Andy Burnham now officially Leader of Labour Party.

The source for the heat pumps is the newspapers, turning down the heat at certain times rather than bigger bills I think.
Until Burnham actually makes new policies tho, it’s all unclear what will actually happen.

At least he has had some experience in running a large concern. So many politicians seem completely out of their depth when made cabinet ministers. They seem unable to cope with anything beyond their own little constituency.

Primrose53

AB was only elected in Makersfield not to run the country.

I just heard those with heat source pump heating are in for bigger bills.

He wants us to go back to the 70s and remember how awful they were.

Starmer was only elected in Holborn and St Pancras. Both he and Burnham became leader of the LP (and hence PM) via the democratic process in the rules of that party, much as Johnson, Truss and Sunak did in their turn.

Can you give any sort of rationale for thinking that Burnham 'wants us to go back to the 70s'? I have seen nothing to lead me to that conclusion.

Primrose53

AB was only elected in Makersfield not to run the country.

I just heard those with heat source pump heating are in for bigger bills.

He wants us to go back to the 70s and remember how awful they were.

Who elected Sunak and Truss to run the country? The Conservative party had less than 200K members when they voted for new leaders in the last government and not a single one of them had complete support from their parliamentary colleagues. Even Johnson had over 40% of his own MPs vote against him. Over 90% of Labour MPs have backed Burnham and no one else stood against him. Every constituency still has the MP that they voted for, that's democracy.

Primrose53

AB was only elected in Makersfield not to run the country.

I just heard those with heat source pump heating are in for bigger bills.

He wants us to go back to the 70s and remember how awful they were.

No MP is elected to ‘run the country’. I’m bored with repeating the following - the LP elect a leader who must be an MP. If they are the largest party the leader becomes the PM. I’d love the source for heat pumps and going back to the 70s please .

Who are you referring to DAR

AB was only elected in Makersfield not to run the country.

I just heard those with heat source pump heating are in for bigger bills.

He wants us to go back to the 70s and remember how awful they were.

I do wish our generation had all been taught about democracy at school. Some seemed to have missed it completely and think it's all about them rather than majorities.

Points not pints ...

Allsorts

Tuliptree, are you serious? It really isn't worth answering if you are unable to see the difference between AB being foisted on us and a duly elected PM. However he will appeal to those like you.
I was not a KS supporter but he was shafted. I think a decent man.
As for taxing the people more, good luck with that, who will supply the jobs, they have already ruined so many pubs and small business and broken councils trying to house too many uninvited people

There really is no need to make your pints so personal.

If someone became PM through the constitutional process, they're no less "duly appointed" than any other PM who took office between general elections. You may dislike them, but that's different from saying they were illegitimate.

Galaxy

People fortunately are entitled to talk about whichever aspect of andy burnham they wish whether that is his policies or his character. Both tend to be important in the success or otherwise of a PM.

Who said they weren’t?

M0nica

It all reads like the way many dictatorships manage the change at the top. Burnham's rapid rise to power and the way he effortlessly rose to power without opposition suggests deep planning and complicity within the bowels of the party.

If was Keir Starmer, I would just keep well away from open windows on the higher floors of buildings. Most coups in socialist dictatorships usually end with a defenestration.

In my best John McEnroe voice: “You cannot be serious, MOnica?”

AB is an established and experienced politician with good communication skills and a track record of success. I'm not surprised he was picked by the PLP to replace KS. I'm afraid KS was found lacking, hopefully AB will do a better job at improving our country. Fingers crossed.

People fortunately are entitled to talk about whichever aspect of andy burnham they wish whether that is his policies or his character. Both tend to be important in the success or otherwise of a PM.

KS shafted himself, he was awful. High hopes of Andy Burnham, I think he might be more of a listener to the electorate than Starmer ever was. Fingers crossed for all our friends and relatives.

MaizieD

Are we going to talk about his speech or rehash recent arguments?

I think he's made himself a real hostage to fortune.

Well said on the first.

If he wants to carry out the devolution which seems to be high on his list he needs to transfer enough national taxation fron national to local taxes. Just to show the size if that job is worth considering these figures.

Local government share of overall taxation:

UK - 6%
France - 14%
Spain - 24%
Germany - 32%

I would have thought the abolition of the UK's three existing property taxes: stamp duty land tax, council tax, and business rates and the introduction of a Land Tax has to be his starting point.

