Steve Bundred

Ex CEO of the Audit Commission, Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government and Camden Council. Ex chair of NHS regulator Monitor.

[Feargal Sharkey @Feargal_Sharkey]

Well, well. Here's a copy of @thameswater's licence to operate as a water company issued by @Ofwat.

It's signed by Cathryn Ross as Chief Executive of Ofwat.

Would that be the Cathryn Ross that is now Director of Strategy and External Affairs at Thames Water?

Of course it would

[Steve Bundred @SBundred]

@afneil @British_Airways Had a nearly similar experience flying back from Dublin on Tuesday. Was told I had been put on standby, though I had a confirmed booking which I was not told had been changed. Eventually they found me a seat, but only after half an hour of argument. Will avoid BA in future.

[Parody Nigel Farage @Parody_PM]

Here I am in happier times with best buds Nathan Gill, now in jail for taking Russian bribes and George Cottrell, who went to prison for fraud then paid for my staff, security and social media and let me stay in his house near Buckingham Palace.

[Wyatt Reed @wyattreed13]

The US receiving a get-out-of-jail-free card for their top scorer confirms everything we suspected from the start.

From the constant harassment of the Iranian team to the endless contrived VAR reversals, it’s the most blatantly corrupt World Cup in decades.

Congrats, I guess 🇺🇸

[Arjun Sethi @arjunsethi81]

FIFA won’t intervene when Iran is forced to relocate to Mexico and banned from training in the U.S., but they’ll break their own rules to reinstate a U.S. player.

[Francis Maxwell @francismmaxwell]

Regardless what you think about the #Balogun red card, a sitting president calling up the head of FIFA days before the decision was reversed in an unprecedented deviation from the rule of law, it’s batshit insane. How can anyone not think it’s corrupt head to toe?

[Steve Bundred @SBundred]

@MichaelLCrick Parents not children decide where children should be sent to school and it is perfectly legitimate for those children, when adult, to wish that a different decision had been made. This story and your delight about it is utterly ludicrous.

[Steve Bundred @SBundred]

Winning the World Cup will soon enjoy the same status as the FIFA Peace Prize.

[Jack D 🏳️‍🌈🏉 @JackDunc1]

Let's be really clear here, Belgium are not fussed about the player himself - they are fussed about the corruption and precedent set. They are willing to take a stand for the integrity of the sport, and that should be respected.

FIFA and the US should not get away with this.

[Mukhtar @I_amMukhtar]

We are witnessing World Cup corruption on an entirely different scale, involving the most corrupt American president in history.

[Steve Bundred @SBundred]

It is time for UEFA to disaffiliate from FIFA and denounce this blatantly corrupt organisation which is ruining the game we gave the world.

[Bosnian Football @BosniaNTBall]

Just end the torunament now. This is disgraceful! #FIFAWorldCup

[Roger Mitchell @RPMComo]

The most telling thing about this is how the Americans don’t see it.

If you ever needed proof that they are inappropriate owners/investors/lenders to football, this is it.

They genuinely don’t see why we are angry. Reflect hard on that folks. We are being shown the mismatch.

[BladeoftheSun @BladeoftheS]

FIFA just effectively cancelled a US player's Red Card because Donald Trump asked them to.

It's time for an end to the corrupt FIFA they are now fixing the games and disgracing the sport.

[Hugh Woozencroft @HughWoozencroft]

Final point on Balogun.

Infantino's position is now verging on untenable over all that has gone on at the World Cup.

No way Mark Bullingham & the English FA can support his re-election, as representatives of the game and it's fans in England.

[Melanie D'Arrigo @DarrigoMelanie]

Trump has been allegedly selling pardons for up to $6 million each.

He's looking to issue 250 new pardons using the 250th anniversary as an excuse to potentially take in $1,500,000,000.

The most corrupt president ever — and it's not even close.

[Andrii Sybiha 🇺🇦 @andrii_sybiha]

Tonight, Russia dropped an aerial bomb on the center of Sumy. At least four civilians were killed, including a child. Thirty-three more people were injured, among them seven children.

Moscow has long stopped pretending to distinguish between military targets and residential neighborhoods. It bombs apartment buildings in the middle of the night because it believes it can do so without facing consequences.

