| Loving Burnham's visions and promises 14:55 - Sep 29 with 6891 views | NthQldITFC |
To paraphrase: "I may have to pay a political price, but I'm going to do these things that our country needs."
Cue the usual, fossilised cynicism from both sides of the spectrum, but I have a good feeling about this bloke.
It won't be possible to achieve everything, but I'd rather someone took a political risk and gave it a bloody good go - there's no point pissing around with an eye on five years time, we need some fundamental change based on all of us, first of all, providing a solid, social base, and developing responsibly from there where possible. |  |
| |  |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:59 - Sep 30 with 688 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:15 - Sep 30 by Benters |
He’s a pretend PM  |
Again, more meaningless drivel. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:01 - Sep 30 with 677 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:00 - Sep 30 by leitrimblue |
I'd suggest he may well make it into the top 50 Andy's of the day.
Obviously hes no Andi Peters or Capp, but.. |
Andi Peters - now there's a man who has massively exceeded his talents. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:08 - Sep 30 with 654 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:42 - Sep 30 by Ryorry |
I know it wasn’t your major point, but PIP is incredibly hard to get, 1/6 of people who receive it are in work - and the receipt of PIP is actually what enables them to work by providing transport to and from it, specialised equipment etc. etc. And the drop-out rate from it is already increasing. |
I am supportive of any measure that increases a more flexible labour market.
I suspect you are right about transport to work, but this must be a tiny percentage. You are so much more likely to be healthy if you are working and it's symbiotic. Let's make that happen |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:13 - Sep 30 with 649 views | peterleeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:01 - Sep 30 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Andi Peters - now there's a man who has massively exceeded his talents. |
Good Biceps though and spends his life on a permanent paid for Jolly!! Not bad for a kids TV Anchor-man!!! |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:14 - Sep 30 with 646 views | leitrimblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:01 - Sep 30 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Andi Peters - now there's a man who has massively exceeded his talents. |
From the broom cardboard to world domination |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:19 - Sep 30 with 612 views | peterleeblue |
Sick of division / Farage / Badenoch / Trump- moan , moan, immigrants something something.
How about we get behind Burnhams positivity and outlook and just give it a chance.? That's a Novel Idea. Might catch on.
F*** the Daily Mail (and all its ilk) and all the sewage bile masquerading as RW social media. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:28 - Sep 30 with 584 views | NthQldITFC |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:15 - Sep 30 by Benters |
He’s a pretend PM |
You spout more sh!t than Dumb'n'old Tr*mp, and that really is saying something.
You arguably have the lovable idiot thing that poor old miserable Dumb'n'old doesn't, but by god, it's a thin veneer.
Right wing, anti-social, pig-thick irresponsibility is so 'last year'.
 | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:31 - Sep 30 with 573 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:19 - Sep 30 by peterleeblue |
Sick of division / Farage / Badenoch / Trump- moan , moan, immigrants something something.
How about we get behind Burnhams positivity and outlook and just give it a chance.? That's a Novel Idea. Might catch on.
F*** the Daily Mail (and all its ilk) and all the sewage bile masquerading as RW social media. |
And, instead of moaning about how much pensions are costing , make an effort to find the estimated 900,000 who are not claiming Pension Credit they are entitled to. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:45 - Sep 30 with 526 views | baxterbasics |
Not poured over the details yet, so based on headlines and general chatter:
Triple lock - no issue with this being scrapped or at least watered down
Social Care - great that it's finally being looked at, how will it be paid for? Bearing in mind the next point:
Defence spending - The very issue our current chancellor resigned his last job over. Anything on this or are we just kicking the can down the road some more? Hoping Russia just pipes down for a bit?
Welfare reform - is this rocketing bill now ignored too? Need to stop paying people to not work just because they feel a bit sad.
He's promising lots of nice ambitious things that sound good but I'm taxed up the wazoo as it is. Likewise SMEs who really need a break if they are going to provide any growth. If they find an effective way to make wealth pay for most of it, great, but I predict they wont.
