| Andy Burnham watch .... 08:55 - Sep 16 with 2663 views | Keno |
Andrew Gwyne is rumoured to be standing down as MP for Gorton & Denton (edge of Manchester), which he held with a 13,000 plus majority for Labour
Since been suspended and probably not on Starmers Christmas card list |  |
| |  |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:36 - Sep 16 with 611 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:28 - Sep 16 by lowhouseblue |
but it's not such a show that started in the last 12 months. the last election was a very bad one to win given where we are economically - and there zero chance of turning public services and growth around in the first 12 months. and in terms of wealth taxes there is no such tax anywhere which has risen the sort of sums that are needed to sort out the current public finances. the only thing capable of doing that is growth. |
I agree they aren’t going to achieve miracles- but to actually see waiting lists worse than under the previous government is nothing but a failure.
And I agree wealth taxes aren’t the panacea- you could probably confiscate the entire net worth of the billionaires resident in the UK and would struggle to pay our pensions for a single year. Nonetheless taxes need to rise, and the wealthy should pay more. |  | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:40 - Sep 16 with 578 views | positivity |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:36 - Sep 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
I agree they aren’t going to achieve miracles- but to actually see waiting lists worse than under the previous government is nothing but a failure.
And I agree wealth taxes aren’t the panacea- you could probably confiscate the entire net worth of the billionaires resident in the UK and would struggle to pay our pensions for a single year. Nonetheless taxes need to rise, and the wealthy should pay more. |
i agree with most of that, but when you're trying to turn a tanker around it doesn't immediately go in the opposite direction.
things have been put into place which will see results, but agree that better funding would speed things up.
nationalizing the health service would help iron out the local difficulties like you're seeing, but that's a much bigger job... | |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:41 - Sep 16 with 571 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:23 - Sep 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
But the poll result are partly driven by the failure to provide any improvement to public services. He’s absolutely tanked in the polls. It can’t be a lack of doctors and surgeons because we’ve had record migration (unless that’s creating additional pressures). So presumably we need more hospital beds etc? He’s committed to increasing defence spending to 3.5pc of GDP, so it’s about prioritising where we want to spend money. And additionally they’ve refused to implement any wealth taxes. GDP per capita has continued to flatline so there’s less money per head, suggesting we aren’t creating quality high skilled jobs.
In short it’s a sh1t show. |
Government spending, and presumably taxation, plans were all based on growing the economy.
Unfortunately there are no signs of the economy growing, Starmer & Reed seem clueless as to how to kick start it |  |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:41 - Sep 16 with 549 views | lowhouseblue |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:36 - Sep 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
I agree they aren’t going to achieve miracles- but to actually see waiting lists worse than under the previous government is nothing but a failure.
And I agree wealth taxes aren’t the panacea- you could probably confiscate the entire net worth of the billionaires resident in the UK and would struggle to pay our pensions for a single year. Nonetheless taxes need to rise, and the wealthy should pay more. |
i'm sure the rich will pay more after the budget - but it will be through changing pension rules, taxing bank profits, tightening up capital gains, and changing thresholds to their disadvantage. the top 1% already pay almost 30% of income tax - it isn't a limitless pot without real costs. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:46 - Sep 16 with 507 views | lowhouseblue |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:41 - Sep 16 by Pinewoodblue |
Government spending, and presumably taxation, plans were all based on growing the economy.
Unfortunately there are no signs of the economy growing, Starmer & Reed seem clueless as to how to kick start it |
the employers ni was a self-inflicted wound. the effect of the benefits debacle on borrowing costs has also been very damaging. but the other things holding growth back at the moment are pretty global. they have done lots of structural things that are pro-growth but they all take time. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:49 - Sep 16 with 511 views | jayessess |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:25 - Sep 16 by DJR |
Candidate selection (and thus the potential candidates put to local members) is now controlled by the central party.
At the last election only one left wing candidate made it through, and even they were kicked out just before the election.
Having said that, I think that if Burnham put himself forward (especially in the Manchester area), it would be difficult for the party to prevent him being put to the local membership. [Post edited 16 Sep 10:34]
|
Yeah, think it would be difficult in this context - the actual longlist/shortlist is decided by representatives from the Constituency branch and only really 'overseen' by the National Executive Committee representative.
