Jump to content

The Burnham Years - Can the new(ish) broom sweep clean?

iansums

By iansums
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

ecuk268

ecuk268

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Turkish said:

He’s quite dashing. Is he our best looking PM ever? 

My Gran thought that Anthony Eden was a very handsome gentleman.

Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Challenger said:

Something's got to change, unless we really are making plans for Nigel ?

There’s an appetite for change for Burnham in a way there never really was for Starmer but he’s got little margin for error. He can tweak around taxes to generate a bit more change but he’ll need to use the scalpel on the welfare budget https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/what-can-andy-burnham-actually-do/

Interesting piece by the Conversation on what he might do https://theconversation.com/how-andy-burnham-may-try-to-give-the-uk-economy-a-boost-in-his-10-year-plan-286207. His initial statements are bold and it’s hard to see the fiscal headroom he’s got to deliver it with.

As for Farage, he’s very tarnished now by the bung, money laundering and other scandals, more to come out as well is the rumour. Whatever they’re doing in the polls at the moment, they’re going to get hit by tactical voting in an actual GE which is why Farage gets so tetchy with YouGov.

They’ll get a Lib Dem+ amount of seats next time which very impressive from where they’ve come from but no-one is collaborating with them for power. Enjoyed seeing Badenoch, Starmer and Davey queuing up to take the piss out of Farage in Starmer’s final PMQs. Even their own MPs were laughing. 

Not the same core base without Farage as leader and would lead to lower turnout as some don’t vote normally but Reform are damaged anywhere beyond their base with him as leader.

Coalitions likely but they are too toxic for the Tories to consider let alone anyone else. Not sure he’s the ‘change, just any change’ for enough people now.

Edited by Gloucester Saint
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Writing on the names is too small to read but back to Attlee?

Not quite but back to Churchill.  I was born in 1949. And it feels like it. 

  • Sad 1
Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I wonder how the markets will react on Monday one we find out the make up of the cabinet?  Apparently Raynor will have Health.  Who will be Chancellor?

Mahmood apparently. Safest with the markets but she’s calmed things down a lot further at the Home Office. His other safe pair of hands, Yvette Cooper, it’ll be interesting to see where she ends up. Streeting, what prize for not standing?

Share your cynicism on Rayner and also Miliband (Ed variety, not David who might turn up via peerage). Although Streeting already cut a 60% swathe through NHS England’s staffing and the DOHSC merger and waiting lists coming down albeit not across the board so only so much harm she could do.

Allisder Heath has some front in the DT. Yes, the same one who wanked off over Truss’s budget (the greatest in a generation apparently) and Truss herself. I don’t think I’ll put much store in his opinions. Nor the Mail who ditto. Keynes stopped working in the 1970s and the Thatcher levers haven’t been working for quite some time. Burnham worries me on the economy but economics goes in cycles.

Edited by Gloucester Saint
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935yx2z9d4o

Surprised he is doing this as it makes no difference...so we are told

Glad he is. Ditto pulling water and energy companions back into public ownership, and addressing social housing. Funding will be interesting, but nice to see a PM trying to sort out a historic mess at last. 

  • Like 2
AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Bit awkward for Ed.

and a couple on here who were certain it makes no difference at all and doing so would require infrastructure that is now beyond us.

Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, egg said:

I am also a sensible employer. I suspect several of my staff are union members. I don't know who - who would I have to? It's odd to believe that I would think differently of them if I knew who they were. 

Is your position that sensible employers have a negative view of employees who are union members? If so, based on what. 

And yes, I've been a Union member.

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. 

Edited by Sir Ralph
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

and a couple on here who were certain it makes no difference at all and doing so would require infrastructure that is now beyond us.

What Farmer said...

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

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. 

It's got nowt to do with you mate.

The simple point is that as an employee my Union membership did not impact how my employer saw me or treated me, and as an employer it makes no difference to how I see or treat my staff. 

I'm interested in your life experiences which makes you believe that union membership leads to employers thinking negatively of their staff - your opinions seem to be based on perception and attitude. 

  • Like 1
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, egg said:

It's got nowt to do with you mate.

The simple point is that as an employee my Union membership did not impact how my employer saw me or treated me, and as an employer it makes no difference to how I see or treat my staff. 

