Big pronouncements

Galaxy

On here during Johnson tenure there was a daily post about the wrongs of the government, I am not criticising that poster in the slightest ( I think it might have been WW, I cant remember) but the labour government need to be able to cope with the same scrutiny and criticism. If people are discontent thus is due to the failings of governments and institutions not due to the failings of the people.

Of course they need to cope with if but the die are loaded more against them and so the task is harder. There are different types of criticism but outright misinterpretation and misinformation is hard to fight. It’s easy to manipulate and foster discontents

Galaxy

On here during Johnson tenure there was a daily post about the wrongs of the government, I am not criticising that poster in the slightest ( I think it might have been WW, I cant remember) but the labour government need to be able to cope with the same scrutiny and criticism. If people are discontent thus is due to the failings of governments and institutions not due to the failings of the people.

Of course - but that is not what I am arguing about.

Criticism is healthy.

But what I am suggesting is that Burnham - in his first couple of announcements is not addressing the political/economics nerds - he is addressing those folk he met day in day out on the streets of Manchester etc.

They are interested not in the minutiae, but are interested in there being some hope and improvement from the daily grind of trying to meet the bills, feed the children etc.

Headlines like Burnham has just put out are positive, he now has the Herculean task of meeting those needs.

But his intention has been achieved.

Luckygirl3 sounds a bit like me... I'd prefer our politicians to tell it as it is.
😕

I suppose I'm just fearing the worst WWM and others.

I can't bear the glib announcements.
Yes, street sleeping did go down in Manchester but it's up again now.
Yes, Norway is doing well with a completely different system .

We all want improvements - and I want Burnham to succeed - but why oh why can't so many (most?) ordinary people see that everything is nuanced and complicated???
.... it drives me bonkers.

On here during Johnson tenure there was a daily post about the wrongs of the government, I am not criticising that poster in the slightest ( I think it might have been WW, I cant remember) but the labour government need to be able to cope with the same scrutiny and criticism. If people are discontent thus is due to the failings of governments and institutions not due to the failings of the people.

GrannyGravy13

Tuliptree

The problem is GG that whilst I agree the country could well do without that , the majority of the media ( of all types) will be pulling every last thing apart generally based on deliberate misinformation and misinterpretation.

If the government’s policy announcements are fully thought out and bullet proof then there will be nothing to pull apart.

It is the job of the media and political commentators to hold any government to account.

Of course they’ll be pulled apart regardless. And deliberately using misinterpretation and misinformation is nit holding the government to account at all. Just compare how the FT will report/comment on a policy compared with the DM

Whitewavemark2

I understand the minutiae of the arguments being put forward, but I think to a degree we are missing the point here.

The people Burnham is addressing are those folk whose interest in the nitty gritty of the economy and politics is virtually nil, but they are interested in headlines like VAT reduced to zero on electricity bills and ending rough sleeping.

What Burnham has to do now is ensure that these people’s lives are actually improved.

That will be an uphill struggle

Absolutely.

He needs to try to get people to see his initiatives as positive, instead of writing them off as 'flip flops', 'two tier' or the soundbite de jour. That is where the uphill struggle will be - too many people have bought into a cycle of negativity.

If Burnham can turn that round he will be in with a chance. He needs time and space to let his policies take root, or we'll find ourselves back where we were - discontent, constant sniping and maybe yet another PM. It might not be subtle at first, but you can't fight blatant propaganda with subtlety.

Tuliptree

The problem is GG that whilst I agree the country could well do without that , the majority of the media ( of all types) will be pulling every last thing apart generally based on deliberate misinformation and misinterpretation.

If the government’s policy announcements are fully thought out and bullet proof then there will be nothing to pull apart.

It is the job of the media and political commentators to hold any government to account.

This morning I put on R4 for the first time in months and months.

Nick Robinson was “interviewing” the new chancellor.

I quickly remembered why I have stopped listening.

Edward Stourton - Robinson is not.

If average households save £45 annually, it’s peanuts in the scheme of things.
Also the Uk has always had rough sleepers and the numbers are not huge thankfully. To make rough sleeping the signature tune for this new government, doesn’t inspire confidence. I’d be more impressed with a full on approach to getting the economy up and running - but maybe that’s for this afternoon?

