| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. 09:46 - Jun 22 with 2350 views | baxterbasics |
I know most of us have little love for Starmer.
But 7 PMs in 10 years is bonkers. Where's the stability?
Repeatedly changing the top guy doesn't help much if the problem is the MPs. Starmer too often found his hands were tied because his MPs are only interested in raising more taxes to pay more benefits. So the badly needed welfare reform never materialised. No money available to even defend ourselves properly, never mind investing in anything else we might need. What's Burnham going to be able to do about that? Either he caves, or finds himself equally restricted.
When you've picked your horse, back it, you fools. At least until the next election. Same message to all parties by the way. A curse upon all your houses. |  |
| |  |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 09:48 - Jun 22 with 1945 views | redrickstuhaart |
" found his hands were tied because his MPs are only interested in raising more taxes to pay more benefits. " Classic attack line but not true.
Hand were tied by the fiscal mess we are in after brexit, years of austerity, covid and Truss's budget. |  |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 09:51 - Jun 22 with 1898 views | GlasgowBlue |
We are basically third century Rome. |  |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 09:52 - Jun 22 with 1894 views | JammyDodgerrr |
The issue with welfare reform is not a single party is prepared to tackle the actual issue of the Welfare cost - the triple lock. Pension costs are 45% of our welfare bill and the triple lock is costing us £12billion per year more than if it had just gone up with average earnings(as it should)
The constant need to try and cut PIP and other disability benefits when they make up something like 20% of the bill, whilst ignoring the biggest issue, is actually what is costing us.
We are also still paying the cost of Hunt doing the NI giveaway we absolutely could not afford, and again, no party being willing to reverse this. [Post edited 22 Jun 9:53]
|  |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 09:53 - Jun 22 with 1864 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 09:52 - Jun 22 by JammyDodgerrr |
The issue with welfare reform is not a single party is prepared to tackle the actual issue of the Welfare cost - the triple lock. Pension costs are 45% of our welfare bill and the triple lock is costing us £12billion per year more than if it had just gone up with average earnings(as it should)
The constant need to try and cut PIP and other disability benefits when they make up something like 20% of the bill, whilst ignoring the biggest issue, is actually what is costing us.
We are also still paying the cost of Hunt doing the NI giveaway we absolutely could not afford, and again, no party being willing to reverse this. [Post edited 22 Jun 9:53]
|
Yep- Id forgotten that one. Needed to put that money back in somehow straight away. Which was problematic and led to an unpopular increase in employer's NI which may have somewhat affected employment rates. | |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 09:54 - Jun 22 with 1859 views | jayessess |
It's a parliamentary democracy, we elect MPs not the prime minister.
If we elected 400 MPs who don't want that kind of welfare reform then that's the choice we made. Managing the legislature isn't some optional extra to being PM.
People seem to think it's the job of Labour prime ministers to govern as antagonistically to the actual Labour Party as possible, it's daft. |  |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 09:55 - Jun 22 with 1838 views | _CliveBaker_ |
Its ridiculous. I don't think it matters whether you're Tory, Labour, anyone else. At some point can we not just let a PM get on with their job? How much of their time and attention over the past 10 years has been spent dealing with back stabbing and constant jostling for that job.
I'm no fan of Starmer but he got a lot of the vote, fooking well let him get on with his job. |  | | |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:01 - Jun 22 with 1757 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 09:52 - Jun 22 by JammyDodgerrr |
The issue with welfare reform is not a single party is prepared to tackle the actual issue of the Welfare cost - the triple lock. Pension costs are 45% of our welfare bill and the triple lock is costing us £12billion per year more than if it had just gone up with average earnings(as it should)
The constant need to try and cut PIP and other disability benefits when they make up something like 20% of the bill, whilst ignoring the biggest issue, is actually what is costing us.
We are also still paying the cost of Hunt doing the NI giveaway we absolutely could not afford, and again, no party being willing to reverse this. [Post edited 22 Jun 9:53]
|
You can understand the Conservatives not wanting to change it because their vote share is significantly leveraged towards pensioners.
The media's constant focus on immigrants and the poor means that far too many voters think nearly all our taxes go to paying for illegal immigrants to live a life of luxury on the state. |  |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:01 - Jun 22 with 1762 views | Freddies_Ears |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 09:48 - Jun 22 by redrickstuhaart |
" found his hands were tied because his MPs are only interested in raising more taxes to pay more benefits. " Classic attack line but not true.
Hand were tied by the fiscal mess we are in after brexit, years of austerity, covid and Truss's budget. |
Unless Starmer had promised not to increase income tax, VAT,etc then he could not have got elected. He had a go at aping Gordon Brown's clever (politically) stealth taxes, but there's not a lot of room there and the deficit is too big. Leaving minor changes, such as business rates, EMPLOYER'S etc to aggregate and hurt small businesses. Even when he had a nibble at IHT, paid only by the richest 4%, he got pilloried - by people who would never pay it!