Those who still believe that Russia can be persuaded to stop by words should look at Sumy today.

A regime that bombs children understands only one language — strength. Ukraine needs more of it. Russia must face much more of it.

Every Russian attack sends the same message: Moscow has no intention of stopping its war. Every bomb dropped on a Ukrainian city is another rejection of every peace effort currently on the table.

The world must answer with action, not words. Ukraine urgently needs additional air defense systems and interceptors. Russia must face stronger sanctions, deeper isolation, and growing pressure until terror is no longer a viable instrument of its policy. This is the only way to force Russia to stop this war.

[Steve Bundred @SBundred]

@KayBurley There is no case for the PM to resign and every reason why he should not do so.

[Paul Castle @Goto_paulcastle]

THE QUESTION NOBODY WANTS TO ANSWER
Something curious is happening in Westminster.
Keir Starmer lists achievements that critics said were impossible.
The economy stabilising.
Waiting lists falling.
Migration coming down.
Britain rebuilding relationships abroad.
Yet the conversation is not about whether those achievements matter.
It is about who should inherit them.
That should give us pause.
Because there are two very different arguments.
One says Starmer has failed.
The other says Burnham won a by-election.
Those are not the same thing.
One is a verdict on government.
The other is an opportunity spotted by ambitious people.
And perhaps the greatest irony of all is this:
The louder the talk of a "calm", "dignified" and "consensual" handover becomes, the less it sounds like unity and the more it sounds like power.
Politics is full of people who want the crown.
Britain needs people willing to carry the burden.
Keir Starmer inherited a country that was broken.
He rebuilt the party.
He won the mandate.
Now he is doing the difficult work of rebuilding the nation.
That is not a reason to replace him.
It is a reason to let him finish the job.
#Labour #KeirStarmer #UKPolitics

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Substantial numbers within the Labour Party membership want Keir Starmer to stand if there is a challenge. They want the opportunity to decide for themselves who should lead their party.

That is precisely why the current campaign to pressure Starmer into resigning is causing so much anger among members.

If Andy Burnham's support among Labour members is as overwhelming as some MPs, ministers and commentators claim, there would be no need to force Starmer from office before a contest takes place. The membership would simply deliver its verdict.

The obvious question is this: if Burnham's victory is so certain, why are so many people working so hard to avoid putting that certainty to the test?

Many members have reached their own conclusion.

The moment a leadership election takes place, control passes from Westminster to the membership. Anonymous briefings, media narratives and parliamentary manoeuvring cease to matter. The decision rests with Labour members alone.

That is why the democratic process matters.

A resignation without a contest creates the impression that the Labour Party has united behind Andy Burnham and that the question has already been settled. Yet many members do not recognise that picture at all.

Indeed, some suspect that the reason for avoiding a contest is the fear that it may reveal something very different: that support for Burnham is neither as universal nor as overwhelming as the current campaign would have people believe.

That possibility alone makes a contest essential.

If there is to be a change of leader, it should happen openly, democratically and with the consent of the membership.

Let Keir Starmer stand.

Let Andy Burnham stand.

Let the arguments be tested.

Let approximately 350,000 Labour members decide.

Anything else risks looking less like a democratic transition and more like a coronation.

And if there truly is overwhelming support for Andy Burnham, then his supporters should have absolutely nothing to fear from putting that claim before the membership and allowing it to be tested.

Most importantly, Labour Party members now need to recognise what is at stake. This is no longer a matter of simply disagreeing with what is taking place or expressing frustration on social media. If members believe the current approach is wrong, then they need to make their voices heard through every legitimate avenue available to them within the party.

The rules of the Labour Party give members rights and a voice in choosing their leader. If that process is bypassed through pressure, manoeuvring and a campaign to force a resignation before a proper contest can take place, then members risk surrendering control over one of the most important decisions they are entitled to make.

If members want a contest, they should say so.

If members want Keir Starmer to stand, they should say so.

If members believe the leadership should be decided through due process rather than political pressure, they should say so.

Because once such rights are surrendered, they are often far harder to reclaim.

The membership should not be a spectator in this process. It should be its final arbiter.