| Loving Burnham's visions and promises 14:55 - Sep 29 with 17812 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 11:23 - Oct 3 with 752 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:08 - Oct 3 by redrickstuhaart |
He is criticising something that is a move in the direction he would like to see, but because of that he has to criticise it by saying it wont happen, rather than criticising the substance.
Which demonstrates, imo, that it is all about attacking and criticising whatever is done, rather than genuinely being ideological. I genuinely think there is nothing that Labour could do (short of bringing back Corbyn) that would receive even a slightest nod of approval from our Jase! |
Give JD his free broadband, and all will be well in the world. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:31 - Oct 3 with 728 views | jasondozzell |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:08 - Oct 3 by redrickstuhaart |
He is criticising something that is a move in the direction he would like to see, but because of that he has to criticise it by saying it wont happen, rather than criticising the substance.
Which demonstrates, imo, that it is all about attacking and criticising whatever is done, rather than genuinely being ideological. I genuinely think there is nothing that Labour could do (short of bringing back Corbyn) that would receive even a slightest nod of approval from our Jase! |
The move in the direction is a cut to pensions.
I mean how about cutting some of the gazillions we spend on rockets?
Burnham is a career politician. He's wouldn't be there if the right people haven't got the right assurances. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:35 - Oct 3 with 715 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:31 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
The move in the direction is a cut to pensions.
I mean how about cutting some of the gazillions we spend on rockets?
Burnham is a career politician. He's wouldn't be there if the right people haven't got the right assurances. |
What rockets? I’m not sure canning the Mayor of London’s firework display is going to make a lot of difference.
Edit: I suppose the £4m London’s dear leader hosed into the sky in 2024 would help. [Post edited 3 Oct 11:39]
|  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:40 - Oct 3 with 698 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:31 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
The move in the direction is a cut to pensions.
I mean how about cutting some of the gazillions we spend on rockets?
Burnham is a career politician. He's wouldn't be there if the right people haven't got the right assurances. |
How would you manage the demographic decline of the UK and the fact we have half as many working tax payers to retirees compared to when the state pension came in?
How would you fund that? It’s very easy to make all the promises in the world, but the fact is we don’t have a big enough tax base. Gilt interest for the UK is now above Truss levels. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:12 - Oct 3 with 649 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:40 - Oct 3 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
How would you manage the demographic decline of the UK and the fact we have half as many working tax payers to retirees compared to when the state pension came in?
How would you fund that? It’s very easy to make all the promises in the world, but the fact is we don’t have a big enough tax base. Gilt interest for the UK is now above Truss levels. |
I notice that you are specific about ‘working tax payers to retirees’. What about retired people that pay tax? 8.8 million a year ago - 12% of the known U.K. population. Of those 1m pay higher rate tax (40%+).
https://www.lcp.com/en/media-c | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:35 - Oct 3 with 613 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:12 - Oct 3 by Churchman |
I notice that you are specific about ‘working tax payers to retirees’. What about retired people that pay tax? 8.8 million a year ago - 12% of the known U.K. population. Of those 1m pay higher rate tax (40%+).
https://www.lcp.com/en/media-c |
Because it’s still a net spend in tax - about £30bn in tax receipts vs over £150bn spend and as the population ages that gap increases. Again, not the fault of pensioners but inescapable demographic changes. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:47 - Oct 3 with 584 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:35 - Oct 3 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Because it’s still a net spend in tax - about £30bn in tax receipts vs over £150bn spend and as the population ages that gap increases. Again, not the fault of pensioners but inescapable demographic changes. |
This amused me.
https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:51 - Oct 3 with 580 views | jasondozzell |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:40 - Oct 3 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
How would you manage the demographic decline of the UK and the fact we have half as many working tax payers to retirees compared to when the state pension came in?
How would you fund that? It’s very easy to make all the promises in the world, but the fact is we don’t have a big enough tax base. Gilt interest for the UK is now above Truss levels. |
I'm not at all against changing the triple lock. It can't carry on based on the projections. However it all needs to be looked at holistically as part of a coherent government plan rather than as low hanging fruit.
What's going on is we are being prepared for huge welfare cuts. That's the bottom line.
