Hancock’s Half Page


The Wigan MP Lisa Nandy may not win the Labour leadership, but she will be a big player in the decade long attempt to make the party a credible candidate for government.

Based on what I saw at the Manchester hustings this week, if the contest was just based on the quality of the candidates and their policies, Nandy would win. However, we can’t ignore the strategic battle that is going on.

It mirrors exactly the Democrats dilemma in America. Do you want ideological purity, or do you want to win? Tories and Republicans find this an easy question to answer. Their desire to govern is much more important than individual policies. Labour has always had a lively debate between pragmatists and activists. It has sharpened in recent years as Tony Blair, who delivered three election victories, is denounced as a traitor whilst Jeremy Corbyn is given ten out of then for two defeats. The Labour Party is 120 years old this year and has been in power for a pitiful 33 years.

Despite this the ideological battel rages on and is likely to damage Nandy’s chance of the top prize. Purists see Salford’s Rebecca Long-Bailey as the woman to cherish the Corbyn legacy. The argument is that the radical policies that were so popular in the 2017 election were only thwarted by Brexit in 2019. The fundamental flaw in this argument is that, although Mrs May was thwarted in her attempt to increase the Tories majority, she still won and 2019 wasn’t just about Brexit. It was also about Corbyn and an incredible list of manifesto promises.

If Long-Bailey wins, Labour members will have decided to be an irrelevant pressure group that can never win power, so who out of Starmer and Nandy is best to stop her? The indications are that most support is going to Starmer as people fear splitting the anti Long-Bailey vote if they plump for Nandy.

Things may change especially if the Wigan MP continues to perform as she did in Manchester. Nandy is prepared to tell the party some home truths whereas Starmer is often equivocal. I wonder whether he will be strong enough to expel the anti-Semites and Trots.

An example of Nandy’s clarity came when the candidates were asked about the idea that every Labour MP should face an open selection before every General Election. Long-Bailey favours it whereas Nandy said no. She added that if Jo Platt had not been distracted by a reselection battle, she might have saved the Leigh seat from going Tory.

I asked the candidates about devolution. In my opinion Labour have lacked a clear devolution plan since John Prescott’s regional structure. It is part of the reason areas of the North have deserted them. We now have the mess of elected mayors, Local Enterprise Partnerships, two tier and one tier local government.

All the candidates agreed it was a mess, but their answers were instructive. Keir Starmer talked vaguely about a bottom up approach. Long Bailey wanted to abolish the House of Lords, but to be fair did speak of regional government offices. However, Nandy had the most thought through answer. She supported elected mayors but more needed to be done about accountability to outlying town s like Wigan. She would abolish LEP’s and give the powers to councils and felt the model of the RDA’s in economic development had merit in the future.

Labour members are now voting, and let’s hope there’s a late surge for Nandy. If not, she must have a senior place in the Shadow Cabinet.


Just as the nation went under water and BBC local radio stations provided round the clock information and help, “government sources” (Dominic Cummings) said they should all be sold off as there were plenty of commercial local radio stations.

When I started in journalism at Piccadilly Radio in 1974, we did indeed have a fully staffed newsroom and we were based in the heart of Greater Manchester. Independent radio’s connections with local communities is now tenuous as mergers have seen control exercised from London.

This latest cheap shot across the BBC’s bows is all to do with a cocky new government settling old scores with the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation as many Tories see it. The boycott of the Today programme by ministers even extended to no government appearance about the floods, which amounts to a dereliction of duty.

With Britain’s reputation in tatters after Brexit, we must defend one of the few remaining institutions that commands global respect.

That does not mean the BBC is perfect. The salaries of top management and star presenters is unacceptable and there is room for some slimming down. For instance, what is BBC 4 for. It mainly consists of history documentaries that used to be shown on BBC 2.

We also must recognise that younger people claim they never use BBC services, although on closer examination this doesn’t always prove to be true. Nevertheless, the BBC is living with a very different broadcasting landscape than a hundred years ago. I would be happy for the licence fee to continue after 2027 but if it must go, what are the alternatives? Scrapping the BBC altogether would make some of the press happy. Rupert Murdoch has always seen the Corporation as an obstruction to his media empire. In addition, papers like the Mail and Telegraph run anti- BBC stories every day rather like their anti-EU coverage which proved effective.

Other solutions include the BBC taking advertising. I think the BBC should make far more of the fact that its drama shows are not interrupted by five minutes of ads. The fantastic CBeebies and CBBC are free of commercials Finally such a move would be a massive financial blow to ITV.

Funding the BBC by subscription would mean the corporation serving a narrow section of the community whereas its current remit is to offer something for everyone. It covers areas of national life that the market wouldn’t touch.

My solution would be state funding in such a way as to protect the BBC from the politicians. I would accompany 7-year charters with an annual block grant to the BBC that would be protected in law from a greedy Chancellor. The BBC would choose all its top management. Currently the Chair and four members are government appointments.

The BBC has traditionally opposed state funding as it fears being seen as an arm of the state. The current position is hardly satisfactory in that respect with the government deciding on the level of the licence fee, appointing the chair and telling the corporation to fund over 75s licence fees.

