Dave – davelevy.info

Burnham’s speech on Manchesterism

Andy Burnham, the likely next leader of the Labour Party made a speech on Monday 29th June, from the People’s History Museum in Salford. I have linked to the Sky News video of the speech. I have captured the transcript and posted it on my wiki. See below, overleaf for my comments.

Is that it? Moving part of No 10 to Manchester. What is he moving and how will that change things? We should note that this has already been tried once, when Sunak, then PM, moved part of the Treasury to Darlington. Devolution needs more than relocating civil servants from London. The proposal is an oblique criticism of Starmer’s failure to act on the Brown Commission report which proposed both a limited devolution in England and a legal entrenchment of local government rights. In my article, “New Britain, New Britcon”, (or on Medium), I argued that such plans would fail unless funded and funded in such a way that the axiom that poor areas need more services, and generate lower tax revenues is addressed. Devolution for a progressive government needs both money and a means of equitable sharing.

Many will ask “why Manchester?” It is the second economic centre in Britain but is it the best place to locate a flagship to devolution. Having said that, he namechecks other parts of the UK, including even London but it just leaves me asking the question, “Does location of the Civil Service really make a difference?”, surely it needs to be about money and power.

In “New Britain, New BritCon”, I also looked at civil service numbers and concluded that there was a very limited room for further dispersal. This reinforces the fact that location of civil servants is not enough since it’s the cultural & policy status quo that needs challenging.

One of the problems in today’s economy is that even if it grows, those who reap the benefit are not the bottom 70%. Profits and return on capital mean the current economy as an extraction economy where the majority are struggling to afford to live while an ultra-plutocratic minority often living in the USA are getting richer.

In order to resolve this, he doesn’t propose nationalisation, or the appropriation of private debt within public services; he proposes a form of regionalisation. I am not a fan of Morrisonian corporations and maybe a politically accountable commissioning model might work better but it doesn’t address the extraction economy nor the excessive financialisaton of the economy.

He does speak about the Treasury, and I think underestimates the cultural inertia of forty years, or longer, of economic orthodoxy and promises to keep to Reeves’s rules. The Treasury is a problem, it’s tied to neo-liberalism and seems unable to unwind the interests of 21^st century capitalism with that of the people it and the government are meant to serve. So even having strong political direction, unless the financial rules are changed the problems will remain and his proposed choice of advisers doesn’t auger well.

In an article on the Guardian, they say,

Burnham is understood to be getting advice from Andy Haldane, a former Bank of England chief economist, as well as Richard Hughes, a former chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility and Jim O’Neill, a crossbench peer and former Treasury minister who worked on George Osborne’s “Northern Powerhouse”.

Haldane is an interest rate hawk, Hughes is unlikely to support more flexible attitude to borrowing. These choices emphasise to me the fact that the financial rules need to change and that Burnham does not understand that need.

On Education, there’s not enough focus on Universities, neither their parlous financial state nor their crucial role in economic growth. Apprenticeships are important, but so is further and higher education. Private consumer debt funded university finance has failed. We need another model and need to remove the de-facto 16+.

On housing the targets are ambitious and there seems little insight into the construction supply chains, possibly most importantly skilled workers most of whom come from eastern or central Europe. If the UK plans to build, it needs to welcome those who can make it happen. AI can’t build houses. It is not possible to grow the economy and continue with Mahmood & Starmer’s immigration policies.

There’s no mention of foreign policy i.e. Gaza, and decoupling from the USA nor trade i.e. the EU, nor on Energy where price controls and enhanced profit taxes are needed and would be popular.

It’s all a bit disappointing.

Image Credit: Flickr EU Committee of Regions BY-NC-SA. This site is non-commercial. …

Changing up

A nasty little piece by Mujtaba Rahman which contains the unstated assumption that the UK’s political direction and relations with the EU, are fixed and desirable. The other side of the coin is that the EU is about to change up; missing the boat would leave the UK isolated and poorer. The UK shouldn’t apply to rejoin until its ready to be a good citizen and sees the EU as more than a trade club.

