| Loving Burnham's visions and promises 14:55 - Sep 29 with 11811 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 07:54 - Sep 30 with 831 views | TownieRob |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:25 - Sep 30 by Mullet |
So you want socialist solutions to problems caused by right wing incompetence and greed, but without the socialism?
This is as good as “cut the welfare bill” guy. |
Not sure who 'cut the welfare' guy is, but I'll answer regardless.
Honestly, I don't care if it's left or right. I care if it works and whether the money's spent well.
Wanting the NHS to work and kids to get proper training isn't socialism. Every party going says they'll fund those. That's should be the basics of what we pay tax for.
My issue is the state taking on more and more, nationalising water, building a whole new care service, when it can't run what it's already got. Get the basics right first, spend what we've got properly, then talk about taking on more. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:59 - Sep 30 with 801 views | Mullet |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:54 - Sep 30 by TownieRob |
Not sure who 'cut the welfare' guy is, but I'll answer regardless.
Honestly, I don't care if it's left or right. I care if it works and whether the money's spent well.
Wanting the NHS to work and kids to get proper training isn't socialism. Every party going says they'll fund those. That's should be the basics of what we pay tax for.
My issue is the state taking on more and more, nationalising water, building a whole new care service, when it can't run what it's already got. Get the basics right first, spend what we've got properly, then talk about taking on more. |
Given that all your grievances are down to the actions and ideologies of Thatcherite Tories - then by your own logic that’s exactly what it is.
The NHS has been a target for the right wing for decades and one area they simply couldn’t manage to sell off. The mess we are in is down to those people and why we are tied into so many bad deals across the board.
This is going to take time and people accepting it. What can’t the state run exactly? We’ve been beholden to share holders and foreign parasites for a lifetime now. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:00 - Sep 30 with 810 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:48 - Sep 30 by TownieRob |
It's not either/or. Nobody's saying let Russia walk in. But £3bn a year 'for as long as it takes' is a blank cheque with no end date and no exit plan. The hundred billion is a guess about what might happen, while the £3bn a year is real money going out now, with no end in sight. Why is it on us so much? Plenty of European countries sit a lot closer to Russia than we do. Let them step up more.
On the triple lock, I get the argument about fairness to younger people. My issue is trust. 'Five years to get social care sorted' is what we've heard for twenty years. So forgive me if I don't hand over pensioners' future rises on the promise of a care service that doesn't exist yet.
Fair play to you for being fine with it, but not every pensioner is in the same boat. Plenty rely on the state pension alone, and every rise counts for them. Build the care service first, prove it works, then talk about changing the deal. |
If you look at Ukraine aid by % of GDP, we’re down the list, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, Latvia, Finland, Poland etc. give more. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:04 - Sep 30 with 792 views | TownieRob |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:44 - Sep 30 by StokieBlue |
"Sorry, but this screams socialism to me."
Have you considered that his target audience might actually want a bit more socialism after decades of rampant capitalism have left the country in a right state?
"He's announced he's taking money from pensioners' triple lock to build a new state-run care service, and opening the door to nationalising water. More state control. I don't trust this government to spend that money well so handing them even more to run isn't the answer. I'd bet higher taxes on those who work hard aren't far behind. Where's the incentive?"
The triple lock is unsustainable in reality.
From the OBR:
"The Office for Budget Responsibility has pointed to the triple lock as one of the factors contributing to the unsustainability of the public finances. It predicted that about 9% of GDP would have been spent on state pensions by 2075/76 if the triple lock had remained in place – that’s up from 5% currently."
The changes still maintain an inflation linkage and baseline. I do understand this is a difficult and emotive subject though given people have paid all their lives for their pension.
I don't see any good argument against nationalising water, it's been totally mismanaged by the private sector for decades. You're upset about money going abroad but seem happy to have privatised water companies sending huge dividends abroad whilst not even providing a basic level of service to the country which seems strange to me.
"Roughly £11 billion going overseas this year. Then there's another £2.2bn of the aid budget going on asylum costs over here on top.
£3bn a year to Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'.
