The very real constraints that the bond market imposes on the UK government deserve far more attention than they're presently getting. The interest bill has grown by about as much as the entire defence budget, and every announcement Burnham has made recently adds to it whilst failing to address the underlying problem. I see Britain as an elegant old house in need of some loving attention. In renovation terminology, levelling up, devolution and public ownership are all second-fix work, comparable to a new kitchen or a fresh coat of paint. The first fix, the new plumbing, is getting debt servicing under control, and no government has wanted to address that publicly. This is also why the land value tax point matters more than a footnote. It is one of the few serious revenue options that does not fall on the people Britain most needs to keep if it wants to see the economy grow. The arithmetic is friendlier than most assume: a levy of around 0.5% on unimproved land value replaces council tax and stamp duty close to revenue-neutral, near the phase-in level suggested here. And the asset-rich, cash-poor objection that usually kills the idea is solvable with a statutory right to defer against the property. If Burnham gets this, he might gain the space he'll need from the bond markets to implement his more headline-grabbing initiatives.
Good balanced article David. Minor point, Culceth near Warrington is definitely not a suburb of Liverpool and despite his soft scouse accent and support of Everton is nearer Manchester. Important somewhere stuff.
"Burnham would have a much better chance of winning in 2029 if he steals some Somewhere-friendly Conservative/Reform policies - on energy policy, on immigration, on handing power back to elected politicians". This would be the greatest disaster. Kicking the can down the road by throwing the dog a bone.
The conservative victory in 2019 was largely because Boris would “ get Brexit done” ( and there would be sunny uplands thereafter). Where is the evidence for this “ (centre) right” intellectual energy? Douglas Murray? Danny Kruger? Gove? You? Your “ anywhere/ somewhere, stuff is an interesting sociological observation but the attempt to expand this to some kind of analytical tool to “ explain” politics is specious. There are a series of constructs ( eg the “ white working class”) emotionally evocative, analytically err..pretty useless. The phrase “ pound shop weberian ideal type” comes to mind.
Yet again a thoughtful comprehensive and well-argued piece.
If there is a novelty, it is the suggestion that the Somewhere/Anywhere divide is capable of being bridged. Virtually every other serious commentator sees it is a given, not just in our country, but across Western Europe and the English-speaking world.
You mention Blair, and he is probably the last British PM to create a large Somewhere/Anywhere coalition. In 1997, he had all the following things in his favour, which Burnham hasn't:-
- Success after a genuinely popular election campaign
- A clear mandate for the changes which were to follow
- Strong economic growth, meaning most people felt a little bit richer each year (till 2000, at least)
- Popular policies whose downsides were not yet readily apparent
- Support of globalisation - whose downsides (again) were not readily apparent
- A big majority and a compliant parliamentary party
- Supportive mass media (At least until Iraq) which (amongst other sins) conveniently hid uncomfortable truths about e.g. foreign rape gangs
- Absence of social media
- An opposition which was apologetic about its own continued existence ("Nasty Party" comment e.g.).
I wonder if a politician, popular at Blair 1997 levels, creating a "Somewhere/Anywhere" bridge is possible in the West today. If it is, I doubt that Burnham is that politician.
A post I read by Mark Steyn today says that if you live in the West, "violence is in your future". I'm afraid I think he is closer to being correct.
–"I think this is one of the biggest questions in European politics. I have argued for many years that we are currently lacking a new generation of politicians who can SPEAK ACROSS the Somewhere/Anywhere divide".
This "divide" can probably not be resolved, because it is fundamental:
-the 'Anywheres' do not "accept the [ moral ] legitimacy" of the 'Somewheres'. Because the latter are (more or less) 'illegitimates', ie. INDECENT 'Racists' (a.k.a. 'far/extreme-rights').
