Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

There should be a review about why there's been so many reviews

The answer is: everyone knows the answer, but it's politically toxic. Gordon Brown and Theresa May both tried to propose very similar solutions in their manifestos and both were brutally attacked for it by the opposition.

Although that reminds me of the Edinburgh trams which were supposed to cost about £500 million and take a couple of years to build. When it was finished, they'd had to scale back the project and it still took the best part of a decade but ended up costing over £1 billion. Inevitably there was a statutory public inquiry which in turn took almost a decade to report at the end cost of around £800 million. An inquiry into the inquiry has been announced

[mongers]

The lectern has seen it's last outing, it has been retired by the new PM; we will not see it's like again.   

[mongers]

Who were the ministers standing behind Starmer and whose careers are now presumably toast?

Lammay, Reeves and some other non-descript labour bloke.

[Sheilbh]

John Healey as Chancellor seems like a smart pick and possibly exactly what they need - a Secretary of Defence who resigned last month over a fight with the Treasury. Feels like someone well equipped to take on Treasury brain.

He reportedly offered Rachel Reeves Defence as well, but she declined

Edit: Are punishment appointing a sensible way to run a government? Who can say. Do they offer at least a little comeuppance? Yes

[PJL]

John Healey as Chancellor seems like a smart pick and possibly exactly what they need - a Secretary of Defence who resigned last month over a fight with the Treasury. Feels like someone well equipped to take on Treasury brain.

He reportedly offered Rachel Reeves Defence as well, but she declined

This now means we've had more Healeys than women as Chancellor. 

[HVC]

There should be a review about why there's been so many reviews

The answer is: everyone knows the answer, but it's politically toxic. Gordon Brown and Theresa May both tried to propose very similar solutions in their manifestos and both were brutally attacked for it by the opposition.

Although that reminds me of the Edinburgh trams which were supposed to cost about £500 million and take a couple of years to build. When it was finished, they'd had to scale back the project and it still took the best part of a decade but ended up costing over £1 billion. Inevitably there was a statutory public inquiry which in turn took almost a decade to report at the end cost of around £800 million. An inquiry into the inquiry has been announced

I think it was Tamas who said it was the uks preferred choice for political corruption

[Sheilbh]

On that I would just add there is a fair bit of internal angst within Labour at yet again reaching the conclusion that a man is the best (and in this case only) possible leader. While literally every other major party not established in the last five years has had at least one woman leader and the Tories are on their fourth - and the party that most cares about it keeps having this issue.

(I think Labour needs to take a look at itself rather than additional measures that they already have lots of formal process so I'm not sure that's not the issue.)

[HVC]

Maybe their lady members just suck

[garbon]

Maybe their lady members just suck

That isn't why.

[Sheilbh]

Also with Hilary standing down as Northern Ireland Secretary, Burnham will be the first Labour Prime Minister to not have a member of the Benn family in his cabinet

Hilary unlikely to make a comeback given he's in his 70s now (in American terms launching an exploratory committee in Iowa to harness his vigour and vim) - and he has a niece who is a Labour councillor who has tried to become an MP again. So Burnham likely to remain Benn-less.

[garbon]

So Mahmood stays in the demon role.

[Sheilbh]

Also I thought Reeves and Reid would go as so associated with Starmer (I found Reeves not attending his resignation speech and instead going to get a selfie with Burnham rather unseemly) and also useless. But surprised at the full purge of the Starmtroopers.

Far too soon but I feel like a lot of this points to an early election.

[Josquius]

Possible depending on what happens in Clacton and the fallout of that.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think that matters to be honest. We had further revelations on Farage's finances in the Sunday Times at the weekend - and it's their investigations team which is on it. So I'd expect more - the parliamentary standards investigation is continuing and the reason the main parties aren't contesting Clacton is because they fully expect a suspension, automatic recall petition and another by-election. I think we're very much at the constant drip drip drip stage with Farage - the actual facts of the scandals are now just mere details for anoraks like us in this thread - the broad strokes are set (and vivid).

Catching up on an old podcast and Patrick Maguire of the Times was talking about the choice of Burnham's Chancellor and made a really interesting observation. He said that under Starmer his aides would explain something like that as: "this is what we're trying to get him to do". The worst person to ask would be Starmer because he wouldn't know and would basically be waiting for someone to tell him. While with all the debate and competing cases around this - the only person who knew for a Burnham cabinet was Burnham. Lots of briefings lots of factions and aides making their case but he had a very clear idea and ended up choosing someone no one had been briefing and who had not appeared in the media reporting about this. If nothing else we have an actual politician in charge again.

Edit: And I get the cases for both Mahmood and Miliband at the Treasury - but I can't help but feel if you want to bring the Treasury to heel, there's no better choice than Healey who recently resigned explicitly saying the Treasury was leaving the country unsafe having been sat on the other side of those negotiations: "our adversaries do not operate to Treasury timetables". Especially with Burnham's plan for Number 10 North to have a bolstered PM's office (headed by Lou Haigh) covering reindustrialisation, regeneration and reform of utilities (to bring under public control). Basically the first concerted effort since Wilson to humble the Treasury.

[Jacob]

Two (potentially contradictory) questions re: Healey:

1. Since he was a senior minister in Starmer's cabinet (I assume Defence is senior), I assume he was somewhat aligned with Starmer at one point. Is there an element of bringing more disparate Labour factions together with the appointment?

2. Since Healey was fairly central in getting the ball rolling on Starmer's resignation, perhaps there's a degree of mutual alignment between Burnham and Healey?

Bonus third question for Sheilbh: you called Healey's former role "Secretary of Defence". Is that the official title? Not "Minister of Defence"?