Have to agree, though, with the general consensus that it's much easier to like 'our Andy' compared to the last half dozen or so incumbents - but that's not a very high bar is it? |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:16 - Sep 30 with 462 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:45 - Sep 30 by baxterbasics |
Not poured over the details yet, so based on headlines and general chatter:
Triple lock - no issue with this being scrapped or at least watered down
Social Care - great that it's finally being looked at, how will it be paid for? Bearing in mind the next point:
Defence spending - The very issue our current chancellor resigned his last job over. Anything on this or are we just kicking the can down the road some more? Hoping Russia just pipes down for a bit?
Welfare reform - is this rocketing bill now ignored too? Need to stop paying people to not work just because they feel a bit sad.
He's promising lots of nice ambitious things that sound good but I'm taxed up the wazoo as it is. Likewise SMEs who really need a break if they are going to provide any growth. If they find an effective way to make wealth pay for most of it, great, but I predict they wont.
Have to agree, though, with the general consensus that it's much easier to like 'our Andy' compared to the last half dozen or so incumbents - but that's not a very high bar is it? |
It's indicative of the feeble politics of the two main parties.
The lack of experience and intellectual heft in this government is unprecedented. To say the chancellor is thin on vision is quite the understatement. He ticks a lot of the correct boxes for the bien pensant of Labour though. Private school, Cambridge, the most minor of dabbles in journalism, albeit with a magazine written in Westminster. Then the long 30 years of being an MP. Not a very prominent one for many of them. So what is his economic heft? or vision? Reindustrialization I hear? Good luck with that one given the energy costs and labour costs in the UK.
Fiscal drag is bringing more and more people into paying higher rates of tax. But even still, this doesn't sustain what we need to spend. Dragging more and more lower earners into tax significantly slows the economy. The tax incentives offered by countries like Italy and Greece are hugely tempting to middle class Brits looking to leave, so much for EU unity?! The different tax and fiscal positions of member states rarely gets discussed of course.
France and Italy are in an even bigger whole with no way out. I have seen a couple of posts talking about positivity and good vibes? dear god, is that all we have?
The right shouldn't demonise those on benefits or immigration, but the left shouldn't blame the 'right wing press' (who reads that anyway), Thatcher or Brexit. We are sort of past all that now. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:28 - Sep 30 with 429 views | Ryorry |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:16 - Sep 30 by balcombeblue |
It's indicative of the feeble politics of the two main parties.
The lack of experience and intellectual heft in this government is unprecedented. To say the chancellor is thin on vision is quite the understatement. He ticks a lot of the correct boxes for the bien pensant of Labour though. Private school, Cambridge, the most minor of dabbles in journalism, albeit with a magazine written in Westminster. Then the long 30 years of being an MP. Not a very prominent one for many of them. So what is his economic heft? or vision? Reindustrialization I hear? Good luck with that one given the energy costs and labour costs in the UK.
Fiscal drag is bringing more and more people into paying higher rates of tax. But even still, this doesn't sustain what we need to spend. Dragging more and more lower earners into tax significantly slows the economy. The tax incentives offered by countries like Italy and Greece are hugely tempting to middle class Brits looking to leave, so much for EU unity?! The different tax and fiscal positions of member states rarely gets discussed of course.
France and Italy are in an even bigger whole with no way out. I have seen a couple of posts talking about positivity and good vibes? dear god, is that all we have?
The right shouldn't demonise those on benefits or immigration, but the left shouldn't blame the 'right wing press' (who reads that anyway), Thatcher or Brexit. We are sort of past all that now. |
Sadly, many millions read the Fail etc, that’s part of the problem.
And far from being “past” Thatcherism and Brexsh1t, it’s they and their legacy which have caused us huge damage, the terrible consequences of which we’re having to live with now. [Post edited 30 Sep 12:30]
|  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:41 - Sep 30 with 394 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:28 - Sep 30 by Ryorry |
Sadly, many millions read the Fail etc, that’s part of the problem.
