Sir Ralph

Agree - on those matters how he deals with his backbenchers and how pragmatic they are willing to be will determine whether he keeps his job and whether they do too

I agree that most reasonable people wouldn’t say that buts it’s convient to say that when you might be perceived to have views on the same side of those on the political spectrum who are saying those things (to be clear I’m not saying you agree with them at all) . A close family member runs an office and they had to call out a junior member of staff who said he was glad she was dead last week and say they shouldn’t be discussing politics inthe office. Unfortunately those who are more politicised on the left, particularly the younger age group, seem to be stooping to lower levels than those on the right currently, which I would admit is probably an inverse from the past.

Fair enough and that’s quite obvious - I agree that being a mayor of a city shows a degree of experience in being able to administratively running a public organisation. My point is that that is by no means an indicator of likely success as running a country is very different. My personal view is somebody that has successfully held a serious role in government, such as chancellor, would be a better likely indicator of success. @badgerx16 own opinion of BJ being mayor of a city supports this

I agree. Same therefor applies to Burnham. Have a good night

Like I said he hasn’t set out his policies but he needs to do that before a GE. If he believes in them why not announce them and test them first before asking the electorate for a mandate. This is hypothetical to be honest because he hasn’t called a GE and I don’t think he will immediately cause it’s too risky

Running a city with its local politics is very different to running a country and the competing interests between multiple regions

Thanks for explaining democracy. It’s genuinely appreciated, particularly as I’m mentally challenged . AB has been very quiet about his policies. If he is actually going to be a good pm he should put them to the test and then go to a GE. I hope he does rather than avoid testing them and call an early GE. Otherwise wouldn’t that suggest he isn’t confident that his policies will be successful- agree?

So running a harder gig, being a good mayor of London, and you thought BJ was a bad PM. So why would AB be a good PM based on his role in Manchester? My point is being mayor of Manchester is pretty much irrelevant.

None. Difference is “your lad” is living off of some sort of belief that because he was mayor of Manchester for a few years he has credibility to run the country. BJ actually did a great job in London which is a harder gig - what was your view of how he did as PM?

Unfortunately the majority of the electorate aren’t bright enough to see through this strategy. If he has to actually commit to any real policies, because of his true political stance and backbenchers, a significant portion of the population will be at odds with him. Question is will his MPs back something like this and risk their seats now or prefer to hold onto them and take their chances in 3 years time. Looking at the polls a GE soon is a high risk strategy and a Labour Mps could lose a lot of seats . I doubt they will back it

How dare you question The King of the North. Those who despised BJ are now suggesting ABs antics are comparable which says a lot. It’s all political bollocks. Listen to what John major said about it. Being mayor of Manchester is incomparable to running a country. This is now big boy stuff. If he thinks there is a remote comparison he’s arrogant or stupid or both. We can’t judge him yet because he hasn’t actually set out meaningful policies but this sort of political gamesmanship won’t win the next GE, albeit it might convince a few mentally challenged northerner (and some posters on this forum with similar levels of life inexperience). I await the real policies with some trepidation even though I hope he does the right things

Anyone that has looked at Angela Rayner in any form of lustful way has very low standards.

The FA have lost their head over this. 18 month ban I suspect

This hair brain idea has the potential to cause a property crisis which the country cannot afford. 1. This increased cost for housing will be capitalised against values 2. It can cause some to enter into negative equity and increase mortgage costs. Notwithstanding pensioners that are reliant on their property equity to survive their retirement 3. Cue thee potential of a risk of a crisis…. i hope the civil service has somebody in it that can see marginally beyond the objective of the possible policy change to understand the consequences and that Burnham listens https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/council-tax-land-value-downsizing-andy-burnham-b3016870.html

I just feel privileged you engaged with my AI arse for two minutes. You are superior in terms of life experience, intellect and all other counts like the others from your side of thepolitical spectrum. FYI the dismissal of a yougov survey on people’s perception of unions (directly linked to this subject) demonstrates this arrogant nature.

“Can’t be arsed” weird response when you engaged. This will be a surprise to you but a significant portion of the population don’t like unions - see 2022 survey and things won’t have improved. In their modern day format they can be seen as self serving and protectionist but you have benefitted them so of course your view is positive. Your response is arrogant as you aren’t right about everything. My view isn’t based on perception but “I can’t be arsed” https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/44616-trade-unions-seen-more-negatively-following-2022s-

So you want to know why I have my views but won’t explain your background. As a union member you have benefitted from their protection so of course you like them. Also I don’t want employment laws back in the Victorian times but I also don’t like the union protection of employees and parts of business that, for example, may be inefficient.

Were you a union member in the private or public sector? I explained earlier why some employers may have a negative view of unions. That view isn’t exactly ground breaking and would be a common view in many private sector businesses. I know senior people in the public sector who also do not like the unions. In addition to what I mentioned above, unions sometimes create increased restriction around employment and business functions. This makes the workplace less competitive and actually reduces business growth and the potential to operate more efficiency thereby creating more jobs. This is a reflection of some unions that have a socialist mindset whilst trying to operate within a capitalist system.

Thats your opinion regarding “sensible employers attitudes” as it’s mine about unions. Have you been part of a union before?

Unions in principle can be good if they are being reasonable with employers and I can see a place for them when you have significant numbers of employees with standardised pay. Over recent years in respect of some industries (for example rail and train) unions have a bad reputation of overplaying their hand and trying to secure unreasonable terms for their members. When I was younger I worked in a place that had union employees and my experience was that the reps were the work shy ones who used their membership to protect themselves. It could have negative connotations because unions can reduce flexibility in managing staff for business and create the potential for industrial action and, in some circumstances, more adversarial relationships between employees and employers. This can be a problem for some businesses as it can slow decision making particularly when margins are tight.

In most businesses I think people would not want to be a member of a union because of the negative connotations, hence why they don’t thrive in those environments. I don’t hold out much hope for improvement but at least he doesn’t look like he is going to appoint Red Ed as chancellor

I wouldn’t have said some of the things she did. However I think we should be looking as well about how she treated others. Those that knew her, including those from the gay community, have only said positive things. To me that’s says a lot about someone’s character.

The difference is that I think your threshold for what a “c bomb” is or a “facist” is lower than a lot of people, particularly people who disagree with you. It’s about tolerance of an alternative viewpoint without getting abusive. Anyway we all agree it’s a sad state of affairs that people with different political views are being attacked

And I quote (following various rants calling me a c bomb plus other things)…..I’m “evil” for my view on the 2 child benefit cap. You’re Easily offended so your reaction to Widdecombe isn’t surprising “Mate, you would prefer kids to be in poverty than to allow people child benefit for if they have more than 2 kids, and as the above studies prove, child poverty causes child deaths. That's bordering on evil, so don't you dare try to take the high road.”