I sense UK is ungovernable. Everyone wants something for nothing, everyone wants low tax and decent services, everyone wants someone to blame. [Post edited 22 Jun 10:04]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:04 - Jun 22 with 1722 views | mistert |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 09:51 - Jun 22 by GlasgowBlue |
We are basically third century Rome. |
Or the governmental version of Watford. |  | | |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:09 - Jun 22 with 1670 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:01 - Jun 22 by Freddies_Ears |
Unless Starmer had promised not to increase income tax, VAT,etc then he could not have got elected. He had a go at aping Gordon Brown's clever (politically) stealth taxes, but there's not a lot of room there and the deficit is too big. Leaving minor changes, such as business rates, EMPLOYER'S etc to aggregate and hurt small businesses. Even when he had a nibble at IHT, paid only by the richest 4%, he got pilloried - by people who would never pay it!
I sense UK is ungovernable. Everyone wants something for nothing, everyone wants low tax and decent services, everyone wants someone to blame. [Post edited 22 Jun 10:04]
|
Your comment on IHT is spot on here.
Most people are happy to jump on the lazy poor and blame them for their ills. They are far too quick to defend the rights of the rich to keep their money, though.
Ultimately changes to IHT probably wouldn't have had much impact anyway because those who are that rich can usually find loopholes around paying it. | |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:15 - Jun 22 with 1616 views | bsw72 |
The mainstream press and social media have a lot of responsibility for the mess we are in, permitting and in some cases promoting lies, and not holding public service individuals accountable for their behaviour and financial affairs.
Add to that the complexity of external influence from other countries, including bots, and frankly it's an utter shambles.
It's also not going to improve, no matter who is in charge politically as those with the money and media platforms are now in control. |  | | |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:18 - Jun 22 with 1584 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:15 - Jun 22 by bsw72 |
The mainstream press and social media have a lot of responsibility for the mess we are in, permitting and in some cases promoting lies, and not holding public service individuals accountable for their behaviour and financial affairs.
Add to that the complexity of external influence from other countries, including bots, and frankly it's an utter shambles.
It's also not going to improve, no matter who is in charge politically as those with the money and media platforms are now in control. |
This 100x. See, for instance, the furore if IHT is mentioned. Or multi millionaire farmers paying something closer to what everyone else does (but still having a privileged tax position). | |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:19 - Jun 22 with 1573 views | Guthrum |
Prime Ministerial stability is a modern fiction, largely down to Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.
They are actually the fifth-* and seventh-longest** continually-serving since the modern office came into being, out of 58 (some of whom held the office more than once). 20 administrations lasted less than a year, of which Truss and Douglas-Home are the only post-WWII examples. 13 more were in office more than a year and less than two, including Eden, Sunak and Starmer (altho he will tip over the two year mark before his resignation comes into effect).
So, historically, frequent changes of PM - even within the same party or alliance - are far from uncommon.
* After Walpole (who practically invented the role in its modern format), Pitt the Younger (during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars), the Earl of Liverpool and Lord North (the American crisis).
** Below Henry Pelham, who followed Walpole's (brief) successor Lord Wilmington. |  |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:20 - Jun 22 with 1554 views | jayessess |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:01 - Jun 22 by Freddies_Ears |
Unless Starmer had promised not to increase income tax, VAT,etc then he could not have got elected. He had a go at aping Gordon Brown's clever (politically) stealth taxes, but there's not a lot of room there and the deficit is too big. Leaving minor changes, such as business rates, EMPLOYER'S etc to aggregate and hurt small businesses. Even when he had a nibble at IHT, paid only by the richest 4%, he got pilloried - by people who would never pay it!
I sense UK is ungovernable. Everyone wants something for nothing, everyone wants low tax and decent services, everyone wants someone to blame. [Post edited 22 Jun 10:04]
|
I mean, part of the problem there is that you have to build a coherent political project around a coherent voter coalition, not just pitch things that you perceive to make you "electable" and not get buffeted around by the right-wing media.
The McSweeney/Starmer project wasn't that. It had no particular political project beyond managerialism, no way of signalling why their main opposition were wrong (other than being bad at managerialism) and a strong view that the voters they had were the wrong ones (too middle class, too public sector, not white enough, not northern enough). | |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:28 - Jun 22 with 1505 views | Guthrum |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:01 - Jun 22 by Freddies_Ears |
Unless Starmer had promised not to increase income tax, VAT,etc then he could not have got elected. He had a go at aping Gordon Brown's clever (politically) stealth taxes, but there's not a lot of room there and the deficit is too big. Leaving minor changes, such as business rates, EMPLOYER'S etc to aggregate and hurt small businesses. Even when he had a nibble at IHT, paid only by the richest 4%, he got pilloried - by people who would never pay it!