And far from being “past” Thatcherism and Brexsh1t, it’s they and their legacy which have caused us huge damage, the terrible consequences of which we’re having to live with now. [Post edited 30 Sep 12:30]
|
What's the part of Thatcherism that caused the damage? How do you think that's manifesting itself now compared to say France or Germany? How would you compare that to New Labour?
Brexit has had some drag on the UK economy, but France and Germany appear to be in structural decline too. Covid, oil prices driven by wars, all with no fiscal wriggle room due to the levels of historic debt. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:33 - Sep 30 with 328 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:48 - Sep 29 by DJR |
There goes the Ming vase.
And nice to see a PM promising or suggesting some quite bold things rather than being kept in check by focus groups.
Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I am not wholly convinced by some of his devolution proposals, but things certainly haven't been working up to now. [Post edited 29 Sep 16:53]
|
Maybe he was following focus groups after all, given this from YouGov polling.
"Voters support Burnham’s plan to get rid of the pensions triple lock to help fund social care reform by 48% to 28%.
When people are asked in isolation if they support setting up a National Care Service, they were overwhelmingly in favour, by 74% to 11%.
YouGov also found that, when asked in isolation if they would back turning the triple lock into a double lock (by removing the earnings link), respondents were also in favour of that too, by 43% to 30%."
And maybe announcing it now is a cunning plan to reduce the cost of the state pension in the interim by reducing the number of pensioners as a result of apoplexy amongst the readers of the Mail, both in print and online. [Post edited 30 Sep 13:36]
|  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:41 - Sep 30 with 304 views | J2BLUE |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 04:36 - Sep 30 by Benters |
I remember some of you (not necessarily you) saying Starmers speech was ‘Statesman like’ and look where it got him!
This ‘Andy’ bloke is worse than Starmer and that takes some doing. |
Jesus christ mate. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:41 - Sep 30 with 301 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:16 - Sep 30 by balcombeblue |
It's indicative of the feeble politics of the two main parties.
The lack of experience and intellectual heft in this government is unprecedented. To say the chancellor is thin on vision is quite the understatement. He ticks a lot of the correct boxes for the bien pensant of Labour though. Private school, Cambridge, the most minor of dabbles in journalism, albeit with a magazine written in Westminster. Then the long 30 years of being an MP. Not a very prominent one for many of them. So what is his economic heft? or vision? Reindustrialization I hear? Good luck with that one given the energy costs and labour costs in the UK.
Fiscal drag is bringing more and more people into paying higher rates of tax. But even still, this doesn't sustain what we need to spend. Dragging more and more lower earners into tax significantly slows the economy. The tax incentives offered by countries like Italy and Greece are hugely tempting to middle class Brits looking to leave, so much for EU unity?! The different tax and fiscal positions of member states rarely gets discussed of course.
France and Italy are in an even bigger whole with no way out. I have seen a couple of posts talking about positivity and good vibes? dear god, is that all we have?
The right shouldn't demonise those on benefits or immigration, but the left shouldn't blame the 'right wing press' (who reads that anyway), Thatcher or Brexit. We are sort of past all that now. |
The Mail is the ninth largest English language news website in the world, so its reach goes way beyond the printed press.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/med | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:51 - Sep 30 with 259 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:45 - Sep 30 by baxterbasics |
Not poured over the details yet, so based on headlines and general chatter:
Triple lock - no issue with this being scrapped or at least watered down
Social Care - great that it's finally being looked at, how will it be paid for? Bearing in mind the next point:
Defence spending - The very issue our current chancellor resigned his last job over. Anything on this or are we just kicking the can down the road some more? Hoping Russia just pipes down for a bit?
Welfare reform - is this rocketing bill now ignored too? Need to stop paying people to not work just because they feel a bit sad.
He's promising lots of nice ambitious things that sound good but I'm taxed up the wazoo as it is. Likewise SMEs who really need a break if they are going to provide any growth. If they find an effective way to make wealth pay for most of it, great, but I predict they wont.
