Am I just being impatient and mean? New PM

I learnt the hard way, my lot elected Liz Truss 🤦‍♀️

True GG … but at least she only lasted 45 days😜

Casdon

That’s a bit of a n illogical comment though, as a major incident could be anywhere he wasn’t?

Do you, or a member of your family work for the Labour government in any way?

You always seem to be a mouthpiece for it.

Whichever way it heads.

MayBee70

I guess I’m just irritated by the gimmicks, the silly videos on social media, all the hugging and kissing and the realisation that they’ve been planning this for such a long time, probably since Labour were elected .

Life’s too short to let politicians get to you.

I learnt the hard way, my lot elected Liz Truss 🤦‍♀️

I guess I’m just irritated by the gimmicks, the silly videos on social media, all the hugging and kissing and the realisation that they’ve been planning this for such a long time, probably since Labour were elected .

MayBee70

And now there’s a major incident in London and Burnham is swanning around in Manchester with his latest gimmick ( the best day of his life according to him).

Not exactly a major incident.

A police boat has hit Westminster Bridge, some officers ended up in the water, all have been recovered. The extent of their injuries hasn’t been disclosed.

That’s a bit of a n illogical comment though, as a major incident could be anywhere he wasn’t?

And now there’s a major incident in London and Burnham is swanning around in Manchester with his latest gimmick ( the best day of his life according to him).

Agreed MayBee.

Luckily for Burnham, he knows he’s got three years because the PLP won’t dare to get rid of another PM. They, spineless and deceitful as they are, know that would initiate an early GE. Not what they want!

It would have been interesting to see in what state the country would be in now under Starmer if he hadn’t had to deal with the orange one ( which, imo he did incredibly well) .But he wasn’t given the time that he wanted.

It would have been interesting to see how the markets had reacted to Burnham's various new policies if only Trump hadn't been continuing to trash the world!

^ goes on to complain about too much welfare and too much social housing … and says the answer to the UK's problems is less public spending.^

Which just goes to illustrate Ganesh's economic illiteracy. I presume it arises from the neoliberal belief that public spending crowds out private investment. An idiocy completely disproven by the fact that George Osborne's (another economic illiterate) austerity destroyed many private businesses by losing them government contracts as a result of cutting government spending with the resultant loss of jobs increasing spending on the welfare bill and no private companies rushing in to fill the gap.

Many private companies rely on government spending for much of their business, either directly through the government buying their goods and services (a reminder; the state provides very little, or nothing, in the way of goods and services required for running its projects) and indirectly through the purchasing power of state employees spending their wages in the domestic economy.

Private enterprise will not invest unless it sees a profit to be made. Cut the money available in the economy and they won't see any profit materialising, therefore, they won't invest.

This failure to understand the way that money works in an economy utterly frustrates me.

It’s an opinion piece by Janan Ganesh which starts with:

[Burnham] ^knows the Labour movement is made up of featherheads who just want nice vibes^… goes on to complain about too much welfare and too much social housing … and says the answer to the UK's problems is less public spending.

For him Burnham has failed before he’s even been in the job a week.

It may come as no surprise that Ganesh chose to write an unauthorised biography (but with cooperation from the subject), George Osborne: The Austerity Chancellor

Described by Michael Ashcroft in his review for The Guardian as by no means a one sided account this paragraph from Ashcroft struck me:

It was also [Osborne’s and Andy Coulson’s] view that taking chunks out of your opponent was an essential element of politics. Their relentless attacks perhaps owed something to Osborne's preoccupation with the then PM, which Ganesh documents well – though I disagree when he says "it helped that Osborne genuinely despised Brown"; I don't think it helped at all. Either way, this obsession with attacking is surely one of the main reasons the Tory agenda was not articulated more clearly.

Obsession with attacking. This is exactly where we are now and Ganesh is part of that bandwagon.

Whole piece with paywall removed:

archive.is/20260722185917/https://www.ft.com/content/0c03cd07-ab33-4dff-9970-8cbc21baef45#selection-1809.479-1809.556

I don’t understand what that long piece from the FT is. Is it a journalist’s piece or is it a reader’s comment? Or is it a summary of an FT article from a blog?