£662m to France to stop the boats. Still coming aren't they.
£6bn on 'climate finance' over three years.
£146m Sudan, £127m Palestine, £105m Afghanistan.
£165m a year lined up for Mauritius so we can rent back islands we already had."
- Funding the Ukraine helps restrict Russia whilst we get our armed services up to scratch.
- The boats are slowing hugely, the numbers support this.
- Climate is one of the most important things we should be focusing on.
- I have no issue with the foreign aid to these countries but that could be debated. Sudan for instance was exploited by the UK during colonialism.
- This is a longer term negioation that has been ongoing and a remenant of colonial land grabs.
"I don't want to be paying for all that abroad while people are waiting hours for an ambulance, the cost of living keeps going up, and pensioners had their heating allowance taken off them in the first place. These are people who worked their whole lives and were promised they'd be looked after."
None of these things were sorted under the Tories, why do you think more of the same will work? The heating allowance policy was reversed, why are you citing it?
"I'm not against aid, it's about priorities. Tackle homelessness. Get young people into work with proper training and skills, actually sort out the NHS and all the waste in it. You really can't do it all, there isn't the money. So you have to choose, and for me that means at home first, before sending billions abroad, before taking it off pensioners and before taxing people more for working harder"
The classic "fix the waste in the NHS", something that once again hasn't happened over the recent more right leaning governments. We are taxed lower than many countries in Europe, this narrative that we can't tax a bit more doesn't stack up to any real metrics in comparison to similar countries.
Totally agree we should tackle the issues you've cited but perhaps that needs a new methodology and I'm willing to hear about that given nothing has worked.
"All this talk of 'hope', and the one clear policy is breaking a promise to pensioners. Look at the numbers, it's a mess."
This isn't true though, it's a manifesto point for the next GE. No promises have been broken, if people don't like it they don't have to vote for it. I think we are at the point now where a lot of people are willing to try something different. Hopefully any future manifesto will also contain a pathway to re-joining the EU.
SB |
Fair reply, but we're clearly coming at this from different places.
I'll give you the heating allowance, it was mostly reversed. The triple lock though, people were told it was safe. Putting an end date on it and calling it a manifesto point is still moving the goalposts on people who've paid in all their lives.
With regards to tax, for me 'Other countries pay more' isn't a reason to take more.. I believe if you work hard you should keep more of what you earn. The more you tax effort, the less of it you get.
Completely agree about the water, terribly run, clearly. Taking that over is going to cost billions, and I've no faith the state would run it any better.
The overseas money. You're happy with it, I'm not. Charity starts at home. You want more socialism, I want less. We're not going to agree on that one.
Appreciate the well thought out reply though. Let's hope AB can pull a rabbit out of the hat, and I don't mean more of our money. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:13 - Sep 30 with 771 views | TownieRob |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:59 - Sep 30 by Mullet |
Given that all your grievances are down to the actions and ideologies of Thatcherite Tories - then by your own logic that’s exactly what it is.
The NHS has been a target for the right wing for decades and one area they simply couldn’t manage to sell off. The mess we are in is down to those people and why we are tied into so many bad deals across the board.
This is going to take time and people accepting it. What can’t the state run exactly? We’ve been beholden to share holders and foreign parasites for a lifetime now. |
You keep bringing it back to left and right. I'm not defending Thatcher, she was before my time anyway. I'm asking whether this plan works and who pays.
What can't the state run? Once the state owns it, every pound of investment has to fight the NHS, schools and everything else for money and history says it usually loses. Look at HS2, a government-owned company, billions over budget, and they still scrapped half of it, even AB paused taking over Thames Water in August over what it would cost the taxpayer. That tells you something.