Mr Goodhart says so:
–"It is noticeable how many people on the centre and centre-left in Britain and France still do NOT ACCEPT the LEGITIMACY of the main populist parties - Reform and RN
[and "the new Restore Britain party (a British version of the Eric Zemour party)"]
- even though I would classify both as 'DECENT populist' meaning not RACIST or Ethno-nationalist [ ie. racists ]."
·
There is not much one, indeed anyone can do about this "divide".
It is so fundamental —it is not about politics, that is only a correlation— that it is about One being Moral or Immoral/"decent" or indecent (ie. racist or non/anti-racist), and One's feelings of belonging, which can not be changed...
(one can not readily change what One likes, because it is beyond One's (self-)control as it happens spontaneously/gradually)
... because One FEELS at home and belonging to a Place because of a few VISUAL factors that gives this particular Place...
(a country, county, municipality, village, town, district, street/neighbourhood, shop)
... its visual characteristics:
-Topography/geographical features (eg. mountainous);
-Nature (plants, animals) or the absence of it (eg. a town);
-Architecture (buildings: houses, churches vs. mosques);
-People (how they dress, eg. a veil, and how they are born)
, which Mr Goodhart acknowledges: -Goodhart, 2026-May-24: –"It is also a failure of empathy and imagination not to recognise that people can FEEL discomfort about ethnic change WITHOUT BEING RACIST".
·
The 'Somewheres' want (ie. beyond their self-control) the above to be familiar/'conserved'/static.
·
The feelings (pretence?, because of social/moral pressure of being "decent"/non-racist) of the 'Anywheres' is such that they do not really mind/care
, which makes them though 'decent' (by pretence?) but 'inhuman'/not normal
, which they can observe when moving to Anywhere.
For example:
1. (Goodhart 2026: "Do Majorities Have Rights?") –"already evident in places like Tower Hamlets /..../ but it was also a recipe for ethnic Balkanisation—see the [ VISUAL characteristic of eg. ] Bradford, Leicester or Luton segregation model";
2. 2023, MyLondon News: –"The BEST THING about living in Shadwell [London] is you are living with PEOPLE LIKE YOU [ie. Bangladeshis]," says a local who has lived and traded in the area for more than 20 years;
3. white MP Sarah Pochin, English, Reform UK, 2025-Oct-25 Twitter: –"It drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people /.../ It doesn't [ visually ] reflect our [ English ] society"
(black MP Dawn Butler, Jamaican, Labour, 2025-Oct-27 House of Commons: –"It is a RACIST COMMENT /... / And can you imagine the constituents of that MP going to see her, knowing that SHE'S A RACIST?");
4. 2022, Nigerian government, Twitter: –"Ban on the use of FOREIGN Models and Voice-Over Artists on the Nigerian Advertising Medium/Media".
·
LASTLY: -If the 'Anywheres' would (morally dare) to think twice, they would be morally decent enough not to morally accuse their adversaries, the 'Somewheres', as Racists (ie. Far/Extreme-rights, Fascists, Neo-Nazis [_*_], Nazis)
, if for no other reason than for their, indeed everybody's (forgotten 'black and white') children's sake.
·
[_*_] 2026 Express (UK): "Reform threatened with legal challenge after candidate [#] brands rival neo-Nazi".
[#] Laila Cunningham (egyptian, muslim), London mayoral candidate.
Egyptians do not like multiculture/Diversity (cultural, ethnic, specifically religious), which the 'Anywheres' will discover when moving to this Anywhere-Place, inhabited by the 'Somewheres'.
Interesting piece. I would say that talk of levelling up tends to forget that the fiscal surpluses in London and the SouthEast are offset by deficit of ‘Greek’ proportions (that is, before Greece was forced to adjust) in much of the rest of the country (Northern Ireland is a limit case and quite possibly a reason for the republic not to want reunification, if a majority of the locals wanted it). And the ungrateful brutes keep complaining (and the Good Hart commiserating them).
