| Loving Burnham's visions and promises 14:55 - Sep 29 with 2824 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 16:11 - Sep 29 with 439 views | Ftnfwest |
north |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:11 - Sep 29 with 436 views | J2BLUE |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:05 - Sep 29 by FrimleyBlue |
Not pointless imo required
AI etc is to be embraced but controlled
For me i've always felt the creation of the internet is what killed the high street, now it's AI killing jobs.
I do feel for future generations, there is gonna be fk all jobs for people to do
I was part of a group workshop a few weeks ago, this fella was proudly announcing he's getting rid of 3 of his staff and instead going with online AI. |
Thank god you're not in the government. We'd still be ploughing fields with horses.
I do get your point but why hold things back to preserve things like checkout work when we could instead charge a little extra tax so the technology benefits us all and invest in better opportunities? Preserving dull repetitive work like checkout work just to give people something to do feels like letting those people down and seems so backward when we only get one short life. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:16 - Sep 29 with 427 views | peterleeblue |
I don't get the triple lock fuss.
Yes, the SP might not get the bumper increases - maybe £200 per year less if it just follows inflation.
But if it contributes to not having to sell houses and having savings demolished to pay for SC then seems a fair compromise to me. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:18 - Sep 29 with 406 views | MattinLondon |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:11 - Sep 29 by J2BLUE |
Thank god you're not in the government. We'd still be ploughing fields with horses.
I do get your point but why hold things back to preserve things like checkout work when we could instead charge a little extra tax so the technology benefits us all and invest in better opportunities? Preserving dull repetitive work like checkout work just to give people something to do feels like letting those people down and seems so backward when we only get one short life. |
And in a lot of cases those staff who used to man the checkouts are now the ones who complete online orders for delivery.
At my local big Tescos, there’s only a few manned checkouts open but there appears to be a lot of staff down the aisles jobs picking out items for deliveries.
Without doubt AI and technology will interfere with the jobs market but not sure that supermarkets offer the best examples of this happening. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:18 - Sep 29 with 408 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:11 - Sep 29 by J2BLUE |
Thank god you're not in the government. We'd still be ploughing fields with horses.
I do get your point but why hold things back to preserve things like checkout work when we could instead charge a little extra tax so the technology benefits us all and invest in better opportunities? Preserving dull repetitive work like checkout work just to give people something to do feels like letting those people down and seems so backward when we only get one short life. |
I don't think it would be holding things back, it's simply removing a block to thousands of jobs for youngsters and many disabled people that was a step on the job ladder towards a better future for the young, for the disabled it actually created opportunities to work which simply doesn't exist and gets worse year on year.
People talk about benefits etc and the issues with how many ' can work' don't work, when simply it's can work, can't find work for thousands.
In my industry i've got at least 8 clients i know of desperate for work, 5 of them worked on checkouts, there's nothing that matches those roles as everywhere is stocking up on screens. what's the plan for them exactly? a life of taking benefits but not being able to work due to their disability but it's ok because we're evolving into an AI world. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:23 - Sep 29 with 389 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:18 - Sep 29 by MattinLondon |
And in a lot of cases those staff who used to man the checkouts are now the ones who complete online orders for delivery.
At my local big Tescos, there’s only a few manned checkouts open but there appears to be a lot of staff down the aisles jobs picking out items for deliveries.
Without doubt AI and technology will interfere with the jobs market but not sure that supermarkets offer the best examples of this happening. |
"And in a lot of cases those staff who used to man the checkouts are now the ones who complete online orders for delivery"
Indeed, yet still thousands jobs lost in the process, but those you speak of who changed their role.............. that role would have have been a job for someone else, so again it's a lost job opportunity for someone. Your tesco for example, if you had 20 manned checkouts you'd be hiring more order processing staff for online orders, so even better. Plenty of mixed jobs available. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:23 - Sep 29 with 389 views | ITFC_Essex |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:10 - Sep 29 by Cafe_Newman |
I loathe self checkouts for the reasons you give, but you can do some things to prevent these job losses.