Rahman says,

The EU of 2026 is an organisation built increasingly on common borrowing, an assertive joint industrial policy and a growing role in security and defence

I ask who wouldn’t want that. The changing nature of the world’s international relations means we need reliable friends.

Let’s see what changes Burnham makes to the Labour Party, or what space he gives to its eu-phile majority. …

Happy Birthday USA

Congratulations USA, on your 250^th birthday except, the constitution of the republic was ratified 4^th March 1789 making it the 237^th birthday; it entrenched slavery and excluded native Americans and women, blacks couldn’t vote until 1870 and women until 1920, although this was before the UK permitted women to vote.

They adopted what they saw as the results of the English Civil War albeit with an explicit separation of powers, and guaranteed local democratic powers invested in the constituent states and the people by the 10^th Amendment.

The growth of political parties, and the designed unaccountability of the Senate and Supreme Court can be seen today as critical weaknesses which one hopes are not copied by Europe’s constitutional reformers and that democrats in the US are able to fix. …

The Cruel Sea

I went to watch the cruel sea on HMS Belfast on 13th June; the show consisted of the film followed by two selections from the Imperial War museums film archive. There was a question and answer session, chaired by James Taylor and Charlotte Ross of the IWM. During the Q&A, I made a contribution, and have transcribed my notes as a comment on the original article. …

There’s no useful half way house

Earlier this month, Michel Barnier made a speech in which he suggested that the European Union would welcome the United Kingdom rejoining the EU even with some of the opt-outs previously negotiated. Barnier is very clear that he is only talking about Schengen and the Euro. The huge problem with the speech and the suggestion that opt-outs remain on the table is this will be interpreted by lukewarm supporters and political weathercocks as permission to haggle on the terms of re-entry.

Michel Barnier – European Parliament cc 2019 BY

The unacceptability of UK opt-outs within the EU, specifically, staying out of Schengen and the Euro, is illustrated in a recent You Gov poll. Unfortunately, for rejoiners, the French and Germans will only accept a UK application if it includes Schengen and the Euro, while support in the UK falls if we do not rejoin on the terms we had. It would be interesting to note what people believe those terms to be, as apart from Schengen and the Euro, they include a partial opt-out from the justice pillar, together with the famous rebate.

I am concerned that while a number of campaigners have been trying to prove their cleverness by suggesting there’s ways to rejoin without agreeing to the Copenhagen Criteria, others have been encouraged to consider EU membership as an a-la-carte process. It is not.

On the question of opt-outs, we, i.e. rejoiners need to show some leadership. Schengen comes with the right to freedom of movement. This is a popular and positive benefit of full membership of the European Union. Politicians, particularly Labour politicians should be showing some leadership. The opt-outs are gone; there may be some technical reasons why Schengen and the Euro will take some time but being a net contributor is one reason why we’re wanted and full membership of the justice pillar gives each citizen access to the Court of Justice of the European Union acting as a backstop against the authoritarian instincts of the British State with judges appointed by the children of opponents of fascism and Stalinism. Being members of the Digital Single Market would have the benefit of defending our democracy against US Oligarchs and Putin.

I want my European citizenship back, I want to vote for MEPs and a Parliament that appoints a Commissioner and Judge, and has a seat on the European Council. And since this is a metaphor in common use, I want it in my lifetime. I also want to participate in improving the democracy of the EU to make it accountable to the views of citizens and residents.

Another reason for pace, is that the EU is about to move on in a big way. Many argue that its changed too much to rejoin anyway; it’s not yet true and just something that Brexiters say but if the industrial policy takes off, it will damage the UK’s ability to export and further damage supply chains. …

After Makerfield, what next?

