HI All,
According to BF labour are going to win the Makerfield By-election.Presently they are 1.31 with Reform 2nd fav at 4.4 and Restore Britain (back to Victoriana) is 3rd fav at 38.Greens Tories and Libs are out of it.
Burnham is also absolute fav to be next PM,at 1.48 with with the nearest contender being Miliband at 21.
It all seems to be going too smoothly for my liking but with only 4 days left and the establishment not really found anything Juicy about King Burnham it seems that it is a done deal .
The establishment want Farage in (in their wet dreams Restore Britain) but labour with Burnham at the helm could even crack the next election.If he does become PM and carries out his promise not to be a lapdog to the City and the lobbies who control the present government then we will witness one of the most volatile trading markets in political history ,as the establishment(and probably most of his own party) try to get rid of him.Should be interesting.
Regards
Tico
Makerfield By-Election
With Restore splitting the vote right of centre, it's almost certainly going to go to Labour.
The problem that Burnham is having is that he's making the same mistake as other politicians. He's promising things he can't possibly deliver with money he doesn't have to get votes he doesn't deserve.
I think it's going to get very messy.
The problem that Burnham is having is that he's making the same mistake as other politicians. He's promising things he can't possibly deliver with money he doesn't have to get votes he doesn't deserve.
I think it's going to get very messy.
Unfortunately Labour will probably get in Makersfield but cant see Starmer wanting to budge from PM
No labour for me ,voted Labour all my life as did working men in my dads era .. Not anymore
Voting Reform i do think Restore will swallow some of Reforms votes but voters need to decide on the day
if Restore havent enough votes they need to stick with reform if they dont want Labour in ..
No labour for me ,voted Labour all my life as did working men in my dads era .. Not anymore
Voting Reform i do think Restore will swallow some of Reforms votes but voters need to decide on the day
if Restore havent enough votes they need to stick with reform if they dont want Labour in ..
Recent Political Controversy (2026)In early June 2026, the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (GMFRS) leadership—under Burnham's governance as Fire Commissioner—emailed staff to caution firefighters who support or represent Reform UK. The leaked email caused significant controversy, with the Free Speech Union writing to Burnham demanding an explanation and warning that the directive created a "chilling effect" on the democratic and free speech rights of firefighters
Politically nothing to choose between Reform and and Restore ,but it's good that they will contradict each other and lose Farage votes and hopefully the election.Unfortunately Labour will probably get in Makersfield but cant see Starmer wanting to budge from PM
No labour for me ,voted Labour all my life as did working men in my dads era .. Not anymore
Voting Reform i do think Restore will swallow some of Reforms votes but voters need to decide on the day
if Restore havent enough votes they need to stick with reform if they dont want Labour in ..
Top
So you have voted labour all of your life,why the jump from a centre right wing party (labour)to a far right wing party(reform).
Tico
I disagree ,he can deliver plenty if he has the inclination,and nationalisation of all the utility companies should be top of the list.The money is there to give billions to Ukraine(over 20 billion to date)With Restore splitting the vote right of centre, it's almost certainly going to go to Labour.
The problem that Burnham is having is that he's making the same mistake as other politicians. He's promising things he can't possibly deliver with money he doesn't have to get votes he doesn't deserve.
I think it's going to get very messy.
Also the degree to which the supe-rich are just filching the country to the tune of 35 million per day into offshore accounts,this seriously needs looking at.The government should also stop other countries shaping our domestic politics and telling us how to run our country.
But has he the inclination? ...as he F'@ck.!!! The minute the weasel cracks the PMship ,he will join the rest of the Arseh0les (Farage Badenoch Starmer)sucking up to the super rich and grovelling to the City and sticking two fingers up to the real wealth creators....us ordinary folk.
Regards
Tico
-
jamesedwards
- Posts: 5877
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm
tico wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 11:31 amI disagree ,he can deliver plenty if he has the inclination,and nationalisation of all the utility companies should be top of the list.The money is there to give billions to Ukraine(over 20 billion to date)With Restore splitting the vote right of centre, it's almost certainly going to go to Labour.
The problem that Burnham is having is that he's making the same mistake as other politicians. He's promising things he can't possibly deliver with money he doesn't have to get votes he doesn't deserve.
I think it's going to get very messy.
Also the degree to which the supe-rich are just filching the country to the tune of 35 million per day into offshore accounts,this seriously needs looking at.The government should also stop other countries shaping our domestic politics and telling us how to run our country.
But has he the inclination? ...as he F'@ck.!!! The minute the weasel cracks the PMship ,he will join the rest of the Arseh0les (Farage Badenoch Starmer)sucking up to the super rich and grovelling to the City and sticking two fingers up to the real wealth creators....us ordinary folk.
Regards
Tico
It's weird to hear so much noise harking back to the 'glory days' of nationalised industries. Yet back in the 70s and 80s nationalised industry inefficiency was a running joke and people longed for them all to be privatised.
As someone with experience of both public and private sector, I can tell you that private sector ownership returns a much greater value to society than public. Perhaps things will be different now, but I very much doubt it.