Can we talk about the crippling costs of outsourcing, PFI, councils skint etc with the same zeal that the 'it's tough but we've maxed out the credit card' brigade show when we talk about this stuff please? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:03 - Oct 3 with 549 views | J2BLUE |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:06 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
Care service commission in 2032...
You might get some half arsed serco lite thing in say 2045 which involves a robot taking your blood pressure every 8 weeks but that's it.
Why didn't he talk about raising pay for care work which is important work?
He's the safe pair of hands for the status quo. |
Why didn't he talk about raising pay for care work which is important work?
He did. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:09 - Oct 3 with 541 views | DanTheMan |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:11 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
I'm not averse to the triple lock going.
But I note that in all of the 'let's build a better Britain' gaze into the distance stuff, it's actually only the cuts which are really going to happen with people of this ilk.
Whereas the actual care etc is just talked about as an idea and nothing more.
If you're a poor pensioner it'll feel like a cut by the way.
Cuts must be implemented so Burnham is just a vehicle to make it more palatable.
We could live in a different world. But a lot of people have an interest in stopping it. |
How will it "feel" like a cut when your money increases!?
I was critical of the timelines (and still are) of them putting this off but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea. I'm astonished someone actually had the nerve the challenge that the triple-lock was unsustainable given the always immediate reaction to anything possibly affecting pensioners. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:18 - Oct 3 with 529 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:35 - Oct 3 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Because it’s still a net spend in tax - about £30bn in tax receipts vs over £150bn spend and as the population ages that gap increases. Again, not the fault of pensioners but inescapable demographic changes. |
Sorry, I’m don’t understand what you mean. The basic figures are the government raised by various taxes £1232bn in 25/26.
https://commonslibrary.parliam
State pension cost £154bn. Of the money raised in taxes about £30bn comes from pensioners (source: Professional Pensions).
You believe that pension provision is unsustainable and fundamentally wrong that ‘youngsters’ have to pay for it. Well there are solutions.
End state pension provision altogether. It’s only been around since 118 years since 1908 so in the great scheme of things it’s within a few generations. Scrap it and let people and their families get on with it. Not a civilised or great idea as far as I’m concerned though a good chum of mine would support it.
Second idea - take income tax back to 1978 when old people were ‘youngsters’ like you. Let’s be fair and round it to 30% for basic rate and scaled up for higher rates (see attached). A 1% rise in income tax on current rates = £1.1bn raised so at 30% that’s about 110bn in the pot! Hurrah! My mate would definitely knit his eyebrows at that.
https://stacks.stanford.edu/fi
Another solution is to print money. When I challenged a treasury dude about booting out tax inspectors who brought in many times what they earned, I was told that wasn’t important. Headcount was and the treasury could always print money.
HMG if it was interested could always try closing the £60bn tax gap. That might help.
I think I prefer retaining state pension, ending triple lock in the sort of way being suggested by HMG but do it now. I also advocate people in retirement continuing to pay NI if they can afford it.
Cautious and timid? Maybe but I’m not in favour of tipping old people into poverty. Its not just ageist to dismiss them, it’s also uncivilised in my view. [Post edited 3 Oct 13:18]
| | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:24 - Oct 3 with 508 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:31 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
The move in the direction is a cut to pensions.
I mean how about cutting some of the gazillions we spend on rockets?
Burnham is a career politician. He's wouldn't be there if the right people haven't got the right assurances. |
How much are we spending on rockets?!? |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:26 - Oct 3 with 503 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:24 - Oct 3 by The_Flashing_Smile |
How much are we spending on rockets?!? |
As I said earlier Sir Sadiq’s new year fireworks cost £4m. I think he must be referring to them | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:05 - Oct 3 with 461 views | jasondozzell |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:24 - Oct 3 by The_Flashing_Smile |
How much are we spending on rockets?!? |
The UK rocket and missile sector is worth nearly 3 billion
We spend billions on war. Funny how no one ever says 'well we can't afford to do this'.
We're just turning into America. It's dog eat dog and pull the ladder up.
Crumbling NHS? People shrug and say 'if you're smart you'd have private health insurance'. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:08 - Oct 3 with 447 views | jasondozzell |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:03 - Oct 3 by J2BLUE |
Why didn't he talk about raising pay for care work which is important work?