Is winning in Makerfield a new dawn for Labour, or just that this time, voters chose Labour as the “Not Farage” candidate. Since they won in Runcorn & Helsby, Reform have failed in Caerphilly, Gorton and Denton, and now Makerfield, losing to Plaid Cymru, the Greens and now to Labour. It was a great victory for Burnham and Labour, but the question has to be asked together with has Labour learnt the lesson that to fight Reform, you need to fight it. (I think not!)

Source: No10@flickr 10th June 2026 CC 2026 BY-ND-NC

Having returned to the House of Commons, Burnham has forced Keir Starmer to resign and a time table for a Party leadership election has been declared.

Much has been written about why he had to go; I have been calling for it since February when the likely defeats in Scotland and Wales became obvious. On the day, Labour also lost three more London Councils.

Starmer’s resignation speech starts in the same way as his election campaign to be leader of the Labour Party, with lies. When Starmer inherited the Labour Party, it was in the strongest financial position it had been for decades and anyone who has closely read the Forde report and the EHRC report knows there is still work to do to eliminate racism from the Labour Party. The focus on macroeconomic statistics repeats the mistakes that Biden made. While I do not subscribe to the meme that “perception is reality”, perhaps it is truer in politics than in engineering. Claiming the credit for growth doesn’t work if income equality remains at the current miserable level and if the growth in the economy goes into the pockets of a few. If people don’t feel better off, then it’s pointless claiming they should. It’s also difficult to understand, how Starmer can claim credit for the abolition of the two child benefit cap when he initially suspended seven MPs for voting for that abolition.

Much has been written about Starmer’s weaknesses as a politician and Prime Minister. For a lot more words you can check out Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian, who focuses on personality and the politics of Downing St., and fails to mention Gaza and the Middle East, and alternatively, Phil Burton Cartledge, who does mention them, together with the dishonesty of his mandate within the Party. Phil also repeats his accusation that Starmer and McSweeney deliberately sought to break up Corbyn’s electoral coalition.

Although some would seek to claim he’s been good on the world stage; this does need to be contrasted with his speeches and actions on Gaza, which is one of the primary causes for Labour’s loss of political support. Labour started the general election campaign with a poll score of 44%, finished with a vote of 34% which has since collapsed to a score in the high teens.

Source: politico.eu – British polls 24 June 2026

It is expected that Burnham will be crowned as Labour’s new leader. If so he will be beholden to the fixers and not the membership and his retreats from his beliefs in order to win Makerfield are worrying because Labour and the country need a change of direction not a change of personnel.

The new leader also needs to turn Labour’s democracy back on. It is clear from the ending of Blair’s New Labour government that this Government and Labour leadership have run out intellectual steam; the Party needs debate and new ideas to sustain its relevance and energy. We can also see by observing the last two years of the PLP what happens when MPs fear their whip more than their members and voters.

Clive Lewis, in an article entitled, ‘After Burnham’s Win in Makerfield, the Answer Cannot be Managerial Politics with a Different Accent’, speaks for me, when he says,

“Climate breakdown, war, energy insecurity, financial shocks, technological upheaval, and democratic decay are here. They will not wait for Labour to finish its management seminar.”

…

On “Stop killing video” games

The ECI “Stop killing video games” was accepted as having reached its one million signature threshold earlier this year. The initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by their publishers. They also say, this prohibition can be met by providing means for the game to continue functioning independent of publisher. This article looks at the Commission response, the campaign’s next steps and questions the Commission’s strategy in responding to ECIs. …

On Labour’s rules on the election of a Leader

A short note on how Labour’s Leadership election rules work.

Rule Ch1.Vii establishes the roles, and delegates the election process to Ch4.II.

This from C1.VII, is quite amusing given the history of the last few years, underling is mine.

The Leader shall, as a member of the NEC, uphold and enforce the constitution, rules and standing orders of the Party and ensure the maintenance and development of an effective political Labour Party in parliament and in the country.

Chapter 4.II defines the nomination and election process. The first clause is the now sadly common rule that claims to establish a principle but actually allows the NEC to vary the process and either bend or break the rules. Any such variation would need to be conformant with Wedensbury reasonableness rules, but this is unlikely to be ever tested in a court.