Their is little evidence to prove that privatisation of public utilities has been anything more than a disaster. Thatcherism was just organised gangsterism,where the private sector was gifted trillions of pounds worth of public owned assets for next to nothing As one notable politician said of the the whole privatisation process " we are selling our Rolls Royce's for the price of pushbikes"It's weird to hear so much noise harking back to the 'glory days' of nationalised industries. Yet back in the 70s and 80s nationalised industry inefficiency was a running joke and people longed for them all to be privatised.
As someone with experience of both public and private sector, I can tell you that private sector ownership returns a much greater value to society than public. Perhaps things will be different now, but I very much doubt it.
Top
As for nationalised industries being a running joke back in the 70 and 80s ,that was miles away from the truth ,I should know I lived through it all and only tories wanted to hand over our assets to the sharks.
Regards
Tico
-
jamesedwards
- Posts: 5877
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm
tico wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 2:22 pmTheir is little evidence to prove that privatisation of public utilities has been anything more than a disaster. Thatcherism was just organised gangsterism,where the private sector was gifted trillions of pounds worth of public owned assets for next to nothing As one notable politician said of the the whole privatisation process " we are selling our Rolls Royce's for the price of pushbikes"It's weird to hear so much noise harking back to the 'glory days' of nationalised industries. Yet back in the 70s and 80s nationalised industry inefficiency was a running joke and people longed for them all to be privatised.
As someone with experience of both public and private sector, I can tell you that private sector ownership returns a much greater value to society than public. Perhaps things will be different now, but I very much doubt it.
Top
As for nationalised industries being a running joke back in the 70 and 80s ,that was miles away from the truth ,I should know I lived through it all and only tories wanted to hand over our assets to the sharks.
Regards
Tico
Perhaps Burnham will bring it all back and then in 20 years we will know.
How are the nationalised railways getting on?
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/ ... _actually/
It's more about inefficency, if you put stuff into public ownership it eventually dies. Suffocated by policital agendas and fildding. The reason these industries ended up in private ownership was a way to get them, their debts and dragging inefficiencies off the government balance sheet.tico wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 2:22 pmTheir is little evidence to prove that privatisation of public utilities has been anything more than a disaster. Thatcherism was just organised gangsterism,where the private sector was gifted trillions of pounds worth of public owned assets for next to nothing As one notable politician said of the the whole privatisation process " we are selling our Rolls Royce's for the price of pushbikes"It's weird to hear so much noise harking back to the 'glory days' of nationalised industries. Yet back in the 70s and 80s nationalised industry inefficiency was a running joke and people longed for them all to be privatised.
As someone with experience of both public and private sector, I can tell you that private sector ownership returns a much greater value to society than public. Perhaps things will be different now, but I very much doubt it.
Top
As for nationalised industries being a running joke back in the 70 and 80s ,that was miles away from the truth ,I should know I lived through it all and only tories wanted to hand over our assets to the sharks.
Regards
Tico
I can give you an example from my childhood, getting a phone. The general post office ran the nationalised telephone service.
People often forget just how difficult it was to get a telephone in the UK during the 1970s.
You could wait months, sometimes years, for a line to be installed. The installation charge was significant, equivalent to a few hundred pounds today, and you didn't even own the phone as it was rented from the Post Office along with an ongoing rental fee.
Long distance calls were so expensive enough that people thought twice before making them, and some households even shared a line with their neighbours. If somebody else was using it, you simply had to wait.
Compare that with now. You can buy a mobile phone in minutes, connect instantly to a global communications network and speak to almost anybody in the world at virtually no cost.
It's a good reminder that while people often look back fondly on the past, technology, competition and investment have transformed some industries beyond recognition. What was once expensive, scarce and heavily rationed has become something most of us take completely for granted.
Privatisting BT, allowed the government to award mobile phone licenses to Racal and BT Cellnet. Racal eventually became Vodafone and, of course, BT and others flourished.
If BT was kept inside the General Post Office mobile phones may never had happened and the internet may not have flourished as well.
My take on these things is that people think the government running things is a good idea until other countries show that it isn't as they race away with innovations and advancements, free from the shackles of political decision making.
That's my big concern at the moment: that the government is suddenly telling us how much we can bet, what we can eat, whether our children can use smartphones, what cars we can drive, all of those sort of things. It's the wrong path.
You can incentivise people to do things, sure, but if you start telling them what to do and putting it under some level of bureaucracy or a small number of people at the top of government, you're in big trouble.
If BT was kept inside the General Post Office mobile phones may never had happened and the internet may not have flourished as well.
My take on these things is that people think the government running things is a good idea until other countries show that it isn't as they race away with innovations and advancements, free from the shackles of political decision making.
That's my big concern at the moment: that the government is suddenly telling us how much we can bet, what we can eat, whether our children can use smartphones, what cars we can drive, all of those sort of things. It's the wrong path.
You can incentivise people to do things, sure, but if you start telling them what to do and putting it under some level of bureaucracy or a small number of people at the top of government, you're in big trouble.