āIn the wake of mass strikes, power cuts, job losses and Ted Heathās declaration of a state of emergency, 49 per cent of people agreed that Britainās system of governance needed quite a lot or a great deal of improvement. The BSA team has just asked the question again. Today, that figure stands at 83 per cent, the highest level ever recorded.ā
āAnother question which the BSA survey has posed since the mid-1980s asks whether people trust British governments of any party to place the needs of the nation above the interest of their own political party. It is a way social scientists measure peopleās confidence that the system is fair and honest.
āBack in 1986, only 38 per cent of people thought governments would do that ājust about alwaysā or āmost of the timeā. The British have always been sceptical about the motives of the political classes. The latest BSA data reveals that just 9 per cent of Brits think the same today, the lowest proportion ever recorded. A shocking 45 per cent of voters reckon governments would āalmost neverā put nation before party.ā
I think a lot of the decline is probably the result of Starmer, whose sole obvious political aim was to get Labour into power.
Burnham has a chance to change that disillusionment.
Iād say Starmer only confirmed their expectations of politicians after the Boris Johnson version of the Tory party - Blair wasnāt great, ditto Cameron, but BJās government absolutely gutted any respect the country had for politicians.
Thatās a fair point.
Maybe Iām too disappointed in Starmer, who seemed to me to promise so much. Before he was McSweeneyed.
Iām starting to wonder.
It is clear he wishes his administration to appear to be a completely fresh start but the fact is that he only has the same list of candidates for ministerial office, Rayner might be perfectly within her rights to retain the severance package but it would play better to the gallery if she had publicly renounced it. It seems that not everyone has Burnhamās innate sense of what will be popular.
BUT what is popular is not necessarily good policy. So far there is a good overlap but the headline policies have rather lacked substance. When he gets into trickier, and meatier, territory he might struggle to square the circle of popular opinion vs what actually needs to be done.
The problem is, unless the entire planet adopts the same loophole free tax system that KPMG/PWC canāt finagle, you canāt tax the super rich.
Iām disappointed with Raynerās stance on the severance package, clearly she hasnāt grasped that āopticsā mean a lot in politics and the media wonāt forget this and will now use it against her at every opportunity.
Disappointed but unsurprised, given her tax affairs last year. I know she has many supporters on SF but she has always seemed to me over-promoted, doubtless because of her union connections and appearance as one of the people.
Age 
Iāll probably be having dinner with them in August, of so Iāll ask. If I remember 
Iām tending to agree with you. Iāve always willed her to succeed but Iām beginning to wonder.
Over thirty years ago I was at a business session when the Company I worked for was having an existential crises. Part of turning the ship around was to embrace newer technologies. Client Server was a la mode at the time (not withstanding that for me, a techie, I perceived that the client and server had been flipped in this new dispensation 
)
One of the speakers at an event to encourage execs to see beyond the existing portfolio told a story that has stuck with me ever since (as all good stories should).
He said we were like a bunch of crabs in a fishermanās bucket. Every time one of the crabs struggled up the side of the bucket to reach freedom, the othersā snapping claws dragged it back.
Thatās the UK 
The opposition, the press, the other media, goodness knows what shit there is on X etc. were are all shooting Burnham down even before he was a day in the job. With such terrible negativity what else but failure beckons.
That said, I think this cartoon brilliantly captures my view on the UKās dilemma.
I am not sure if this video will post, but Maggie Oliver explains it well.
Respectfully, Its not difficult, child abuse is against the law. Put simply, the law protect the children, A lot of noise diverts us. Did he or didnāt heā¦ā¦ The laws are already in place, if they are not working, if they are not protecting children, and it is still happening, and no-one has been held accountable for that (ever), we donāt need proof. We have to work with facts. The people who stood up, got threatened with jail, called names, bullied, death threats. Why? The law already exists, we have all the tools needed to stop this decades ago. Andy Burnham is now PM, the most powerful position in England. In his opening speech at 10 downing street, he never mentioned it. He is PM, letās see what he does. That will be all the proof you need.
The sheer scale of the grooming gangs scandal is mind blowing and is a collective failure of the police, social workers, the CPS, various government departments and local councils over two decades.
To try and pin the blame for failing to stop the gangs on a few individuals is frankly ridiculous when there have been at least 10 separate enquiries at various levels spread over a number of years and encompassing different areas of the UK.
The fact that a number of organisations effectively worked together to shield abusers is a stain on the countryās reputation.
Was the speaker American?
I saw that attitude in the āsocialismā of my parentsā generation. A feeling that, if someone had some sort of advantage, it should be taken away from them.
I donāt know if it was actually the result of socialist beliefs, or a British mindset that my mother believed was socialist, because thatās how she justified it.
Arenāt the French similar?
Yes, he was an American.
I know Americans have (or had) a reputation of being comfortable celebrating success - admiring someoneās expensive car, rather than resenting it - but I donāt know if itās true, or still true, never having been to America.
I think the attitude of the rural French is that being successful is fine as long as you donāt become a flash git about it. Contributing to local charities etc is expected if you have the means to do so.
This is exactly what I see here. Many āsuccessfulā or āinfluentialā people take care not to flaunt it and do a lot to support local charities and organisations, usually getting personally involved. Itās just expected.