He did. |
Oh so what's the plan there? Because raising the salary by a few quid per hour doesn't cut it.
They do the most important work. COVID revealed who is really important in society and it isn't the marketing execs or people who work in Comms.
We need a radical government, it's obvious that's what is needed, but we aren't allowed one.
Imagine Attlee's reforms now - 'sorry but the markets won't accept this'. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:09 - Oct 3 with 439 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:05 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
The UK rocket and missile sector is worth nearly 3 billion
We spend billions on war. Funny how no one ever says 'well we can't afford to do this'.
We're just turning into America. It's dog eat dog and pull the ladder up.
Crumbling NHS? People shrug and say 'if you're smart you'd have private health insurance'. |
Does it cost much? Given the sale of exports etc. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:22 - Oct 3 with 424 views | jasondozzell |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:09 - Oct 3 by balcombeblue |
Does it cost much? Given the sale of exports etc. |
This is Britain in 2026.
Do we think it's efficiently run, with clear strategy and profits?
Or do we think it's a mess of private companies hoovering up eye watering contracts and charging the government an arm and a leg?
We built tanks for a small fortune that don't work because the vibrate too much and soldiers ill. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:33 - Oct 3 with 411 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:09 - Oct 3 by balcombeblue |
Does it cost much? Given the sale of exports etc. |
The defence budget is £60bn (2.5%GDP?). That includes what is given to support Ukraine and of course Labour have lumped in the cost of MI5 etc too. Military kit exports equate to £20bn and rising at the present time.
I believe that the first duty of any government is to protect its citizens from external and internal threat. Clearly some posters totally disagree and believe the net £40bn should be used elsewhere. No defence necessary. Nothing but a smile and ‘give peace a chance’. Extend the warm hand of friendship.
Maybe they’re right and presumably believe that if for example we were kinder and more trusting towards Iran’s so democratic and fair leadership and that nice, generous Mr Putin, whose only crime is to be attacked by wicked Zelenski and Ukraine (Putin’s words supported by the orange one), all would be well.
I disagree. There are no rules, international law, UN, NATO or anything else worthy of the name. It’s dead. Trump has seen to that. We are pre 1939 where might is right. If you cannot or refuse to look after yourself, don’t complain if somebody else decides what you do. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:34 - Oct 3 with 404 views | J2BLUE |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:08 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
Oh so what's the plan there? Because raising the salary by a few quid per hour doesn't cut it.
They do the most important work. COVID revealed who is really important in society and it isn't the marketing execs or people who work in Comms.
We need a radical government, it's obvious that's what is needed, but we aren't allowed one.
Imagine Attlee's reforms now - 'sorry but the markets won't accept this'. |
The public doesn't want your vision of a radical government. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:39 - Oct 3 with 383 views | lowhouseblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:22 - Oct 3 by jasondozzell |
This is Britain in 2026.
Do we think it's efficiently run, with clear strategy and profits?
Or do we think it's a mess of private companies hoovering up eye watering contracts and charging the government an arm and a leg?
We built tanks for a small fortune that don't work because the vibrate too much and soldiers ill. |
"We built tanks for a small fortune that don't work because the vibrate too much and soldiers ill."
and yet you don't see that as an example of state failure? the ministry of defences procurement has been a scandal and joke for decades. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:42 - Oct 3 with 371 views | lowhouseblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:34 - Oct 3 by J2BLUE |
The public doesn't want your vision of a radical government. |
not understanding the distinction between "we aren't allowed one" and "people won't vote for one" is a long tradition on the left. what they need is a new and radical electorate. | |
| 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 |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:06 - Oct 3 with 324 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:34 - Oct 3 by J2BLUE |
The public doesn't want your vision of a radical government. |
Yes, it's sad that people in this country don't want the sort of social democracy that is common in countries in western Europe with far better public services.
The obsession with lower taxes these last 45 years has been a driver for this, but the irony is that we have ended up with record taxes and desperately poor public services.