I agree FGT that different size populations and different population densities need to be considered in evaluating the usefulness of policy initiatives in other countries, it doesn’t actually mean that they would not be helpful in formulating possible solutions here.

I think it is a good first target but I am worried about announcements that are going to be easily shown not to be true. I didnt for example believe for one moment believe starmer was going to halve violence against women and girls.

Finland was the first but the policy now applies virtually throughout Scandinavia.

I think the character of urban conglomerations is pretty much the same for us as for Scandi and they have made it work.

But I think the key difference is that when they get people off the street and into the flats they have the support services (health, mental health, addiction) to back it up and we do not. Which brings me back to the idea that this is where the government needs to start. Some rough sleepers have just fallen on hard times but most are addicts or mentally ill.

NotSpaghetti

I think it was Finland, rather than Norway, Whitewavemark - re housing schemes

Probably both then, as I’ve just come back from Norway and learned this after a conversation with a Norwegian journalist.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

The current population of Norway is approximately 5.67 million people. This places Norway 119th among countries globally, with a very low population density of just 15 people per square km.

Apples and pears comes to mind….

So how would you prefer to see homelessness tackled, FGT?

GG13 says with regard disagreement over a funding source, Someone has got it wrong

The real problem is that when the whole of the government message about how it is spending money into the economy is based on a the household economy myth so the whole of government accounting for spending has to conform to the myth.

Basically, it’s all wrong 😆

Government can spend whatever it needs to so long as it has the resources available to be purchased and that it is spending to benefit the whole nation (no knocking down part of No. 10 to make room for a ballroom please)

The problem is GG that whilst I agree the country could well do without that , the majority of the media ( of all types) will be pulling every last thing apart generally based on deliberate misinformation and misinterpretation.

I understand the minutiae of the arguments being put forward, but I think to a degree we are missing the point here.

The people Burnham is addressing are those folk whose interest in the nitty gritty of the economy and politics is virtually nil, but they are interested in headlines like VAT reduced to zero on electricity bills and ending rough sleeping.

What Burnham has to do now is ensure that these people’s lives are actually improved.

That will be an uphill struggle

I think it was Finland, rather than Norway, Whitewavemark - re housing schemes

The current population of Norway is approximately 5.67 million people. This places Norway 119th among countries globally, with a very low population density of just 15 people per square km.

Apples and pears comes to mind….

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

The ID programme was going to cost over £1.8bn over the next 3 years.

Someone has got it wrong

As the OBR and Darren Jones are saying that the digital ID scheme was unfunded.

The 5% VAT saving is according to Martin Lewis to be approximately £40-45 per year per household.

Already scrapping between the last cohort and this cohort, not a great start.

I hope the pettiness stops PDQ

I hope it stops quickly too. Let's all give him a chance, eh?

Whitewavemark2

gg13 you clearly don’t want to enter the spirit of pulling together😄😄😄

I most definitely do.

Hence my final sentence I hope the pettiness stops PDQ

The last thing the U.K. needs is an ongoing war of attrition between Starmer’s old cohort and Burnham’s new one.

As for the costing or otherwise of the VAT cut, I guess MaisieD could explain whether that’s actually an issue at all.

Luckygirl3

On rough sleeping Scandinavian countries have a different approach, summed up: The Underlying Philosophy: It is virtually impossible to recover from trauma, mental health issues, or addiction while fighting to survive on the streets. A stable home provides the necessary foundation for all other rehabilitation.

Hostels were turned into flats and new flats built. Being on the streets and homeless is a passport to a flat with intensive rehab input.

All sounds piece in the sky but apparently most Scandi countries have virtually eliminated rough sleeping.

That's pretty much what I suggested upthread, but I was told that putting addicts together would create centres of drug abuse.

Whitewavemark2

The ID programme was going to cost over £1.8bn over the next 3 years.

Yes but hadn't been budgeted for as yet so just stopping a drain doesn't free up the money that didn't exist.