Anyway, I'll leave it there. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:20 - Sep 30 with 760 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 22:47 - Sep 29 by WeWereZombies |
The proposal for a publicly owned Great British Grid is intended to speed up connections of wind and solar farms amongst other things so that is a further environmental plus point. |
Ah, yes I’d forgotten that. Yes, very much so as the current system has trouble moving electricity around from where the larger farms are didn’t it. Good point. It’s annother example of them actually addressing problems. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:30 - Sep 30 with 723 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:28 - Sep 30 by Benters |
Both arseholes buh. |
Or two cheeks of the same arse?  |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:32 - Sep 30 with 709 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 03:14 - Sep 30 by TownieRob |
Sorry, but this screams socialism to me. He's announced he's taking money from pensioners' triple lock to build a new state-run care service, and opening the door to nationalising water. More state control. I don't trust this government to spend that money well so handing them even more to run isn't the answer. I'd bet higher taxes on those who work hard aren't far behind. Where's the incentive?
I personally would really prefer that before anyone starts on taking it off pensioners or taxing us higher, have a look at where the money's going, including what we're sending overseas. I have.
Roughly £11 billion going overseas this year. Then there's another £2.2bn of the aid budget going on asylum costs over here on top.
£3bn a year to Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'.
£662m to France to stop the boats. Still coming aren't they.
£6bn on 'climate finance' over three years.
£146m Sudan, £127m Palestine, £105m Afghanistan.
£165m a year lined up for Mauritius so we can rent back islands we already had.
I don't want to be paying for all that abroad while people are waiting hours for an ambulance, the cost of living keeps going up, and pensioners had their heating allowance taken off them in the first place. These are people who worked their whole lives and were promised they'd be looked after.
I'm not against aid, it's about priorities. Tackle homelessness. Get young people into work with proper training and skills, actually sort out the NHS and all the waste in it. You really can't do it all, there isn't the money. So you have to choose, and for me that means at home first, before sending billions abroad, before taking it off pensioners and before taxing people more for working harder
All this talk of 'hope', and the one clear policy is breaking a promise to pensioners. Look at the numbers, it's a mess. [Post edited 30 Sep 4:16]
|
Our aid is primarily run as an investment model to leverage additional private funding to support trade and British commercial interests, or at least improve the conditions supporting those things. It’s bizarre to think international development and the aid structure as socialist. It was Thatcher who set up the ODA that then morphed into the international frameworks we have today. It’s largely about influence and future financial opportunities, with a side serving of poverty alleviation. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:34 - Sep 30 with 687 views | Mullet |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:13 - Sep 30 by TownieRob |
You keep bringing it back to left and right. I'm not defending Thatcher, she was before my time anyway. I'm asking whether this plan works and who pays.
What can't the state run? Once the state owns it, every pound of investment has to fight the NHS, schools and everything else for money and history says it usually loses. Look at HS2, a government-owned company, billions over budget, and they still scrapped half of it, even AB paused taking over Thames Water in August over what it would cost the taxpayer. That tells you something.
Anyway, I'll leave it there. |
You brought up socialism. Don’t blame me because you can’t put together something which makes sense. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:41 - Sep 30 with 673 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:00 - Sep 30 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
If you look at Ukraine aid by % of GDP, we’re down the list, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, Latvia, Finland, Poland etc. give more. |
Don't let facts get in the way. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:51 - Sep 30 with 646 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 20:55 - Sep 29 by DJR |
There are 700,000 vacancies all of which will require experience and/or qualifications.
There are many more than that not working, and I imagine the vast majority will not have sufficient experience or qualifications for the vast majority of those jobs.
Then there are people like the over-50s who might have experience and/or qualifications but many of whom appear to struggle to get another job if they lose their job. No doubt they will have to draw down their savings before they are entitled to benefits, but are you suggesting they shouldn't get benefits then and so end up destitute?
The problem for me is that people in receipt of benefits have been demonised when the supposed solution (cuts) is far too simplistic.
But then again, it has always been thus with corresponding expressions like the undeserving poor going back decades if not centuries. [Post edited 29 Sep 20:58]
|
One means of increasing the tax take is to make work more beneficial and make employing people more attractive.
I don’t really sign up for the demonisation, but the number of people in receipt of benefits is getting higher and higher every year. This is a problem because of the imbalance created by those who don’t receive anything but are not well off and those who do. As the threshold increases it gets more and more difficult to avoid the trap. A measure of success in an economy would be the other way round in that it must be better not to need benefits than it needs them.