The very real constraints that the bond market imposes on the UK government deserve far more attention than they're presently getting. The interest bill has grown by about as much as the entire defence budget, and every announcement Burnham has made recently adds to it whilst failing to address the underlying problem. I see Britain as an elegant old house in need of some loving attention. In renovation terminology, levelling up, devolution and public ownership are all second-fix work, comparable to a new kitchen or a fresh coat of paint. The first fix, the new plumbing, is getting debt servicing under control, and no government has wanted to address that publicly. This is also why the land value tax point matters more than a footnote. It is one of the few serious revenue options that does not fall on the people Britain most needs to keep if it wants to see the economy grow. The arithmetic is friendlier than most assume: a levy of around 0.5% on unimproved land value replaces council tax and stamp duty close to revenue-neutral, near the phase-in level suggested here. And the asset-rich, cash-poor objection that usually kills the idea is solvable with a statutory right to defer against the property. If Burnham gets this, he might gain the space he'll need from the bond markets to implement his more headline-grabbing initiatives.
Good balanced article David. Minor point, Culceth near Warrington is definitely not a suburb of Liverpool and despite his soft scouse accent and support of Everton is nearer Manchester. Important somewhere stuff.
Thanks for correction!
"Burnham would have a much better chance of winning in 2029 if he steals some Somewhere-friendly Conservative/Reform policies - on energy policy, on immigration, on handing power back to elected politicians". This would be the greatest disaster. Kicking the can down the road by throwing the dog a bone.
The conservative victory in 2019 was largely because Boris would “ get Brexit done” ( and there would be sunny uplands thereafter). Where is the evidence for this “ (centre) right” intellectual energy? Douglas Murray? Danny Kruger? Gove? You? Your “ anywhere/ somewhere, stuff is an interesting sociological observation but the attempt to expand this to some kind of analytical tool to “ explain” politics is specious. There are a series of constructs ( eg the “ white working class”) emotionally evocative, analytically err..pretty useless. The phrase “ pound shop weberian ideal type” comes to mind.
❝bolstered by a World Cup victory?!❞. Well that ship has sailed.
Sadly true, maybe the only consolation of that semi final defeat is that Andy B doesn’t get an unmerited boost to the start of his premiership
Yet again a thoughtful comprehensive and well-argued piece.
If there is a novelty, it is the suggestion that the Somewhere/Anywhere divide is capable of being bridged. Virtually every other serious commentator sees it is a given, not just in our country, but across Western Europe and the English-speaking world.
You mention Blair, and he is probably the last British PM to create a large Somewhere/Anywhere coalition. In 1997, he had all the following things in his favour, which Burnham hasn't:-
- Success after a genuinely popular election campaign
- A clear mandate for the changes which were to follow
- Strong economic growth, meaning most people felt a little bit richer each year (till 2000, at least)
- Popular policies whose downsides were not yet readily apparent
- Support of globalisation - whose downsides (again) were not readily apparent
- A big majority and a compliant parliamentary party
- Supportive mass media (At least until Iraq) which (amongst other sins) conveniently hid uncomfortable truths about e.g. foreign rape gangs
- Absence of social media
- An opposition which was apologetic about its own continued existence ("Nasty Party" comment e.g.).
I wonder if a politician, popular at Blair 1997 levels, creating a "Somewhere/Anywhere" bridge is possible in the West today. If it is, I doubt that Burnham is that politician.
A post I read by Mark Steyn today says that if you live in the West, "violence is in your future". I'm afraid I think he is closer to being correct.
The good Mr Goodhart thinks:
–"I think this is one of the biggest questions in European politics. I have argued for many years that we are currently lacking a new generation of politicians who can SPEAK ACROSS the Somewhere/Anywhere divide".
This "divide" can probably not be resolved, because it is fundamental:
-the 'Anywheres' do not "accept the [ moral ] legitimacy" of the 'Somewheres'. Because the latter are (more or less) 'illegitimates', ie. INDECENT 'Racists' (a.k.a. 'far/extreme-rights').
