
I this is correct, it feels like the first Burnham misstep.
If that's wanting one 'monolithic' flavour of Labour, then good, I'm all for it and never settling for any party which fails on it. Bring on the monolith and carve on it 'Thou shalt not scapegoat vulnerable groups for votes'
Attacking disabled people, trans people and those who come to live and work here from abroad is a disgrace.
Keeping politicians notorious for doing that in the cabinet and bringing in others of their ilk is a disgrace.
Burnham is a disgrace unless and until he fixes this which I doubt he will.
Others I'm less sure about.
'Wheat and tares together sown ...'?
Willingness to appoint and include such persons is disqualifying. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing known abusers the power to continue abusing others.
At what point is the tipping point as it were?
If people dont or won't listen to those being scapegoated and harmed - to trans people, people facing a rise in hatred and discrimination from xenophobes and racists emboldened by government positions or to disabled people facing potential destitution and increased prejudice and hardship through moves to paint them as fakes and scroungers who can simply be put 'back to work', then that tells me what I need to know about those who dont listen. That they dont care if those others are thrown under the bus and are prepared to look the other way or join in for perceived political advantage.
I've heard quite enough from those affected by the policies Labour have implemented and advocated which stoke discrimination and surf on moral panics to feel entirely happy saying those responsible and their fellow travellers dont belong in government.
My question is a broader one than an 'individual' one insofar as I'm wondering where any political party which considers itself a 'broad church' should draw its boundary lines and who decides on the criteria?
I fear that the Labour Party is now in practice a bit of a lost cause when it comes to at least some disadvantaged minorities.
For family reasons I’m particularly bothered about trans minorities. My daughter has moved to Ireland, having given up hope of any conceivable UK government in the near future which would reverse the Supreme Court nonsense.
Sadly, it appears that to be electable in the UK these days means some kowtowing to the prejudiced. Restoring a more enlightened view of the human rights of the disadvantaged looks like a long and painful job in the UK. I hope we may be able to maintain respect for the European standards and in particular retain possibilities of appeals to the European Court of Human Rights.
(My daughter advises me that there are quite a lot of emigrants from various countries living like her in or around Cork, which is quite cosmopolitan.)
The trans panic is largely a concoction of the media and a few well funded groups, public attitudes have - in general - not shifted noticeably and are if anything slightly more positive than they used to be.
Maybe we could continue what is a tangent here in the appropriate Epiphanies thread?
The SNP (while I dont think they did enough on defending trans people and voted Green) actually won the Scottish election against Labour and Reform while fully repudiating most of Labour's various hard right scapegoating positions and this was despite the shadow of the then unresolved Murrell case hanging over them - so basically won with one hand tied behind their back by just being that bit better than Labour.
To beat the far right, Labour actually need to stop aping them and to fight their basic underlying premises.
They will continue losing votes if they dont change tack on the appeasement of the Starmer years.
Happy to talk detail on the Epiphanies issues in Epiphanies but I think the broader point that aping the far right doesn't work needs to be made in the light of some of Burnham's terrible choices.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/23/who-is-miatta-fahnbulleh-the-radical-thinking-new-uk-energy-secretary
Fahnbulleh being both Black and zealous in combatting climate change will presumably soon make her public enemy #1 for headbangers across the country.