Do they think we are stupid?

 It's not often that UK parliament gives me something to laugh about but this week did. As Burnham was being signed in as a member of Parliament, one of the conservatives quipped that "He's not the messiah", quoting Monty Python Life of Brian. It was quickly followed by the next line from Life of Brian "He's a naughty boy". In the rush to crown Burnham as the next messiah of the Labour party, Starmer's love of due-process seems to have gone out of the window and there seems to be little scrutiny of Burnham. It wouldn't surprise me if indeed he is a naughty boy... Burnham's wife is Marie-France van Heel. She is a director of Be.EV. Manchester Transport awarded Be.EV a £450k EV charging contract in 2024 and there are other related contracts. Of course Burnham was Mayor of Manchester on this date. Conflict of interest??  Back in 2022 Burnham publicly rebuked any connection with his wife for the  Clean Air Zones (CAZ) contracts which were awarded...

 As we inch forward towards the coronation of the King of the North, there has been lots of confused questions about what he stands for and indeed what the Labour party stands for. So I asked ChatGPT.  It replied that the Labour party stands for 1/ Social justice - reducing inequality and ensuring people have fair opportunities 2/ Equality of opportunity - helping people succeed regardless of background 3/ Solidarity and community – people achieve more through collective action than by acting alone. 4/ Support for working people – focus on workers' rights and living standards. 5/ Democracy – both political democracy and a belief that power should be more widely shared. 6/ Fairness – balancing individual responsibility with social support and public services. I don't disagree with these as aims - they are aspects of a fair society but they are far from unique to Labour. So I asked ChatGPT what the Conservative values were and they were broadly similar themes "giving people ...

 It's beginning to look like Burham will be crowned as Prime Minster with little opposition. We don't know much about him but it's looking like he will be far more left wing than Starmer. It looks like his policies will be  1/ Greater public ownership / control of utilities (especially water and energy) 2/ Large-scale public investment in infrastructure and housing He has backed spending £40 Billion on council housing. Is supportive on rent controls.  He wants to reduce bus fare caps back to £2 from £3. So let's look at these. Taking water into public ownership depends on the approach.   The lower end cost to the tax payer would be £60 Billion but is likely to result in legal battles.  A less confrontational  approach would cost in the region of £150 Billion.   Big sums to pay out for a capital intensive low margin business. It's hard to see what we would gain. At least with private ownership you can fine them for pollution breaches...

 Well Starmer has resigned and he's managed to keep the lies going. Here's the speech: Walking up this street two years ago was the proudest moment of my life. A new Labour government. The first in 14 years. A page in our country's history turned after years of disappointment and despair. Actually I'm pretty sure you've done a good job continuing the  disappointment and despair. The chance to change the lives of millions of people for the better. That's what I came into politics for. The journey to that point was not easy. So you're not actually saying you made people's live's better - simply that there was the change to do so and you decided not to do that. Six years ago, I inherited a Labour Party that was politically, financially and morally bankrupt. I was told, time and time again, that my party was finished. Finally some truth.  It was financially bankrupt until you tapped into the huge pot of money from Labour together.  The party is still mor...

 Labour entered government 2 years ago with the promise of building 1.5 Million net new houses during their 5 year term in office. Simple maths - but too challenging for Labour politicians, that's 300,000 per year. Year 1 = 208,600.  Year = 199,500 Now this is advanced maths - way beyond any Labour politician's capabilities - they now need to build 364,000 per year instead of 300,000 as they have failed to meet target in years 1 and 2. So why are Labour failing at this so badly? I begrudgingly have to admit the problem is not entirely Labour's fault.... For a basic standard of house, construction costs are now around £1,800 per square metre. That's roughly 50% on labour and 50% on materials. An affordable home is around 90 square metres so the construction costs are £162,000.  That assumes zero land costs and zero planning bureaucracy. Let's assume Labour planned to build 1.5 Million affordable homes.  They had the land already and planning costs were waived. So we ...

Hot on the success at the Makerfield by-election, Idiot #2 looks set to replace Idiot #1. Idiot #1 had 4 years waiting to take power. He wanted to be the big cheese but despite having 4 years to plan, he didn't know what the job entailed,  he didn't examine the big picture of what needed fixing -  in fact  he didn't plan at all and when he got the big cheese job pretty much said - I'm a safe pair of hands and the adults are back in the room. He hadn't done any analysis of Britain's systemic problems.  He hadn't come up with any ideas or scenario planning to address the problems. His sole plan was to be the big cheese and not be the opposition.  He therefore coasted along not fixing the foundations and Britain in the meantime Britain has sunk deeper into the mire. So in comes Idiot #2. We don't yet know what his plans are but based on his track record, there is unlikely to be any substance to  his plans.  He seems a nice chap unlike morally sanctimoniou...