Mr Goodhart says so:
–"It is noticeable how many people on the centre and centre-left in Britain and France still do NOT ACCEPT the LEGITIMACY of the main populist parties - Reform and RN
[and "the new Restore Britain party (a British version of the Eric Zemour party)"]
- even though I would classify both as 'DECENT populist' meaning not RACIST or Ethno-nationalist [ ie. racists ]."
·
There is not much one, indeed anyone can do about this "divide".
It is so fundamental —it is not about politics, that is only a correlation— that it is about One being Moral or Immoral/"decent" or indecent (ie. racist or non/anti-racist), and One's feelings of belonging, which can not be changed...
(one can not readily change what One likes, because it is beyond One's (self-)control as it happens spontaneously/gradually)
... because One FEELS at home and belonging to a Place because of a few VISUAL factors that gives this particular Place...
(a country, county, municipality, village, town, district, street/neighbourhood, shop)
... its visual characteristics:
-Topography/geographical features (eg. mountainous);
-Nature (plants, animals) or the absence of it (eg. a town);
-Architecture (buildings: houses, churches vs. mosques);
-People (how they dress, eg. a veil, and how they are born)
, which Mr Goodhart acknowledges: -Goodhart, 2026-May-24: –"It is also a failure of empathy and imagination not to recognise that people can FEEL discomfort about ethnic change WITHOUT BEING RACIST".
·
The 'Somewheres' want (ie. beyond their self-control) the above to be familiar/'conserved'/static.
·
The feelings (pretence?, because of social/moral pressure of being "decent"/non-racist) of the 'Anywheres' is such that they do not really mind/care
, which makes them though 'decent' (by pretence?) but 'inhuman'/not normal
, which they can observe when moving to Anywhere.
For example:
1. (Goodhart 2026: "Do Majorities Have Rights?") –"already evident in places like Tower Hamlets /..../ but it was also a recipe for ethnic Balkanisation—see the [ VISUAL characteristic of eg. ] Bradford, Leicester or Luton segregation model";
2. 2023, MyLondon News: –"The BEST THING about living in Shadwell [London] is you are living with PEOPLE LIKE YOU [ie. Bangladeshis]," says a local who has lived and traded in the area for more than 20 years;
3. white MP Sarah Pochin, English, Reform UK, 2025-Oct-25 Twitter: –"It drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people /.../ It doesn't [ visually ] reflect our [ English ] society"
(black MP Dawn Butler, Jamaican, Labour, 2025-Oct-27 House of Commons: –"It is a RACIST COMMENT /... / And can you imagine the constituents of that MP going to see her, knowing that SHE'S A RACIST?");
4. 2022, Nigerian government, Twitter: –"Ban on the use of FOREIGN Models and Voice-Over Artists on the Nigerian Advertising Medium/Media".
·
LASTLY: -If the 'Anywheres' would (morally dare) to think twice, they would be morally decent enough not to morally accuse their adversaries, the 'Somewheres', as Racists (ie. Far/Extreme-rights, Fascists, Neo-Nazis [_*_], Nazis)
, if for no other reason than for their, indeed everybody's (forgotten 'black and white') children's sake.
·
[_*_] 2026 Express (UK): "Reform threatened with legal challenge after candidate [#] brands rival neo-Nazi".
[#] Laila Cunningham (egyptian, muslim), London mayoral candidate.
Egyptians do not like multiculture/Diversity (cultural, ethnic, specifically religious), which the 'Anywheres' will discover when moving to this Anywhere-Place, inhabited by the 'Somewheres'.
Interesting piece. I would say that talk of levelling up tends to forget that the fiscal surpluses in London and the SouthEast are offset by deficit of ‘Greek’ proportions (that is, before Greece was forced to adjust) in much of the rest of the country (Northern Ireland is a limit case and quite possibly a reason for the republic not to want reunification, if a majority of the locals wanted it). And the ungrateful brutes keep complaining (and the Good Hart commiserating them).