Or putting it another way, we've tried to run a version of social democracy on the cheap in that period, and look where we have ended up. [Post edited 3 Oct 16:44]
|  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:53 - Oct 3 with 205 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:39 - Oct 3 by lowhouseblue |
"We built tanks for a small fortune that don't work because the vibrate too much and soldiers ill."
and yet you don't see that as an example of state failure? the ministry of defences procurement has been a scandal and joke for decades. |
Yes, procurement has been a joke, but that’s not a reason for abandoning defence of the people. You just do something about procurement backed by a government that takes defence seriously.
Shame no govt, including this one, has done in decades. Evidence? Well the stunt pulled by our liar of a Chancellor tells you all you need to know.
Challenger 2 tanks, albeit over 25 years old, are some of the best Ukraine has. These are being replaced with Challenger 3. Not many of them, no doubt, but the quality of the Challenger series of tanks has been pretty good.
Now British tanks were not great in WW2 especially in the early / mid years which ironic since we invented the things in WW1. Now they were unreliable and made the crew sick. But only because they were rushed into service on the Western Front and were under developed. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:59 - Oct 3 with 190 views | J2BLUE |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:06 - Oct 3 by DJR |
Yes, it's sad that people in this country don't want the sort of social democracy that is common in countries in western Europe with far better public services.
The obsession with lower taxes these last 45 years has been a driver for this, but the irony is that we have ended up with record taxes and desperately poor public services.
Or putting it another way, we've tried to run a version of social democracy on the cheap in that period, and look where we have ended up. [Post edited 3 Oct 16:44]
|
I don't think he's talking about something as reasonable as better public services. He literally used the word radical. He wants a left wing government that most in the country are not interested in. Some people refuse to accept that. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:02 - Oct 3 with 174 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:18 - Oct 3 by Churchman |
Sorry, I’m don’t understand what you mean. The basic figures are the government raised by various taxes £1232bn in 25/26.
https://commonslibrary.parliam
State pension cost £154bn. Of the money raised in taxes about £30bn comes from pensioners (source: Professional Pensions).
You believe that pension provision is unsustainable and fundamentally wrong that ‘youngsters’ have to pay for it. Well there are solutions.
End state pension provision altogether. It’s only been around since 118 years since 1908 so in the great scheme of things it’s within a few generations. Scrap it and let people and their families get on with it. Not a civilised or great idea as far as I’m concerned though a good chum of mine would support it.
Second idea - take income tax back to 1978 when old people were ‘youngsters’ like you. Let’s be fair and round it to 30% for basic rate and scaled up for higher rates (see attached). A 1% rise in income tax on current rates = £1.1bn raised so at 30% that’s about 110bn in the pot! Hurrah! My mate would definitely knit his eyebrows at that.
https://stacks.stanford.edu/fi
Another solution is to print money. When I challenged a treasury dude about booting out tax inspectors who brought in many times what they earned, I was told that wasn’t important. Headcount was and the treasury could always print money.
HMG if it was interested could always try closing the £60bn tax gap. That might help.
I think I prefer retaining state pension, ending triple lock in the sort of way being suggested by HMG but do it now. I also advocate people in retirement continuing to pay NI if they can afford it.
Cautious and timid? Maybe but I’m not in favour of tipping old people into poverty. Its not just ageist to dismiss them, it’s also uncivilised in my view. [Post edited 3 Oct 13:18]
|
You would still have some form of pension for those that really need it but the rest would be supported by employment based mandated schemes. Surely you don’t think Denmark is uncivilised? It’s not the only idea, but seems the most pragmatic to me.
Printing more money is a terrible idea though, even ex members of the MPC committee are now starting to admit QE was a bad idea and has devalued Sterling. The value to anything is scarcity, so the more you make of something the less it’s worth (for example other countries holding GBP in reserve). The Pound has lost huge amounts of value since the GFC, largely by creating more money through QE.
One of the reasons diesel is at record highs in the UK (note crude isn’t because it’s USD denominated) is because the pound is so weak compared to previous fuel crises at the turn of the century. Given we are an import based economy, that’s just made us all poorer. Which is precisely why we are going to quantitive tightening now.
Edit: I’ll leave it there on pensions, it’s fine to disagree - would be pretty boring engagement otherwise! [Post edited 3 Oct 17:08]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