Have to agree, though, with the general consensus that it's much easier to like 'our Andy' compared to the last half dozen or so incumbents - but that's not a very high bar is it? |
"Need to stop paying people to not work just because they feel a bit sad."
What a pathetic, ignorant comment. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:03 - Sep 30 with 232 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:49 - Sep 30 by balcombeblue |
You mean these polities are left wing populism?!
Is penalising all pensioners also not a bit odd for you one the left? Shouldn’t you be more in favour of means testing?
The context of these questions, as you know, is important. Are you in favour of something that sounds like a good idea? Yes. |
As regards the impact of the changes on pensioners, I posted this earlier which showed that the changes are not really punitive. And I would be in favour of raising the threshold for pension credit to help poorer pensioners.
"Interesting snippet from the Guardian. It suggests the changes aren't as unfair as one might think, and there is still a triple lock of sorts.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has welcomed Andy Burnham’s announcement about the triple lock. (See 2.48pm) Although it sounds like he is replacing it with a double lock (pensions rising line with prices or by 2.5% every year, whichever is higher), in fact it is still a triple lock. That’s because, if the amount needed to ensure pensions have still risen in line with average earnings growth since the introduction of the new policy is higher than prices or 2.5%, they will go up by that amount.
The IFS proposed this change to the system. It explains it like this.
"The key change is that the new triple lock removes the most expensive and unjustified part of the triple lock: the fact that it permanently ratchets up state pension spending over time. Under the reformed system, pensions will still rise every year and in line with average earnings in the long run, but less quickly than they otherwise would have, and in a less unpredictable way.
The reform will likely generate small savings to the Exchequer in the next parliament, but they will not be enough to fund universal social care. Over time the new triple lock will prevent the state pension being locked into an ever-increasing level of generosity compared to workers’ earnings, thereby generating significant savings in the long run.""
I am not sure the polls show left wing populism, and as to whether the polls mean anything, I was just expressing surprise that they were what they are. And they suggest that with 3 years of trying to explain them, the policy of limiting the triple lock may not be quite the millstone that previous politicians have felt it might be.
EDIT: this is a good explanation.
"The change will save money because, under the current system, if the rise in earnings is particularly big one year, as sometimes happens, there is a rachet effect, and the increase gets baked in for future years." [Post edited 30 Sep 14:09]
| | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:07 - Sep 30 with 209 views | J2BLUE |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:03 - Sep 30 by DJR |
As regards the impact of the changes on pensioners, I posted this earlier which showed that the changes are not really punitive. And I would be in favour of raising the threshold for pension credit to help poorer pensioners.
"Interesting snippet from the Guardian. It suggests the changes aren't as unfair as one might think, and there is still a triple lock of sorts.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has welcomed Andy Burnham’s announcement about the triple lock. (See 2.48pm) Although it sounds like he is replacing it with a double lock (pensions rising line with prices or by 2.5% every year, whichever is higher), in fact it is still a triple lock. That’s because, if the amount needed to ensure pensions have still risen in line with average earnings growth since the introduction of the new policy is higher than prices or 2.5%, they will go up by that amount.
The IFS proposed this change to the system. It explains it like this.
"The key change is that the new triple lock removes the most expensive and unjustified part of the triple lock: the fact that it permanently ratchets up state pension spending over time. Under the reformed system, pensions will still rise every year and in line with average earnings in the long run, but less quickly than they otherwise would have, and in a less unpredictable way.
The reform will likely generate small savings to the Exchequer in the next parliament, but they will not be enough to fund universal social care. Over time the new triple lock will prevent the state pension being locked into an ever-increasing level of generosity compared to workers’ earnings, thereby generating significant savings in the long run.""
I am not sure the polls show left wing populism, and as to whether the polls mean anything, I was just expressing surprise that they were what they are. And they suggest that with 3 years of trying to explain them, the policy of limiting the triple lock may not be quite the millstone that previous politicians have felt it might be.