If he applied and the CLP Selection Committee put him on the list then the NEC Rep would need to actively veto his inclusion and that would cause a huge stink for which you'd need to provide some sort of justification, not just "Keir doesn't want the competition". [Post edited 16 Sep 10:51]
|  |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:50 - Sep 16 with 486 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:41 - Sep 16 by lowhouseblue |
i'm sure the rich will pay more after the budget - but it will be through changing pension rules, taxing bank profits, tightening up capital gains, and changing thresholds to their disadvantage. the top 1% already pay almost 30% of income tax - it isn't a limitless pot without real costs. |
The rich aren’t paying income tax on PAYE, I’m talking about passive income and assets. Changing income tax bands is pretty much p1ssing in the wind. The Greens proposed additional taxes on assets over £10m - certainly would be difficult to administer but a step in the direction (just a shame around their penal NI increase on working people). | | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:57 - Sep 16 with 454 views | DarkBrandon |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 09:11 - Sep 16 by Smoresy |
He could make the argument that Manchester Mayor is a more important position than backbench MP, and he values Burnham's work greatly in that role. |
I agree. There was a good reason why he failed to win either of the leadership elections he stood in.
[Edit - Hmm. This was supposed to be a reply to Glasgow's post commenting that if Burnham had stayed an MP people would be thinking a lot less of him) [Post edited 16 Sep 11:03]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:58 - Sep 16 with 449 views | DJR |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:49 - Sep 16 by jayessess |
Yeah, think it would be difficult in this context - the actual longlist/shortlist is decided by representatives from the Constituency branch and only really 'overseen' by the National Executive Committee representative.
If he applied and the CLP Selection Committee put him on the list then the NEC Rep would need to actively veto his inclusion and that would cause a huge stink for which you'd need to provide some sort of justification, not just "Keir doesn't want the competition". [Post edited 16 Sep 10:51]
|
I don't think Michael Crick thought the process was quite as benign as you suggest.
Here's something from 2023.
"Michael Crick is at work on one of the most vital, and neglected, topics in politics: the selection of parliamentary candidates in winnable seats.
“These are effectively Britain’s hidden elections,” he says in this interview. “These are the equivalent of the primaries.”
The Conservatives have barely begun to select, so Crick has so far concentrated on the 100 Labour selections which have taken place, publishing his findings day by day and hour by hour on Twitter on @Tomorrow’sMPs.
Some of these prospective MPs will probably within a few years be running the country, yet almost no attention has been devoted to how they are chosen.
Crick describes the “purge” of Labour candidates which is being conducted by the party’s National Executive Committee: “the Labour Left has been utterly annihilated,” and so too has “anybody with a strong trade union background”, but the powers that be “don’t do it in a very professional manner in my view”.
The purge, he warns, has gone so far that Angela Rayner, Robin Cook and Neil Kinnock would not now be able to gain selection as Labour candidates."
[Post edited 16 Sep 11:01]
|  | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:59 - Sep 16 with 450 views | DarkBrandon |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:19 - Sep 16 by jasondozzell |
It's too late. If anyone thinks Burnham is the answer they must be off their heads. He's a careerist. Soft left by the smallest margin (although enough to mean the Labour right hate him).
It's all too late. Centrists, the people's vote, everyone who thought the Starmer project was 'sensible adults back in the room' , people who think James O'Brien d Ian Dunt are intelligent commentators, Marina Hyde, Maitlis, Jon Sopel etc are all going to have to own what they have done. They won't of course.
What was done to Corbyn was a disgrace and the political/media elite are fully to blame.
Net result fascism. |
"What was done to Corbyn was a disgrace ..."
You mean the country deciding on two occasions they didn't want him as PM? | | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:06 - Sep 16 with 384 views | lowhouseblue |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:50 - Sep 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
The rich aren’t paying income tax on PAYE, I’m talking about passive income and assets. Changing income tax bands is pretty much p1ssing in the wind. The Greens proposed additional taxes on assets over £10m - certainly would be difficult to administer but a step in the direction (just a shame around their penal NI increase on working people). |
there is no evidence that such a tax would raise much and the effects on growth would make the employers' ni increase look positive. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:09 - Sep 16 with 388 views | DarkBrandon |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:50 - Sep 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
The rich aren’t paying income tax on PAYE, I’m talking about passive income and assets. Changing income tax bands is pretty much p1ssing in the wind. The Greens proposed additional taxes on assets over £10m - certainly would be difficult to administer but a step in the direction (just a shame around their penal NI increase on working people). |
You do pay income tax on passive incomes though. And taxing assets is completely unworkable.
There isn't just a way of raising substantial amounts of money without basically everyone paying more. "Somebody else should pay" doesn't work.