I'm interested in your life experiences which makes you believe that union membership leads to employers thinking negatively of their staff - your opinions seem to be based on perception and attitude. 

I think SR has similar feelings over most employment Law as well.

  • Like 2
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted (edited)

There are plenty of business owners who would love to have workers’ rights back to Victorian times, no leave, no sick pay, no pension, no contracts and would love to use cheap immigrants workers and confiscate their passports  - like they do in the beautiful paradise UAE.

Of course they don’t like the thought of unions restricting how they would love to treat their workers. 

Edited by whelk
  • Like 3
Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, egg said:

It's got nowt to do with you mate.

The simple point is that as an employee my Union membership did not impact how my employer saw me or treated me, and as an employer it makes no difference to how I see or treat my staff. 

I'm interested in your life experiences which makes you believe that union membership leads to employers thinking negatively of their staff - your opinions seem to be based on perception and attitude. 

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.

Edited by Sir Ralph
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, whelk said:

There are plenty of business owners who would love to have workers’ rights back to Victorian times, no leave, no sick pay, no pension, no contracts and would love to use cheap immigrants workers and confiscate their passports  - like they do in the beautiful paradise UAE.

Of course they don’t like the thought of unions restricting how they would love to treat their workers. 

I get that, but if you take unions out of the equation, we're not going back to that or in danger of doing a UAE. The law restricts how employers can treat their staff, not the unions. Where I see their negative influence is in the rabble rousing we've seen with the likes of the junior doctors. 

egg

egg

Posted
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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. I imagine you have worked in the public sector?

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.

...

 

Edited by egg
Can't be arsed
Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Not quite but back to Churchill.  I was born in 1949. And it feels like it. 

I have too much respect for you to ask if the 18 you had remembered were the first ones, and the rest were just lost in a senior fog. So, I shall never mention it. 🙂

Besides, who needs Churchill, when you get to live through Boris?

Edited by Holmes_and_Watson
curses. whitey said 18, not 17, making me the one with memory issues. But if I change it, he will never know.
  • Haha 2
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, egg said:

I get that, but if you take unions out of the equation, we're not going back to that or in danger of doing a UAE. The law restricts how employers can treat their staff, not the unions. Where I see their negative influence is in the rabble rousing we've seen with the likes of the junior doctors. 

Unions have helped shape our employment law.

Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, egg said:

...

 

“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-

Edited by Sir Ralph
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Just now, whelk said:

Unions have helped shape our employment law.

They have. Over time, Unions have a played a pivotal role in that, and rightly so. They've now been shaped, and that legal protection isn't going anywhere.

Employees with union membership aren't a thorn in the side of employers in the way they were when are laws were archaic. 

The point that started the discussion, essentially, was that Union membership on its own, would make an employer feel differently about an employee. That's nonsense in my experience. 

  • Like 1
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Just now, Sir Ralph said:

“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 
 

https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/44616-trade-unions-seen-more-negatively-following-2022s-

I'll reprise part of my deleted comment...I don't think you have any life experiences to qualify you as having any actual knowledge of the reality. I do, from all sides. 

I can't be arsed as you avoid questions, but pose plenty, and most of your posts are AI / Google driven opinion pieces that suit your narrative.

In short, I'm not wasting my time with you. Happy Saturday. 

  • Like 1
Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, egg said:

I'll reprise part of my deleted comment...I don't think you have any life experiences to qualify you as having any actual knowledge of the reality. I do, from all sides. 

I can't be arsed as you avoid questions, but pose plenty, and most of your posts are AI / Google driven opinion pieces that suit your narrative.

In short, I'm not wasting my time with you. Happy Saturday. 

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.

Edited by Sir Ralph
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted (edited)

A popular fight for Burnham is the investor companies who want to fund legal challenges to renationalising Thames Water. Pretty sure I could guess where vast majority of electorate will be. Bit like the immigration system   - needs legislation to just run though the endless legal challenges and just get shit done and tough that some lose out

Edited by whelk
  • Like 2
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

Regarding the North Sea oil and gas  the Labour manifesto said 'No new licences  and no new fields opened'.  Pedantically, what Burnham is supposed to be proposing is the permitting of licences in existing fields that have been in abeyance due to legal challenges.

  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...