I sense UK is ungovernable. Everyone wants something for nothing, everyone wants low tax and decent services, everyone wants someone to blame. [Post edited 22 Jun 10:04]
|
It's what politicians and the media have been promising people for decades. Hardly surprising they've come to believe it.
Compounded by the need to keep money within households to satisfy the demands of consumerist advertising, the rise of expensive home technology, the proliferation of motor transport and the expectation of luxury items (e.g. overseas holidays, eating out/takeaway, streaming services).
People would, naturally, rather spend their money on themselves than things they have continually been told are wasteful, ineffective and go primarily to those deemed socially unworthy. | |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:36 - Jun 22 with 1437 views | hype313 |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:01 - Jun 22 by Freddies_Ears |
Unless Starmer had promised not to increase income tax, VAT,etc then he could not have got elected. He had a go at aping Gordon Brown's clever (politically) stealth taxes, but there's not a lot of room there and the deficit is too big. Leaving minor changes, such as business rates, EMPLOYER'S etc to aggregate and hurt small businesses. Even when he had a nibble at IHT, paid only by the richest 4%, he got pilloried - by people who would never pay it!
I sense UK is ungovernable. Everyone wants something for nothing, everyone wants low tax and decent services, everyone wants someone to blame. [Post edited 22 Jun 10:04]
|
The country is screwed, we live well beyond our means, no party has any idea on how to fix it because we're in huge debt and the repayments are costing us more than we receive from the exchequer.
I don't know what the answer is, because consecutive parties have tried many different routes and we end up in the same position.
We could try being a low tax business friendly economy like Dubai and Singapore, but we can't because we desperately need the tax to pay for our services, and even with the current highest tax burden in years, all area's are still underfunded, councils bankrupt, every organisation constantly shrinking, the NHS, despite year on year increases in finance gets progressively worse.
I don't know what the answer is, but as citizens we are living in incredibly tough times, hospitality on it's knees, as the cost of utilities and food has skyrocketed, meaning we can't afford to go out as much as we once did.
Housing market is stagnant as it costs so much in Stamp Duty to move, people are thinking why bother, 3 agents near me have all closed down within the past 3 months (and this is supposed to be peak time)
If anyone has any ideas, then answers on a postcard. |  |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:41 - Jun 22 with 1385 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:36 - Jun 22 by hype313 |
The country is screwed, we live well beyond our means, no party has any idea on how to fix it because we're in huge debt and the repayments are costing us more than we receive from the exchequer.
I don't know what the answer is, because consecutive parties have tried many different routes and we end up in the same position.
We could try being a low tax business friendly economy like Dubai and Singapore, but we can't because we desperately need the tax to pay for our services, and even with the current highest tax burden in years, all area's are still underfunded, councils bankrupt, every organisation constantly shrinking, the NHS, despite year on year increases in finance gets progressively worse.
I don't know what the answer is, but as citizens we are living in incredibly tough times, hospitality on it's knees, as the cost of utilities and food has skyrocketed, meaning we can't afford to go out as much as we once did.
Housing market is stagnant as it costs so much in Stamp Duty to move, people are thinking why bother, 3 agents near me have all closed down within the past 3 months (and this is supposed to be peak time)
If anyone has any ideas, then answers on a postcard. |
Housing market needs to be put in reverse. Stagnation isa good thing. No reason for property to be the best type of investment, it just limits desperately needed housing stock with passive investments which dont drive any sort of economic progress. SDLT is a pain. But house prices in this country are absurd. | |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:42 - Jun 22 with 1372 views | RIPbobby |
Its a bad deal for the tax payers as they all get a superb pension paid for by us. |  | | |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:56 - Jun 22 with 1284 views | positivity |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:42 - Jun 22 by RIPbobby |
Its a bad deal for the tax payers as they all get a superb pension paid for by us. |
should definitely be pro rata, ridiculous that truss gets the same as thatcher/blair would.
maybe means test it, so that grifters like blair/johnson/truss get nothing... | |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 11:05 - Jun 22 with 1238 views | Guthrum |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:36 - Jun 22 by hype313 |
The country is screwed, we live well beyond our means, no party has any idea on how to fix it because we're in huge debt and the repayments are costing us more than we receive from the exchequer.
I don't know what the answer is, because consecutive parties have tried many different routes and we end up in the same position.
We could try being a low tax business friendly economy like Dubai and Singapore, but we can't because we desperately need the tax to pay for our services, and even with the current highest tax burden in years, all area's are still underfunded, councils bankrupt, every organisation constantly shrinking, the NHS, despite year on year increases in finance gets progressively worse.