Jeremy Hunt gets a moderately good press because he cleared up some of the mess after Liz Truss and Kwarteng had their go ... but he salted the earth when he left. He reduced NI by 4p, and there was just no way to pay for it. He couldn't afford it, and Labour weren't bold enough to say they'd reverse it. (perhaps sensibly. They'd have been hammered day after day during the campaign by the press). So they increased employers NI to compensate, but that has effects of its own, and was really only getting the finances back to where they were prior to the election. It hasn't raised enough to touch the sides when it comes to the areas of the country that really need financing. | | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:11 - Sep 16 with 381 views | jayessess |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:58 - Sep 16 by DJR |
I don't think Michael Crick thought the process was quite as benign as you suggest.
Here's something from 2023.
"Michael Crick is at work on one of the most vital, and neglected, topics in politics: the selection of parliamentary candidates in winnable seats.
“These are effectively Britain’s hidden elections,” he says in this interview. “These are the equivalent of the primaries.”
The Conservatives have barely begun to select, so Crick has so far concentrated on the 100 Labour selections which have taken place, publishing his findings day by day and hour by hour on Twitter on @Tomorrow’sMPs.
Some of these prospective MPs will probably within a few years be running the country, yet almost no attention has been devoted to how they are chosen.
Crick describes the “purge” of Labour candidates which is being conducted by the party’s National Executive Committee: “the Labour Left has been utterly annihilated,” and so too has “anybody with a strong trade union background”, but the powers that be “don’t do it in a very professional manner in my view”.
The purge, he warns, has gone so far that Angela Rayner, Robin Cook and Neil Kinnock would not now be able to gain selection as Labour candidates."
[Post edited 16 Sep 11:01]
|
Don't get me wrong, not that I've got faith in the process or any illusions about how fair the Labour NEC hacks are.
But what they did in 2023 should be put in context - Crick aside, they got (and required) a tremendous amount of cover to pull off those stitch ups. You can merrily strike people off constituency selection long lists when no-one knows who they are and basically the entire media and party machine is in total agreement that the Labour Left needs to be buried and the coffin nailed shut.
Given the absolute state they're in now, I doubt they'd get the required cover to do the same to someone as well-known as Burnham. | |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:16 - Sep 16 with 349 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:06 - Sep 16 by lowhouseblue |
there is no evidence that such a tax would raise much and the effects on growth would make the employers' ni increase look positive. |
Growth would be generated via the tax generated being reinvested in the economy. In the US and Canada infrastructure projects (including state funded civil engineering) have generated significant growth. Whereas we have crumbling infrastructure, schools hospitals, bridges, roads, ports, airports etc could all generate income and growth.
Taxing passive income from ownership of certain assets isn’t going to affect growth. If you think of the companies and individuals with residential property portfolios they are merely a drain on growth, squeezing people’s disposable income. They certainly aren’t generating profit overseas and reducing our deficit or growing UK PLC. | | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:16 - Sep 16 with 348 views | jasondozzell |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:31 - Sep 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Corbyn was the ultimate careerist- he’s never worked a real job in his life!
Plus he was the architect of his own downfall. For all his mediocrity, Starmer at least hasn’t been called out by Hope Not Hate, nor dragged the party into a ECHR investigation. |
Corbyn in being a decent person and representing his constituents over decades and campaigning for social justice has done more 'real work' than the lanyard briefcase ghouls who now make up the Labour party.
If you're still thinking that the AS smear was not a smear theb there's no helping you.
The press are now beginning to discover the Labour leaks stuff 5 years after it came out. I wonder why now?
Starmer is worse than mediocre. He's going to be responsible for the rise of the far right in this country. |  | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:18 - Sep 16 with 324 views | jasondozzell |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:59 - Sep 16 by DarkBrandon |
"What was done to Corbyn was a disgrace ..."
You mean the country deciding on two occasions they didn't want him as PM? |
No. I mean the calculated smear carried out by the political/media establishment. The same establishment that crashed us into Johnson, a hard Brexit and the current catastrophe.
Interesting though that even in 2019 Corbyn got significantly more votes than Starmer last year. It's almost like no one actually wanted this government... | | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:19 - Sep 16 with 311 views | positivity |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:16 - Sep 16 by jasondozzell |
Corbyn in being a decent person and representing his constituents over decades and campaigning for social justice has done more 'real work' than the lanyard briefcase ghouls who now make up the Labour party.
If you're still thinking that the AS smear was not a smear theb there's no helping you.
The press are now beginning to discover the Labour leaks stuff 5 years after it came out. I wonder why now?
Starmer is worse than mediocre. He's going to be responsible for the rise of the far right in this country. |
you could argue that the rise of the far-right was enabled by having a weak anti-europe opposition leader at the time of greatest peril
no corbyn, no brexit? no brexit, no boris/farage? | |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:21 - Sep 16 with 297 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:16 - Sep 16 by jasondozzell |
Corbyn in being a decent person and representing his constituents over decades and campaigning for social justice has done more 'real work' than the lanyard briefcase ghouls who now make up the Labour party.