Insist on using the manned-checkouts, even if it means queuing. Alternatively, be old and doddery when you do use the self-checkout. Literally take 20-30 to check out and slow up the checkout process - if enough people do this, people will stop shopping at these places. |
Consumers are choosing them, and thus the reason companies are going that way, saves them money and moving with the market.
A bit like how Netflix replaced the cinema and Blockbuster, store bought booze replaced the pub, YouTube replaced over the air TV, and streaming in general replaced physical games, CD's, DVD's, and so on, wiping whole markets out, even before AI arrived.
Customers choose in the end, thats what drives the change.
Look at football, a replica shirt would change every two years, if in the 90s we had proposed that three change every 9 months, parents would have been rioting. Now, people just pay it without thinking, and that won't change until the consumer changes. [Post edited 29 Sep 16:25]
|  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:29 - Sep 29 with 371 views | peterleeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:23 - Sep 29 by ITFC_Essex |
Consumers are choosing them, and thus the reason companies are going that way, saves them money and moving with the market.
A bit like how Netflix replaced the cinema and Blockbuster, store bought booze replaced the pub, YouTube replaced over the air TV, and streaming in general replaced physical games, CD's, DVD's, and so on, wiping whole markets out, even before AI arrived.
Customers choose in the end, thats what drives the change.
Look at football, a replica shirt would change every two years, if in the 90s we had proposed that three change every 9 months, parents would have been rioting. Now, people just pay it without thinking, and that won't change until the consumer changes. [Post edited 29 Sep 16:25]
|
To be fair anyone buying 3 replica x shirts per season probably is not in a cost of living crisis.
Its all about priorities. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:30 - Sep 29 with 364 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:23 - Sep 29 by ITFC_Essex |
Consumers are choosing them, and thus the reason companies are going that way, saves them money and moving with the market.
A bit like how Netflix replaced the cinema and Blockbuster, store bought booze replaced the pub, YouTube replaced over the air TV, and streaming in general replaced physical games, CD's, DVD's, and so on, wiping whole markets out, even before AI arrived.
Customers choose in the end, thats what drives the change.
Look at football, a replica shirt would change every two years, if in the 90s we had proposed that three change every 9 months, parents would have been rioting. Now, people just pay it without thinking, and that won't change until the consumer changes. [Post edited 29 Sep 16:25]
|
Consumers aren't choosing them though, They are being forced to use them. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:32 - Sep 29 with 364 views | Radlett_blue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:16 - Sep 29 by peterleeblue |
I don't get the triple lock fuss.
Yes, the SP might not get the bumper increases - maybe £200 per year less if it just follows inflation.
But if it contributes to not having to sell houses and having savings demolished to pay for SC then seems a fair compromise to me. |
Who should pay for social care? It's very expensive & if a person has accumulated considerable wealth, what's wrong with this being used for this purpose?
The alternative is to increase taxes & make working people pay more tax so that someone can hand over accumulated wealth to their heirs. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:35 - Sep 29 with 355 views | Ftnfwest |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:16 - Sep 29 by peterleeblue |
I don't get the triple lock fuss.
Yes, the SP might not get the bumper increases - maybe £200 per year less if it just follows inflation.
But if it contributes to not having to sell houses and having savings demolished to pay for SC then seems a fair compromise to me. |
not sure how the selection of the '2 out of 3' bits of the triple lock actually stacks up and whether another combination might be better, but surely this will proportionately affect poorer pensioners who rely on the state pension far more, than those with private pensions instead, or as well as? | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:37 - Sep 29 with 347 views | Ftnfwest |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:32 - Sep 29 by Radlett_blue |
Who should pay for social care? It's very expensive & if a person has accumulated considerable wealth, what's wrong with this being used for this purpose?
The alternative is to increase taxes & make working people pay more tax so that someone can hand over accumulated wealth to their heirs. |
It already is used for that purpose. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:38 - Sep 29 with 338 views | peterleeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:32 - Sep 29 by Radlett_blue |
Who should pay for social care? It's very expensive & if a person has accumulated considerable wealth, what's wrong with this being used for this purpose?
The alternative is to increase taxes & make working people pay more tax so that someone can hand over accumulated wealth to their heirs. |
It depends on what you consider to be 'Considerable wealth'
Wealth built by prudence (not squander) over a 40 year period easily eaten up by £2k per week care fees
or
Inherited millions.......that the interest on can easily pay the cost of care.