I don't know what the answer is, but as citizens we are living in incredibly tough times, hospitality on it's knees, as the cost of utilities and food has skyrocketed, meaning we can't afford to go out as much as we once did.
Housing market is stagnant as it costs so much in Stamp Duty to move, people are thinking why bother, 3 agents near me have all closed down within the past 3 months (and this is supposed to be peak time)
If anyone has any ideas, then answers on a postcard. |
We live in a high wage, high standard (and cost) of living country with a good level of services and welfare state ... but having lost the majority of our primary wealth-generating industries.
Governments for the last few decades has been concentrating on the City to generate income. However, that doesn't work, as much of it is channelled into pensions, wealthy investors and abroad, rather than the national exchequer or ordinary households. Most of our remaining industries are foreign-owned, with low tax incentives having been used to entice the investment in the first place. Debt is leveraged upon debt in towering and unstable structures.
We cannot compare with Singapore and Dubai. They are effectively city-states, the former a major goods trading hub, the latter with oil wealth. | |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 11:12 - Jun 22 with 1189 views | bsw72 |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 10:42 - Jun 22 by RIPbobby |
Its a bad deal for the tax payers as they all get a superb pension paid for by us. |
[sigh] - Prime Ministers do not get a "special pension", there is no special £115,000 annual pension - MPs have a defined benefit scheme, same as a lot of other pension funds.
Former Prime Ministers are entitled to pensions through the Ministers’ Pension Scheme same as all MPs, which is part of the PCPF. The pension amount depends on length of service, salary, and contribution history.
They do however get an £115K Public Duty Costs Allowance (PDCA), which reimburses former PMs for office and secretarial expenses, capped at £115,000 per year in 2023/24. The PDCA is not a pension, but a fund to cover costs arising from their public duties. They are not paid this by default but have to claim back against this cost.
As for getting a pension (superb or not) paid for by "us" - that is the same as any civil servant funded by the british tax payer - but they have to earn their salary and contribute back into the pension - and all are welcome to apply for work in the public sector. | | | |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 12:14 - Jun 22 with 1048 views | bluelagos |
Where I do have some sympathy - is yet again we will get a PM that the public has not given a mandate.
What I would support is a system where any unelected PM has to go to the country within 12 months of taking the position. The democracy deficit for Starmer was bad enough (elected on 35% odd percent) and is a genuine issue for new PM whoever that is. |  |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 12:36 - Jun 22 with 982 views | Guthrum |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 12:14 - Jun 22 by bluelagos |
Where I do have some sympathy - is yet again we will get a PM that the public has not given a mandate.
What I would support is a system where any unelected PM has to go to the country within 12 months of taking the position. The democracy deficit for Starmer was bad enough (elected on 35% odd percent) and is a genuine issue for new PM whoever that is. |
Tho the public has given a mandate to the Labour Party to govern, by voting them a majority in the House of Commons. Who the leader of that party - and by extension, the administration - might be is not really relevant. Policy is supposed to be dictated by the party's manifesto (a collective document, not Starmer's own), upon which basis they were elected.
The UK Prime Minister is powerful, but he is not an Executive President as in France and the USA. Authority is collaborative with the Cabinet and responsible to Parliament, in a way that Trump and Macron are not. | |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 13:01 - Jun 22 with 915 views | bluelagos |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 12:36 - Jun 22 by Guthrum |
Tho the public has given a mandate to the Labour Party to govern, by voting them a majority in the House of Commons. Who the leader of that party - and by extension, the administration - might be is not really relevant. Policy is supposed to be dictated by the party's manifesto (a collective document, not Starmer's own), upon which basis they were elected.
The UK Prime Minister is powerful, but he is not an Executive President as in France and the USA. Authority is collaborative with the Cabinet and responsible to Parliament, in a way that Trump and Macron are not. |
I get the technical argument.
My point is that ordinary people will not feel that PM Burnham (or May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak before) is their choice. Simple as that.
So until Burnham (or whoever) gets and wins a new mandate they will be seen by the vast majority of voters as lacking any legitimacy.
If I were him I'd cut and run and go to the country with his own manifesto as soon as he can - though Theresa May's botched attempt to do similar will probably scare him off. | |
| |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 13:10 - Jun 22 with 865 views | hype313 |
| Starmer, Burnham and the rest - what a farce. on 13:01 - Jun 22 by bluelagos |
I get the technical argument.
My point is that ordinary people will not feel that PM Burnham (or May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak before) is their choice. Simple as that.
So until Burnham (or whoever) gets and wins a new mandate they will be seen by the vast majority of voters as lacking any legitimacy.
If I were him I'd cut and run and go to the country with his own manifesto as soon as he can - though Theresa May's botched attempt to do similar will probably scare him off. |
I agree in principle that a GE should be announced at the sign of a PM getting hoisted out, only because it will make parties think twice about going nuclear. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
