- This topic has 53 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 4 hours, 49 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
He’s already done this for Greater Manchester so it’s not hot air as you put it. However it’s a question of what he did for Greater Manchester can it be scaled up for the country. I think it’ll be tough and that’s before house of Lords has a say in it.
You've got to accentuate the positive.
Eliminate the negative.
Latch on to the affirmative.
Don't mess with mister in between.I’ve unashamedly nicked this, from elsewhere:
Am I alone in wondering how creating extra layers of bureaucracy and thousands more civil servants and govt employees shuffling paperwork is going to help improve the economy?
Try reading the room: cut welfare, cut taxes, cut bureaucracy and red tape, make it easier for businesses to do business, build more nuclear power to stabilise utility prices.
Do not faff around with more devolution.Wilts have u had the 14 years of Tory government surgically removed … again an aging population and a dwindling birth rate means you just can’t cut taxes , cut cut cut , that worked under the Tories didn’t it , sorry but it’s ridiculous and it has to stop
Pick 3 on Saturday champion 2025/2026
Do the right wing not understand the word ” renewable ” why don’t we just reopen the pits …
Pick 3 on Saturday champion 2025/2026
The right wing don’t understand much, sadly, and least of all the fact that 45 years of their model has left the country a total mess.
cut bureaucracy and red tape, make it easier for businesses to do business
Can you think of something that happened in the last ten years or so that means that businesses face increased bureaucracy and red tape and makes their lives more difficult? And who implemented it?
An engineered by-election to accomodate him.
A (likely) safe passage for him to just step in to the Prime Minister role.
No questions allowed from journalists.
No parliamentary scrutiny until September.
A new mandate, quite radical it looks like, with NO mandate actually voted for by the electorate.
Just telling people what he will do.Remind me, What democratic country are we in?
Very concerning, across all political viewpoints, at the sheer arrogance of this guy.
Personally, i think this may play into the ‘broad’ Right’s hands.Did you say the same thing when the Tories were changing PM every five minutes? Thought not.
Just because the Conservatives did it doesn’t make it right. But they did have a couple of elections and their new leaders were voted for after laying out their political plans. There was scrutiny. I’m a lifelong Labour voter and rejoined the party when Keir became leader ( I’d been a member before but was rather frowned upon because I wasn’t left wing enough for them eg Chris Williamson …remember him?…was also a member so I had to leave) and have had no say in this new leaders appointment or his policies. I’m not impressed by his casual references to cult movies or Smiths songs. What sums him up to me is that he says he’s a Smiths fan ( which he genuinely is) but sits on the fence when it comes to any mention of Morrisseys political beliefs. I’m now politically homeless and, having lost friends because of Brexit now find myself estranged from my Labour Party friends who seem to be enthralled by Burnham and not bothered that the party is ignoring many people who were not usually Labour voters but voted for a centrist Prime Minister.
Just because the Conservatives did it doesn’t make it right.
The point is that there are numerous examples of people changing their tune now the boot is on the other foot. I seem to recall the point being made before that we vote for the party and not the PM. That’s not changed. Parties are of course free to put in their manifestos that they would implement a rule that a change of PM automatically triggers a GE if they don’t like the current rules.
One of the clever things Burnham has done is shift the balance away from London.
For years, the right have attacked Labour’s “lefty Islington elites” (while conveniently overlooking the fact that they’re all multi-millionaires themselves, of course)… that avenue of attack has been considerably reduced with Burnham’s leadership.
Starmer and Reeves do a ‘Darling’ on the next PM and Chancellor.
£5BN funding gap for defence budget.
So, the plans announced today wont last then
Shambles.
For years, the right have attacked Labour’s “lefty Islington elites” (while conveniently overlooking the fact that they’re all multi-millionaires themselves, of course)… that avenue of attack has been considerably reduced with Burnham’s leadership.
Don’t worry, they’ll come up with some reason why that’s a problem. They always do.
Burnham’s team are already (allegedly) considering a property tax, c0.48%. Certainly around here that would cost a working household (national average household income, living in a £350k property) about £150/month. That’s steep and unaffordable for many.
Back to this, where do council tax and stamp duty come into it? Instead of or in addition to one or other or both? Not as simple as saying it’ll cost everyone more money without the detail.
The property tax would replace council tax and stamp duty, not be an additional charge, as anyone who can read would know.
Though I don’t like the way Burnham got back into parliament – which as CAS mentioned earlier is similar to the manner in which Douglas-Home returned in 1963 – there’s two examples of Labour changing PM mid-term without calling an election: Blair to Brown in 2007 and Wilson to Callaghan in 1976, though, unlike Burnham, they were of course serving MPs when the switch was made.
I’m with the immortal Brenda of Bristol at present regarding general elections: ‘oh no not another one’.
Let all this out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new new-broom messianic hoopla and hysteria surrounding Burnham’s leg-up subside and let’s wait and see what he does when he’s the guv.
I actually wish him well; can’t wish for anything else really can we…
“can’t wish for anything else really can we…”
You’ll still have “true British patriots” wishing for him, and therefore the country, to fail.
Removal of a disincentive to move and a tax based on its actual value and not the ludicrous calculation based on what it was worth in 1991 (over 25 years before the thing was built in the case of my current abode)? Sign me up.
However it would mean higher annual taxes on high value properties, being an outright percentage rather than capped at the current council tax top band. I can see why that upsets people on the right now.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.