Then there is the issue of incentivising the over 50 middle class to keep working (and hence paying tax). Income tax thresholds haven’t moved for years. The benefits of saving in a pension or other means are being reduced. All of this is very damaging to the fiscal position as well as productivity.
Bit of a ramble, but in summary there are people who absolutely need benefits for the long term. They should be supported more. But it’s far more desirable to take the majority of people of benefits, including PIP as it’s an indicator of economic progress |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:52 - Sep 30 with 646 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:04 - Sep 30 by TownieRob |
Fair reply, but we're clearly coming at this from different places.
I'll give you the heating allowance, it was mostly reversed. The triple lock though, people were told it was safe. Putting an end date on it and calling it a manifesto point is still moving the goalposts on people who've paid in all their lives.
With regards to tax, for me 'Other countries pay more' isn't a reason to take more.. I believe if you work hard you should keep more of what you earn. The more you tax effort, the less of it you get.
Completely agree about the water, terribly run, clearly. Taking that over is going to cost billions, and I've no faith the state would run it any better.
The overseas money. You're happy with it, I'm not. Charity starts at home. You want more socialism, I want less. We're not going to agree on that one.
Appreciate the well thought out reply though. Let's hope AB can pull a rabbit out of the hat, and I don't mean more of our money. |
How are you defining who works hard/effort?
If it's the old school thinking of the harder you work the more you earn, then no. That's simply not true.
Charity starts at home is such short-sighted thinking. Others have explained above the long term benefits. Stopping Russian expansion, for one, is pretty obvious.
You seem to want things to carry on as they are (right leaning, rampant capitalism, dog-eat-dog, worry about the planet later etc.). How's that been working out? We need a strong vision for the future, and politics to break frankly. Start doing things that might lose votes. The self preservation thing we've had for donkeys years just makes the country worse and worse (except for a few at the top). | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:57 - Sep 30 with 634 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| 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. |
"This ‘Andy’ bloke is worse than Starmer and that takes some doing."
This is just words. No meaning. I bet you can't even say yourself how he's worse, other than just 'vibes'.
And why do you put Andy in inverted commas? That's his name. He's not some sort of pretend Andy! | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:08 - Sep 30 with 615 views | lowhouseblue |
good speech and all very positive. long-term and a vision for change over a decade. if we all feel as positive after the budget, which has to deal with the here and now, then that will be a very major achievement cos it's all looking a bit sticky in the shorter-term. none of that can be blamed on burnham, but negotiating it successfully will show a different level of political skill. |  |
| 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 09:30 - Sep 30 with 548 views | Blueschev |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 20:28 - Sep 29 by Wolfshead |
Don't have anything more specific than that, other than people need to be encouraged to get out to work (and that includes better support for single parents for example) rather than claiming welfare. |
So you want to cut the welfare bill by increasing the welfare bill? |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:57 - Sep 30 with 494 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:42 - Sep 29 by Radlett_blue |
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. |
There are areas of the country where it is £2,000 per week minimum for the most basic care home nursing support. Considerably more for dementia or complex nursing needs.
And these are the homes that are just about satisfactory on Care inspections.
I live in Edinburgh, and the ones that are actively pleasant to live in are £2,400 a week for the base level of nursing care.
£128,000 a year. Lovely homemade Rocky Road or Millionaire's Shortbread with the afternoon cup of tea, mind. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:14 - Sep 30 with 452 views | Benters |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:30 - Sep 30 by DJR |
Or two cheeks of the same arse? |
Yes. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:15 - Sep 30 with 446 views | Benters |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:57 - Sep 30 by The_Flashing_Smile |
"This ‘Andy’ bloke is worse than Starmer and that takes some doing."
This is just words. No meaning. I bet you can't even say yourself how he's worse, other than just 'vibes'.