Whatever it is don’t forget that the FT’s purpose is to service business and the wealthy and its viewpoint will always reflect that. It has no interest in equable distribution of resources or in the wellbeing of the whole population. And the FT journalists can be as economically illiterate as any other 😆

Casdon

We are divided as a nation, and as Gransnetters, into people who think as you suggest, and people who do not object to paying more tax to support a fairer society Subshinegirls.

Most people IMO think as you do Sunshinegirls.

If we could see the benefits of paying more tax, ie better healthcare, better state pensions, better public services, it might be different.

Our taxes seem to be spent on benefits and gravy trains.

It was the whole article, I think, Wyllow3

This may help:

Best Practices for Quoting

Keep it Short: Use brief snippets or single sentences rather than whole paragraphs.

Add Attribution: Always name the original publication, author, and date.

Paraphrase Instead: Rewrite general facts in your own words if you need to share a large amount of information.
(Various sources)

Just a journalist being a journalist and making sensationalist points to trigger responses ie to sell more of his/her work.

detailed.

Bit early in the day for such long term detialed analysis?

From FT - nicely summarised

“Andy Burnham has announced a 20% cut to business rates for pubs, clubs and live music venues from next April. The measure, costing about £100m a year, will be funded by reviewing tax relief for businesses that don’t make a “positive contribution” to communities, such as vape shops.

Comment

Burnham: “Fail again. Fail worse.” Carl Court/Getty
Only a crisis will bring Britain to its senses
To those hoping Andy Burnham will turn out a “bit less socialist” than is generally feared, says Janan Ganesh in the FT: be careful what you wish for. If our new PM muddles through, Britain will remain in purgatory – not dysfunctional enough to change, “but not so functional as to be happy”. Better for everyone if Burnham fails so badly his successor is licensed to finally make the sweeping reforms we dearly need. Bad ideas must be tested to destruction. And Burnhamism, with its cheap shots at “neoliberalism” and London, its earnest belief in tax-and-spend paternalism, its sapping welfare largesse, and its featherweight MPs is, collectively, a bad idea in every respect. Best to give it one last heave. “Then voters will accept change.”
Remember the stakes: Britain hasn’t balanced its fiscal budget since the millennium. Every region runs a deficit bar London and the South East. Welfare takes up more of national output than it did before Margaret Thatcher came to power. “The UK borrows more expensively than Greece.” We have, proportionally, more social housing than either France or Germany. Our tax burden is up. Government debt is around 95% of GDP – one of the highest levels since the 1960s. And still, a lot of people, including Andy Burnham, think the problem is something called neoliberalism. It’s less a belief than a “religious incantation”, so it will only budge when public spending causes a breaking point. So “let Andy be Andy”– price controls, subsidies, perhaps another stab at “industrial strategy” from a state that couldn’t build a high-speed rail from Birmingham to Manchester without disgracing itself. Reform only happens when it absolutely has to happen. “So try again, prime minister. Fail again. Fail worse.”

I don’t think that the reduction in business rates for pubs etc. is going to make a huge difference to pub users. It won’t reduce pub prices.

What it might do is save some pubs from having to close or cut their opening hours. Or be able to keep their menu prices stable.

To me it seems that the only voters most likely to benefit are pub landlords.

foxie48
"Why is alcohol more important than tea, coffee etc?"

Cossy
Perhaps because the government receives a lot of revenue from those places that sell alcohol. There is an alcohol duty as well as a 20% VAT.

It’s not all bad news though. Some of the money raised in tax from encouraging people into pubs and clubs to drink
will go to the NHS so can be used for treating alcohol-related illnesses, A&E visits, and ambulance call-outs etc.

And yet I’ve just heard on the news that domestic violence increased due to drinking when England were playing in the World Cup. So are pubs the best thing to prioritise given all the other problems the country faces? Which voters is this being aimed at? Will there be any announcements about eg education?

Great. Actions speak louder than words so just do it Gary and chums.

Here you go Gary et al, there’s a mechanism for you to make voluntary tax contributions.

You’re welcome

www.gov.uk/guidance/voluntary-payments-donations-to-government

Pubs sell coffee.