If you're still thinking that the AS smear was not a smear theb there's no helping you.
The press are now beginning to discover the Labour leaks stuff 5 years after it came out. I wonder why now?
Starmer is worse than mediocre. He's going to be responsible for the rise of the far right in this country. |
“If you're still thinking that the AS smear was not a smear theb there's no helping you.”
Are you saying Hope Not Hate, and ECHR smeared him? | | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:24 - Sep 16 with 285 views | jayessess |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:41 - Sep 16 by Pinewoodblue |
Government spending, and presumably taxation, plans were all based on growing the economy.
Unfortunately there are no signs of the economy growing, Starmer & Reed seem clueless as to how to kick start it |
The pre-election promises of growth were very silly politics really.
The economy has not grown significantly really since the 2008 crisis, having "the economy is suddenly going to grow dramatically faster" as a core offer but without any real underlying theory of why it would was just a recipe for disaster. | |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:27 - Sep 16 with 271 views | jasondozzell |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:19 - Sep 16 by positivity |
you could argue that the rise of the far-right was enabled by having a weak anti-europe opposition leader at the time of greatest peril
no corbyn, no brexit? no brexit, no boris/farage? |
Nope.
In fact it was Starmer and the People's Vote that will be hugely responsible for a Farage.
Look at Starner's behaviour as Brexit Shadow minister. He did everything to ensure that it would be no deal, even turning down his own suggestions when they were put to him! We could have had a deal but he turned down a cross party deal. Why? Because they saw it as their opportunity to wreck the leadership and banish the left.
No Corbyn no Brexit? Come on. | | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:28 - Sep 16 with 270 views | jasondozzell |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:21 - Sep 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“If you're still thinking that the AS smear was not a smear theb there's no helping you.”
Are you saying Hope Not Hate, and ECHR smeared him? |
You need to actually read the ECHR report rather than rely on Ian Dunt but R whoever it is telling you what is in it. | | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:42 - Sep 16 with 225 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:28 - Sep 16 by jasondozzell |
You need to actually read the ECHR report rather than rely on Ian Dunt but R whoever it is telling you what is in it. |
Rather presumptuous.
“ The equality body’s analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.”
So which part of the above is a smear? You said antisemitism in his party was a smear - the official report contradicts that. And is anti-racism charity Hope not Hate part of the ‘smeary’ establishment. I mean it’s been done to death as a subject so I’ll leave it there. However it’s a pretty big rabbit hole you have to go down to suggest such bodies are smearing him. | | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:49 - Sep 16 with 209 views | positivity |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:27 - Sep 16 by jasondozzell |
Nope.
In fact it was Starmer and the People's Vote that will be hugely responsible for a Farage.
Look at Starner's behaviour as Brexit Shadow minister. He did everything to ensure that it would be no deal, even turning down his own suggestions when they were put to him! We could have had a deal but he turned down a cross party deal. Why? Because they saw it as their opportunity to wreck the leadership and banish the left.
No Corbyn no Brexit? Come on. |
if we didn't have such a weak opposition to brexit led by a brexiteer labour leader, we could've avoided this nightmare.
burnham is a far better communicator than corbyn and much more popular with people outside the islington bubble | |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 12:08 - Sep 16 with 155 views | jasondozzell |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:42 - Sep 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Rather presumptuous.
“ The equality body’s analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.”
So which part of the above is a smear? You said antisemitism in his party was a smear - the official report contradicts that. And is anti-racism charity Hope not Hate part of the ‘smeary’ establishment. I mean it’s been done to death as a subject so I’ll leave it there. However it’s a pretty big rabbit hole you have to go down to suggest such bodies are smearing him. |
Have you read the Forde report?
The ECHR report found two cases where party agents breached the equality act. Cases were being dealt with slowly under Nicol as general sec. The process improved under Formby and Corbyn as the report notes. Corbyn being involved in cases was spun as him trying to stop them whereas he was trying to speed them up after the previous lot sat on them!
It also suggested that the process should be independent of the leadership which Starmer ignored.
Worth reading Peter Oborne on all this
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-forde-inquiry-corbyn-factional-w
It was weaponised as a factional battering tool. A disgrace. [Post edited 16 Sep 12:10]
| | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 12:13 - Sep 16 with 131 views | NthQldITFC |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 10:31 - Sep 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Corbyn was the ultimate careerist- he’s never worked a real job in his life!
Plus he was the architect of his own downfall. For all his mediocrity, Starmer at least hasn’t been called out by Hope Not Hate, nor dragged the party into a ECHR investigation. |
Well, he'd never been a good little capitalist... |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