The rules specify process to be followed in the case of a vacancy, or where no vacancy exists.

To be a valid nominee, a candidate requires nomination from the PLP, CLPs and affiliates. In the case of a vacancy, the rules are silent as to the order these are to be sought.

In the case of a challenge, someone would have needed to have collected the 20% of the PLP supporters, and then others would need to be given the opportunity to do so too. The timing of the making of supporting nominations by CLPs and affiliates is also silent.

The rules state that nominations shall be made by all three classes of nominators.

The election consists of a one member one vote and is designed to include union political levy payers, who are not members of a political party. This I thought interesting,

4.II.C.vii The precise eligibility criteria shall be defined by the NEC and set out in procedural guidelines and in each annual report to conference.

as yet again neither members nor candidates know the rules until after the election has been called and nominations made. See also the Rule Book 2026 and/or My Repo, which holds mirrors …

Could the UK pass the Copenhagen criteria?

As Labour turns a corner and begins to address if it should seek to lead the country into a closer relationship with the European Union, I found a thread on bluesky which questions if the UK is sufficiently democratic, and ready to adopt the complete acquis. I thought I’d reply, and this is what I say!

On Democracy

Is the UK sufficiently democratic to join the EU. The two key organisations that measure ‘democraciness’ both argue that the UK is a democracy. Its score in the EIU Index in 2024, is 8.34/10.00, its 11^th out of 20 in Western Europe, and above France, Italy, Spain and three other countries. France and Italy it considers “Flawed democracies”.

I have some difficulty with the EIU methodology, as while its open and accessible, I find it hard to replicate and comng from the Economist scores defences of liberal economics highly vs the pursuit of social rights. I looked at this in 2018, where I categorised the Economist’s weaknesses in the UK’s democracy. Amnesty International says that the UK’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers is inadequate and that it fails to comply with its international obligations, including to ensure the rights to food, housing and adequate social security.

One issue raised in the thread is that the UK does not honour its devolution agreements. This will not impact the Copenhagen criteria; the EU treaties are an agreement between member states, and subsidiarity is an agreement between the EU and the member states. Subsidiarity ensures that “decisions should be made at the closest possible level to the citizen”. It would benefit all the citizens of the EU, and the UK, if the treaties required member states to have internal subsidiarity contracts with their people and that the Committee of Regions was accountable to the citizens of the regions and not appointed by member state governments.

On the Acquis

All the opt-outs are gone. The Brexiteers gave them away.

If the UK were to seek to rejoin the EU, it would need to agree to the EU’s freedom of movement laws. In fact all the opt-outs have gone and so while politically difficult for UK campaigners, freedom of movement is a benefit for which campaigners should argue and it is becoming more popular amongst young people.

The UK will also need to recognise that its Justice Pillar opt-outs have also gone, as everyone decent should want as they were designed, by a Labour Government, to allow the UK to have more illiberal immigration and trade union laws.

On the Euro, the UK should come to an agreement to adopt the Euro, i.e. supporters of rejoining need to be more explicit that both freedom of movement and the Euro are benefits and we should want them.

With respect to the Euro, I am still concerned about the Stability and Growth Pact as I don’t think macro-economic planning should be frozen in a treaty. I also think the quantitive money theory baked into the treaties are wrong and cause misery and poverty,. …

AI’s black hole

People are interested in what they’re interested in and it seems that I can’t put copyright down. I was at in conference on artificial intelligence over the weekend, organised by global justice now (GJN).

The question I want to ask though is, that if AI, is meant to be so clever, how does it acquire all the science, social science and humanities white papers currently held behind copyright enforced paywalls or on DNS blocked repos.

It seems they don’t, unless they have “Partnership agreements” with the copyright holders for which they pay.

I’m concerned about this hole in human knowledge that is unavailable to the LLMs. Are we really betting all this money on only part of what we know?

The general intellect it is not! …

« Previous