Personally I would happily pay a monthly premium into a shared pot for my possible future care (that I may never need) rather than have my modest estate asset stripped to pay exorbitant care fees. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:42 - Sep 29 with 322 views | Radlett_blue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:38 - Sep 29 by peterleeblue |
It depends on what you consider to be 'Considerable wealth'
Wealth built by prudence (not squander) over a 40 year period easily eaten up by £2k per week care fees
or
Inherited millions.......that the interest on can easily pay the cost of care.
Personally I would happily pay a monthly premium into a shared pot for my possible future care (that I may never need) rather than have my modest estate asset stripped to pay exorbitant care fees. |
Fine if you think assets can he hypothecated. But a forced saving would be seen as a new tax (and presented by opposition politicians as such). My mother in law is in a care home at a cost of £80,000 a year. Not many can afford that for very long. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:43 - Sep 29 with 313 views | DanTheMan |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:54 - Sep 29 by giant_stow |
I guess you're right in one sense and again I didn't see it, but if his message is one of change, doesn't respecting previous promises made to the electorate fit in with that message? |
Possibly. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I'm just seeing a needless delay. If he / the Government are sure this is the right thing to do, then do it. Don't say you'll get around to it in another few years. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:45 - Sep 29 with 302 views | mellowblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:30 - Sep 29 by FrimleyBlue |
Consumers aren't choosing them though, They are being forced to use them. |
not really Frimmers, consumers were forced to make a choice. In the example you chose Sky multi channel tv and (possibly later) streaming services sat alongside cinema and Blockbusters in the markeplace. Weight of choice forced Blockbusters to close and cinemas to close or evolve. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:58 - Sep 29 with 260 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:43 - Sep 29 by DanTheMan |
Possibly. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I'm just seeing a needless delay. If he / the Government are sure this is the right thing to do, then do it. Don't say you'll get around to it in another few years. |
I imagine the current fiscal position due to Trump and Burnham's emphasis on the cost of living plays a part too in his decisions. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:08 - Sep 29 with 253 views | BelsteadCav |
It’s been deleted by the looks of it [Post edited 29 Sep 17:23]
|  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:14 - Sep 29 with 237 views | peterleeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:08 - Sep 29 by BelsteadCav |
It’s been deleted by the looks of it [Post edited 29 Sep 17:23]
|
I think the pause was one of composure as he was about to reference his very recently deceased father.
Maybe not such a 'joke' - eh! | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:18 - Sep 29 with 229 views | BelsteadCav |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:14 - Sep 29 by peterleeblue |
I think the pause was one of composure as he was about to reference his very recently deceased father.
Maybe not such a 'joke' - eh! |
All planned and a show
Glad you fell for it | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:18 - Sep 29 with 234 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:08 - Sep 29 by BelsteadCav |
It’s been deleted by the looks of it [Post edited 29 Sep 17:23]
|
Try to let a little context into your life. The person who tweeted has seen good sense and deleted it. Maybe you should too. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:21 - Sep 29 with 223 views | DJR |
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."
[Post edited 29 Sep 17:25]
| | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:22 - Sep 29 with 216 views | Pinewoodblue |
If you listened to Burnham he said triple lock would continue until next election, he then went further and said it wouldn’t change until 2030.
I would keep the triple lock but adjust it. Over the last ten years pensions have risen twice by 2.5%, 4 times by average wage earnings increase and 4 times by inflation rate. If Pensions had increased by 2.5% or the lower of the other elements they would be 11% lower than they are now, not a significant amount if you remember we are talking about a full decade.
The other element would be based on the mean average increase between the two elements of the triple lock. They would also cover the same period not as now when inflation is based on March -June and wages on September.
I would add that whatever the increase it is essential that the tax codes must increase by the same percentage. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:23 - Sep 29 with 215 views | J2BLUE |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 17:18 - Sep 29 by BelsteadCav |
All planned and a show
Glad you fell for it |
He was clearly emotional. Imagine trying to weaponise someone's dad dying.
ffs. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