Thus article may be of interest to some: www.tax.org.uk/andy-burnham-s-tax-agenda-early-signals-for-a-probable-premiership

Wyllow3

The care system, the NHS, climate change, schools....prisons adequate......

Yes, and investment in industry and infrastructure in the regions, which would create jobs outside the capital and surrounding areas. It doesn’t have to mean taking money from the pockets of individuals - just not spending so much on one part of the country and ignoring others.

It all reads like the way many dictatorships manage the change at the top. Burnham's rapid rise to power and the way he effortlessly rose to power without opposition suggests deep planning and complicity within the bowels of the party.

If was Keir Starmer, I would just keep well away from open windows on the higher floors of buildings. Most coups in socialist dictatorships usually end with a defenestration.

Tuliptree, are you serious? It really isn't worth answering if you are unable to see the difference between AB being foisted on us and a duly elected PM. However he will appeal to those like you.
I was not a KS supporter but he was shafted. I think a decent man.
As for taxing the people more, good luck with that, who will supply the jobs, they have already ruined so many pubs and small business and broken councils trying to house too many uninvited people

The care system, the NHS, climate change, schools....prisons adequate......

Doodledog

If nobody comes forward in opposition that is as good as being elected, surely? So long as there is opportunity to do so, that is (which there was). It wasn’t a coup d’etat - had anyone felt AB was the wrong man for the job they could have stood against him.

As a matter of interest, how many of the last seven PMs took office after GEs?

I very much hope he can stick to the sort of Labour values that have been lost lately- redistribution of wealth and opportunity (particularly outside of London and the SE) renationalising of utilities and major industries, regenerating areas that have been overlooked for so long, tackling the COL that plagues so many young families, getting more young people into work and so on.

This is one of the posts, where you mention redistribution of wealth.

Whose wealth and why do you want to take it from those you see as wealthy and who would you like to see receiving it instead?

I can only speak for myself, but you quoted me when making accusations of envy, and that is absolutely untrue. If you can point me to anything I have said that even suggests I am envious, I'd love to see it.

There are various options for getting more tax from the wealthy. A higher band for income tax and on interest of more than £50k in a year? I'm not good with putting figures in this sort of post, as I'm no tax expert or economist, but that sort of thing would be one way? Or a higher level of VAT on high value items? Yachts? Cars over £100k, or something? With import duty if they are bought abroad. Honestly, it's for people with far more idea about that side of things to work out, not me

Doodledog

And that's absolutely fine, but why accuse others of being envious when you have zero evidence of that?

I don't think wealth is wrong either, but I do think that those who have much more than average should pay more than they do. Not because I envy them, but because I think that's the right thing to do.

How do you suggest they pay more?

When you say I have zero evidence, please look at previous posts.

And that's absolutely fine, but why accuse others of being envious when you have zero evidence of that?

I don't think wealth is wrong either, but I do think that those who have much more than average should pay more than they do. Not because I envy them, but because I think that's the right thing to do.

MaizieD

Doodledog

Meandrogrog

greyfur

I wish him well, but after such a long time of 'no such thing as society' it will prove very difficult to get people to part with their money or privilege for the benefit of those with neither

No chance.

Those with money may well have studied hard for years in order to achieve.

It sounds like the politics of envy to me.

No envy from me. Not everyone is driven by the same motives, and I often wonder whether those who accuse others of 'politics of envy' are driven by that themselves. Why else would they ascribe such a peculiar (to me) way of thinking to other people?

And I studied for years in order to achieve, too, for what that's worth.

None from me, either. Our life is comfortable and I'm not bothered about getting more.

My problem with wealth is that the economic system in which we live subverts the main function of money, which is to promote economic activity, by drawing it inexorably upwards to those who, frankly, have little need of it once they have spent all they can spend but are intent on acquiring more and more of it just for the sake of having wealth.

Which would be OKish if all the sectors of society had sufficient money to lead decent and dignified lives, able to provide for their needs, but when this is demonstrably not possible for a significantly large portion of society the urges of the wealthy to obtain even more wealth, and the ease with which they can acquire it to the detriment of others, should be curbed.

Do we really want to revert to a situation where the wealthy have nearly everything while a far greater number of people have little or nothing?

I would also not want to return to the poverty seen in the past but do feel that wealth is not wrong and needs to be taken off the wealthy. I thought the tax system already in place and the benefits system both seek to help those in need.