I had the chance to put my idea to the Director General, Tony Hall, at a recent BBC Showcase event in Liverpool where he delivered a powerful defence of the BBC against the newcomers that are disrupting the broadcasting scene. Hall claimed that whilst Netflix had 73m viewers for The Crown, the BBC’s Killing Eve got 100m worldwide and Blue Planet a billion.

The BBC, he said, was the greatest supporter of British creativity and he posed the question whether media companies with global interests would show a similar commitment.


After Dominic Cummings lost the battle to scrap HS2, there was speculation that the Prime Minister’s aide was losing influence. Well he came roaring back today. The Chancellor refused to sack his aides and put the Treasury more under the influence of No 10 and resigned. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown battled it out for ten years without resignation, Sajid Javid has lasted months.

Cummings will relish the destabilisation of the government. That’s how Trump behaves in America. Business and the markets might be less impressed, although Rishi Sunak may be a better choice than Javid in the long run.

Two other sackings also raise eyebrows. Julian Smith has been the first Northern Ireland Secretary since Mo Mowlem to achieve anything and I thought Andrea Leadsom was an articulate Business Secretary.


The government have made a massive and welcome commitment to rail and bus investment, particularly in the North. It is a victory for Downtown and other organisations that finally seem to have got Whitehall’s attention on the North South divide.

However, it is essential that we remain vigilant and read the small print from the Prime Minister’s announcement this week. Concern centres around the introduction of the description “Phase B2” to the HS2 project. The government want to wrap Northern Powerhouse rail and the HS2 lines from Crewe to Leeds/Manchester. This may be fine as supporters have always said the north/south line must be integrated with east/west. But along with that integration comes a strong signal that the government want to bear down on the cost of the northern arms of HS2.

Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester has warned that we want the same gold standard for the whole project from London and not a silver standard substitute. There has been speculation that the trains might run slower north of Crewe to save money.

Burnham has also pointed out that there remains considerable disagreement with the government over Northern Powerhouse Rail. He backs a completely new line to Leeds via badly connected Bradford, whereas the government seem to be focused on an upgrade of the line through Huddersfield.

It will be up to the “Red Wall” Tory MPs to hold their government’s feet to the fire over this.


Andy Burnham was on with Andrew Neil this week and after discussion on rail, the interview turned to the Labour leadership. The Great Inquisitor reasonably asked Burnham to confirm he was supporting Lisa Nandy. After all she ticks all Andy’s boxes being from the north, isn’t a Corbynista and supports devolution.

The mayor said he hadn’t made his mind up yet, implying it was because he wanted to exercise maximum leverage on the candidates. Nandy needs your support now Andy, so come off the fence.


Since the government introduced the Apprenticeship Levy, the number of people starting courses has fallen dramatically, 24% in the case of intermediate apprenticeships. The North West has seen the steepest decline at 15,400 since 2017.

So why has the government initiative had the reverse effect to the one intended? The North West Business Leadership Team (NWBLT) think they have the answer.

NWBLT is made up of senior executives from the region’s major businesses who want to support the drive for more apprentices but have identified four main issues that are causing problems.

The system is difficult to navigate, the rules are inflexible, not all apprenticeships are achieving the desired quality levels and the development of standards is expensive and lengthy.

NWBLT joined forces with a similar organisation, London First to produce an excellent analysis of the issues. “Shaping the Workforce of Tomorrow”. It was launched at a reception in the Commons this week where some wider issues were raised, including the very term “apprenticeship”. Could another name be found for a name which conjures up a picture of an elderly blacksmith with an eager boy by his side at the anvil?

Probably not was the consensus, but what could be tackled was the perception of parents who wanted their children to go to university rather than go down the apprenticeship course. There was a feeling that might change with the realisation that a successful apprentice could be well on the way to a high-powered job while the university graduate remained saddled with debt. Sandy Lindsay, the Vice Chair of NWBLT said she was “infiltrating” parents’ evenings at schools to get the message over.

Another misconception about apprenticeship was raised, that they were only for young people. In our rapidly changing world, reskilling in middle age would be essential for mature apprentices.

It was stressed that nobody wanted the whole system scrapped or drastically reformed, just that the government needs to listen to the voice of business.


While I was in London, I had the opportunity to meet the new Speaker Lindsay Hoyle. I’ve known Lindsay, and his father Doug for many years.

Doug, now Lord Hoyle, was the MP for Nelson and Colne and then Warrington after he had beaten Roy Jenkins of the SDP in a famous by election in 1981. The Speaker’s father was known to us journalists as “Bank Holiday Doug” as he would always give us a story on those slow news days.

Lindsay entered the House at the 1997 election for Chorley but was never favoured with ministerial office by the New Labour governments. Instead he served for nine years as Deputy to the controversial John Bercow whose Speakership became increasingly controversial during the Brexit crisis.

Hoyle is the right man for the job. The office of Speaker has sustained reputational damage. There are outstanding claims of bullying and all in the Westminster village have been subject to poisonous social media.

The new Speaker told us he wants to turn a page and evidence of that came in an instruction he’s given the Clerks to the House. They can put in writing their dissent if they think the Speaker has broken the House regulations in one of his rulings.