EDIT: this is a good explanation.
"The change will save money because, under the current system, if the rise in earnings is particularly big one year, as sometimes happens, there is a rachet effect, and the increase gets baked in for future years." [Post edited 30 Sep 14:09]
|
It's disappointingly watered down really. I understand they have gone as far as they think is realistic but it should just be linked to inflation. That would be a perfectly fair deal for everyone. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:10 - Sep 30 with 199 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:07 - Sep 30 by J2BLUE |
It's disappointingly watered down really. I understand they have gone as far as they think is realistic but it should just be linked to inflation. That would be a perfectly fair deal for everyone. |
As a pensioner, I wouldn't disagree with you.
But it is still supposed to make significant savings in the long run, spending that has up to now been baked into OBR forecasts and so limited the Government's scope for manoeuvre.
And increasing it by slightly more than inflation will benefit future pensioners, many of whom may not be able to provide for retirement. [Post edited 30 Sep 14:18]
| | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:19 - Sep 30 with 175 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:03 - Sep 30 by DJR |
As regards the impact of the changes on pensioners, I posted this earlier which showed that the changes are not really punitive. And I would be in favour of raising the threshold for pension credit to help poorer pensioners.
"Interesting snippet from the Guardian. It suggests the changes aren't as unfair as one might think, and there is still a triple lock of sorts.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has welcomed Andy Burnham’s announcement about the triple lock. (See 2.48pm) Although it sounds like he is replacing it with a double lock (pensions rising line with prices or by 2.5% every year, whichever is higher), in fact it is still a triple lock. That’s because, if the amount needed to ensure pensions have still risen in line with average earnings growth since the introduction of the new policy is higher than prices or 2.5%, they will go up by that amount.
The IFS proposed this change to the system. It explains it like this.
"The key change is that the new triple lock removes the most expensive and unjustified part of the triple lock: the fact that it permanently ratchets up state pension spending over time. Under the reformed system, pensions will still rise every year and in line with average earnings in the long run, but less quickly than they otherwise would have, and in a less unpredictable way.
The reform will likely generate small savings to the Exchequer in the next parliament, but they will not be enough to fund universal social care. Over time the new triple lock will prevent the state pension being locked into an ever-increasing level of generosity compared to workers’ earnings, thereby generating significant savings in the long run.""
I am not sure the polls show left wing populism, and as to whether the polls mean anything, I was just expressing surprise that they were what they are. And they suggest that with 3 years of trying to explain them, the policy of limiting the triple lock may not be quite the millstone that previous politicians have felt it might be.
EDIT: this is a good explanation.
"The change will save money because, under the current system, if the rise in earnings is particularly big one year, as sometimes happens, there is a rachet effect, and the increase gets baked in for future years." [Post edited 30 Sep 14:09]
|
Thanks for posting. That's all useful extra context. It's maybe a bit more tinkering at the edges than I first thought. I haven't followed too much news this week as I am away on a small island off the coast of Naples. Probably a couple of Guardian journalists here that I can check in with! | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:20 - Sep 30 with 173 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:19 - Sep 30 by balcombeblue |
Thanks for posting. That's all useful extra context. It's maybe a bit more tinkering at the edges than I first thought. I haven't followed too much news this week as I am away on a small island off the coast of Naples. Probably a couple of Guardian journalists here that I can check in with! |
Very nice. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:21 - Sep 30 with 166 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:10 - Sep 30 by DJR |
As a pensioner, I wouldn't disagree with you.
But it is still supposed to make significant savings in the long run, spending that has up to now been baked into OBR forecasts and so limited the Government's scope for manoeuvre.
And increasing it by slightly more than inflation will benefit future pensioners, many of whom may not be able to provide for retirement. [Post edited 30 Sep 14:18]
|
On pensions, I would welcome a reality check with people of my generation (let's say those born in the 80's).
I have never considered that I would get a bean from the state pension, despite paying plenty of NI for both employers and employee. I think more people of my age and younger need to face this reality. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