And why do you put Andy in inverted commas? That's his name. He's not some sort of pretend Andy! |
He’s a pretend PM  | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:31 - Sep 30 with 413 views | WeWereZombies |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:48 - Sep 30 by TownieRob |
It's not either/or. Nobody's saying let Russia walk in. But £3bn a year 'for as long as it takes' is a blank cheque with no end date and no exit plan. The hundred billion is a guess about what might happen, while the £3bn a year is real money going out now, with no end in sight. Why is it on us so much? Plenty of European countries sit a lot closer to Russia than we do. Let them step up more.
On the triple lock, I get the argument about fairness to younger people. My issue is trust. 'Five years to get social care sorted' is what we've heard for twenty years. So forgive me if I don't hand over pensioners' future rises on the promise of a care service that doesn't exist yet.
Fair play to you for being fine with it, but not every pensioner is in the same boat. Plenty rely on the state pension alone, and every rise counts for them. Build the care service first, prove it works, then talk about changing the deal. |
Funding a new care service will cost money, the unsustainable triple lock will break our balance of payments for good if left as it is. I want to see pensioners who only have the state pension looked after when they cannot fully look after themselves and not left to the vagaries of a patchwork of puzzling systems and have every penny shaken out of their pockets by companies who will pay out to their shareholders before making all the necessary investments in the service. We have to get on and do this, folding your arms and watching everyone else do the work until every 'i' has been dotted and every 't' crossed is not a good look. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:42 - Sep 30 with 363 views | Ryorry |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:51 - Sep 30 by balcombeblue |
One means of increasing the tax take is to make work more beneficial and make employing people more attractive.
I don’t really sign up for the demonisation, but the number of people in receipt of benefits is getting higher and higher every year. This is a problem because of the imbalance created by those who don’t receive anything but are not well off and those who do. As the threshold increases it gets more and more difficult to avoid the trap. A measure of success in an economy would be the other way round in that it must be better not to need benefits than it needs them.
Then there is the issue of incentivising the over 50 middle class to keep working (and hence paying tax). Income tax thresholds haven’t moved for years. The benefits of saving in a pension or other means are being reduced. All of this is very damaging to the fiscal position as well as productivity.
Bit of a ramble, but in summary there are people who absolutely need benefits for the long term. They should be supported more. But it’s far more desirable to take the majority of people of benefits, including PIP as it’s an indicator of economic progress |
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. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:43 - Sep 30 with 356 views | WeWereZombies |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:30 - Sep 30 by Blueschev |
So you want to cut the welfare bill by increasing the welfare bill? |
Clause two from Count Binface's 2026 Clacton election manifesto:
I will cut your taxes and raise everyone else's. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:52 - Sep 30 with 325 views | WeWereZombies |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:51 - Sep 30 by balcombeblue |
One means of increasing the tax take is to make work more beneficial and make employing people more attractive.
I don’t really sign up for the demonisation, but the number of people in receipt of benefits is getting higher and higher every year. This is a problem because of the imbalance created by those who don’t receive anything but are not well off and those who do. As the threshold increases it gets more and more difficult to avoid the trap. A measure of success in an economy would be the other way round in that it must be better not to need benefits than it needs them.
Then there is the issue of incentivising the over 50 middle class to keep working (and hence paying tax). Income tax thresholds haven’t moved for years. The benefits of saving in a pension or other means are being reduced. All of this is very damaging to the fiscal position as well as productivity.
Bit of a ramble, but in summary there are people who absolutely need benefits for the long term. They should be supported more. But it’s far more desirable to take the majority of people of benefits, including PIP as it’s an indicator of economic progress |
Adjusted for inflation there was a 3% increase in the benefits bill from 2023 to 2024 and a 4% increase from 2024 to 2025. The main driving force behind this ?
'The Pension Triple Lock: The state pension represents the single largest slice of welfare spending (approximately £125 billion in 2024–25). Because it is uprated by whichever is highest among inflation, wage growth, or 2.5%, it has outpaced baseline CPI adjustments.'
https://www.littlelives.org.uk
Seems to me that Andy Burnham's speech addressed your concerns and we have an agenda to move forward on things now.
The reform of the triple lock is a very bold step, especially if it is a manifesto pledge in a forthcoming election, a very tough sell. But surely everyone can see the need for it ? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
