Andy Burnham now officially Leader of Labour Party.

Tuliptree

GrannyGravy13

So what?

I await your response when the Conservatives change PM mid term…

I don’t understand your point. My point is that as long as any party follows its rules for changing leader whether in power or not, that’s all that matters I have never believed that a change of PM should mean a GE.

Just because something is legal doesn’t make it morally right. Had Keir Starmer done something really underhand I would have understood but they used the mistakes he did make to undermine his leadership because imo they’d been planning the coup for a long time. And that’s what I can’t forgive. I believe that Burnham tried something at the party conference but it failed. And when the media roll out Johnson to give Keir advice on how to handle the situation I just end up screaming at the tv; as if Keir’s mistakes were in the same league as Johnson’s. I feel embarrassed that non Labour voters gave the party their trust only to see them behaving like the last government (s). For the sake of the country I have to hope that Burnham succeeds but, if he does it is because he is building on a firm foundation built by the Starmer government. The very people that overthrew Keir are now emailing me with a huge list of his achievements over the past two years.

It is so wrong the way AB was manipulated in.Seven PM’s in 10 years, how much the pension bill to them is costing is a joke but not a funny one. No wonder our grandchildren are not bothered about politics and who can blame them! I can’t help but worry about AB disregard for rules and tradition, it doesn't bode well.
I do however want to be proved wrong as its awful what has happened to the uk.

Allsorts

It is so wrong the way AB was manipulated in.Seven PM’s in 10 years, how much the pension bill to them is costing is a joke but not a funny one. No wonder our grandchildren are not bothered about politics and who can blame them! I can’t help but worry about AB disregard for rules and tradition, it doesn't bode well.
I do however want to be proved wrong as its awful what has happened to the uk.

If you don’t like the payments that go to all
ex-PMs ( and I don’t) you could discuss it as a separate issue and not wrap it up in this thread. What rules has AB disregarded? Absolutely none And what traditions? The tradition of getting rid of PMs brutally and with much plotting is a long and (dis) honourable one and plays across both parties I think some people criticising what happened really just don’t want AB because they think he might actually succeed

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?

No politics of envy from me either what concerns me is the widening gap between those who have and those who don't. I'm fortunate to be in the "those that have" camp but it doesn't prevent me from recognising that the disparity in wealth is not a recipe for social cohesion, quite the opposite. The happiest societies are those that provide it's population with a decent standard of housing, good healthcare, an educational system that is fair and accessible and jobs or benefits that enable people to have a reasonable standard of living. We don't have that in the UK and with an ageing population we need to think creatively about how to improve life for those who feel "left behind" . If I have to pay more into the pot, then so be it.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?”

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?

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.

Points not pints ...

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.

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 are you referring to DAR