Bit of an odd accusation towards Burnham. His three biggest announcements in the last week or so (Post Brexit relationship with EU, Adult Social Care & Electoral Reform) are all areas that would potentially (obviously depends on the specifics) benefit the UK regardless of political leanings and are either not particularly popular from a voter point of view or quite easily misrepresented by opposition parties such that previous governments have avoided doing anything about it even if they were responsible for that situation in the first place.
Take the EU Relationship strand to start with (as you previously commented on that). Whether you supported Brexit or not, it is basic economics that most of a countryās trade is done with its neighbours and so given the shift in EU trade rules, what we do independently going forwards may jeopardise what trade we still do with the bloc or elsewhere. That doesnāt mean a full return to EU membership is needed but properly assessing the options and understanding the consequences is important both for the country and for businesses specifically.
Or, Take Adult Social Care. Reform and funding much needed for its own sake and to reduce inefficiencies in the NHS and Local Authority budgets. If you want to find savings in those two budgets, you kind of need to invest in something first that addresses the needs. Too often public sector budgets get cut first and short cuts then taken to resolve immediate crises as they happen.
Then finally, Electoral Reform, not something sexy that wins votes, probably quite the opposite with a voter population that on average skews older, which could if done properly open the door to other parties having a greater say on government or better co-operation between parties, reducing the tribalism you have said you dislike.
Iād rather this approach than the fantasy cut taxes and spend more approach all the other parties appear to be talking up.
If Andy Burnham was saying what he needed to win an election he wouldnāt have said anything he has actually said. Cutting the triple lock is not something you do you win an election.
Personally I Iike Burnham. Potentially the first prime minister I have actually wanted to get behind since Gordon Brown. He is trying to sell a vision for the country, and offer voters something to believe in, which is exactly what is needed, and where Labour went wrong with Starmerās cautious approach. Heās blotted his copybook with the city stuff, but I can understand the wider politics of the situation.
Agree with this,after all much of what he is suggesting will,in time benefit the 90% of people,not the few.
For a while now we have seen Tory and Tory lite,who has that worked for?
To be crucifying Burnham after a few weeks suggests another angle different entirely to where Labour came from.
On the other hand, Burnham knifed Starmer, who was the one who was actually elected. One does not get the benefit of a clean slate in those circumstances. Burnham can hardly plead for patience when he was organizing his own bid for the office within a year or so of his same-party predecessor taking office. He has made a rod for his own back.
Now I donāt know what Burnham has done wrong to trigger such a discussion and while I always think governments needs time to get their policies across and implement them and see results in phases, the UK is sort of in a no win situation.
If just been weeks into a leadership the only reason for not crucifying him, then Liz Truss should have been given the same leeway despite her obvious inabilities and screwups. The fact is just like how the Tory had to pay their price despite their carousel of PMs, the Labour eventually have to regardless of who is the PM and the length of their tenure. If they are incapable, You donāt want to make the same mistake you made with the Tory, let them stay 14 years too long and bring the country down.
Having said that, itās not even 3 years and not halfway through before the next election, but whoever is the PM by then should know length of tenure is not a get out of jail card.
My point was not about any policy. It was about tribal election winning. At the expense of the country. Policy to win an election - meanwhile Rome burns.
Iām not having removal of Photo ID. That was was a policy brought in by the Tories to explicitly to suppress the Labour vote.
Electoral fraud is vanishingly rare. There are very few examples of any attempts, and even fewer convictions. Independent studies and the policyās own impact assessment warned that it would disproportionately impact poorer people from voting.
Labour are right to remove this attempt at election rigging.
Open your eyes. You may be left. Thatās ok. But see the damage, the debt ,the spiteful school vat.
If you have done ok in life. Labour will tax it to pay the benefits bill. Because thatās a safety net. To sit on your ass and get 30k a year. Oh and have 4 kids you could never afford.
I remember posting this before, and Iām not fro the UK. Less than 1% of your social welfare budget is for unemployment benefit. Do you not want to support pensions, or people with disabilities etc?
There will always be those people, but again itās a minuscule issue that seems to get top billing when it comes to these topics. I donāt know what you mean by ADHD etc?