• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,913
Location
UK
I maintain biggest problem is none of the major parties have a vision. We don't really know what they're proposing to do. Get some wishy-washy manifesto, which we know may well not be fulfilled in any way, shape or form.
About time party leaders stood up, told us exactly what they proposed and not be afraid to do it. Trying to be all things to all people is not the way forward.

Can anyone set up a vision for the future and look at promising long-term solutions? If someone doesn't see an improvement after a month, it's time to say 'worst Government ever' and want them ousted.

It's exactly why every MP and councillor are only looking at what gets them through to next week.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Railwaycat

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2023
Messages
277
Location
Derbyshire
I don't agree with Farage's call for a general election but his point about a potential Prime Minister not having even stood in the last election won't sit right with a lot of people. Meanwhile I wonder if the Tories will work to oust Badenoch and parachute Boris Johnson back into a safe seat for his own return to politics.

I assume that's a joke, if it is it's in very bad taste!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,342
Nope - because Burnham has already said he wants to introduce PR as a manifesto commitment at the next election.

This will encourage a lot of Greens and Lib Dems to tactically vote Labour. its the reasons why both parties only ran a token campaign in Makerfield, because they have some respect for Burnham and agree with a chunk of his policies.
The problem is people have already seen how that goes.

"Non-core voters for the party vote for them to get policy x, policy x is then axed after the party wins the general election".

Trust of the major (including Labour) party apparatuses is gone completely.

The greens ran a light campaign because they had absolutely no hope of winning.
No manifesto commitment to introduce PR will be trusted.

EDIT:

Electoral calculus puts their centre estimate for Labour at 83 seats, including tactical voting.
 
Last edited:

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
11,006
Location
London
Nope - because Burnham has already said he wants to introduce PR as a manifesto commitment at the next election.

He could just introduce PR in this parliament to be honest. I even think Reform would back it and the Lib Dems and Greens probably would anyway as long-term policies of theres.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Can anyone set up a vision for the future and look at promising long-term solutions? If someone doesn't see an improvement after a month, it's time to say 'worst Government ever' and want them ousted.

Well they're currently not making any long-term plans apparently for the next few months. So more time in limbo!

You might think it's understandable but it certainly doesn't end the circus that things currently are.


The government has announced that there will be no new “major policies” or spending decisions during the transition to a new prime minister.

Keir Starmer told a cabinet meeting this morning that he wanted an orderly transition of power and he would give his full support to his successor.

The head of the civil service has written to the heads of all departments to tell them to follow the established procedure for a change of PM.

“The prime minister has agreed that there will be no new major policy or spending commitments initiated during this period,” his official spokesman told reporters earlier.

But – crucially – this does not appear to include the much-delayed Defence Investment Plan, which ministers are insisting will be published before the Nato summit on 7 July.

Asked if the ban on new policy announcements meant the government faced paralysis, the spokesman said ministers remain in place and “the normal business of government continues”.
 

Stathern Jc

Member
Joined
30 Nov 2019
Messages
417
Location
Inverness
Electoral calculus puts their centre estimate for Labour at 83 seats, including tactical voting.
Tactical voting can obviously play in various directions, especially in Scotland and Wales.
(I don't pretend to understand the subtle nuances in Northern Ireland)

Does that estimate allow for local variations when including tactical voting?
83 seats sounds like the sort of clearout the SNP had in 2024.
It's not a source I'm familiar with.
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,874
Location
Newport
Meanwhile I wonder if the Tories will work to oust Badenoch and parachute Boris Johnson back into a safe seat for his own return to politics.
There seem to be enough Tories who believe he’s not a naughty boy, just the messiah.
 

DoubleLemon

Member
Joined
11 Apr 2021
Messages
168
Location
Bedford
FPTP is likely to destroy labour entirely in 2029.

The polling error bars go way south of 100 seats.
Their only chance to maintain any electoral significant is proportional representation.

They are likely broken as an FPTP majority party, just as the Tories are.
bots can't vote. most polls are online and being influenced. it's a big problem and there's no sign of it being fixed.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,342
bots can't vote. most polls are online and being influenced. it's a big problem and there's no sign of it being fixed.
And yet recent local election results align with what would be expected if the polls are broadly correct. ie. Labour getting absolutely crushed
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,686
Location
Nottingham
He could just introduce PR in this parliament to be honest. I even think Reform would back it and the Lib Dems and Greens probably would anyway as long-term policies of theres.
That would hand a massive PR (not that PR) gift to their opponents, who would immediately claim Labour were changing the system to get themselves out of a hole. I think Burnham has ruled it out, probably plans to put it in the manifesto, and may end up having to join a coalition in 2029 with the LibDems or even the Greens who will most likely insist on it.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,583
Can anyone set up a vision for the future and look at promising long-term solutions? If someone doesn't see an improvement after a month, it's time to say 'worst Government ever' and want them ousted.

It's exactly why every MP and councillor are only looking at what gets them through to next week.
That's not what I'm saying. What is the Labour vision? What are they striving for, are they sticking to their guns and telling everybody? Doesn't matter whether someone sees an improvement after a month, that person isn't running the country. Too much fussing about what the media thinks and not getting on with a job, whether it's popular or not.
Are the Tories presenting a vision for the future and telling us all about it?
I'd say no in both cases, mostly tit for tat arguments between the two parties, no proper vision in place and pandering to next whim that comes along.
It's unfortunately why Reform have made such strides, they do have a vision and a leader that bangs on about it.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,342
That would hand a massive PR (not that PR) gift to their opponents, who would immediately claim Labour were changing the system to get themselves out of a hole. I think Burnham has ruled it out, probably plans to put it in the manifesto, and may end up having to join a coalition in 2029 with the LibDems or even the Greens who will most likely insist on it.
I think it bodes ill for his understanding of the party's situation if he believes what he puts in a manifesto really matters at this point.

Proportional Representation is pretty key to the ideology he has set out for fixing the country, if all the people around him producing screeds on "Manchesterism" are to be believed.
Without it, his proposed reforms will almost certainly fail.

EDIT:

As I noted earlier, manifesto pledges on such things really aren't very credible any more in any case.
They've been dangled as ways to trick naive voters into voting for the traditional mainstream parties too many times.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,913
Location
UK
It's unfortunately why Reform have made such strides, they do have a vision and a leader that bangs on about it.

A vision to cut regulations, taxes, privatise the health service, allow things like crypto companies to flood the market, remove worker rights, kill unions.. the list goes on.

The leader then bangs on about promises to stop the boats and deport non-whites, which gets the votes from the stupid people who believe it when the real vision is what I posted in the first paragraph.
 

JamieL

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2022
Messages
947
Location
UK
A vision to cut regulations, taxes, privatise the health service, allow things like crypto companies to flood the market, remove worker rights, kill unions.. the list goes on.

The leader then bangs on about promises to stop the boats and deport non-whites, which gets the votes from the stupid people who believe it when the real vision is what I posted in the first paragraph.
This is indeed Reform's purpose and, if realised, their approach is likely to be extreme and ultimately bad for the country.

However, the issue is the traditional main parties are not able to offer any rebalancing from the current arrangements - namely exceptionally high rates of taxation simply to service debt and public services which are being crippled with those contributing the least, taking the most.

The Tories and Labour can offer no escape from this doom-loop. Even yesterday Reeves came up with another new tax. As such key investors are pumping money towards Reform which offers a way out.
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,874
Location
Newport
public services which are being crippled with those contributing the least, taking the most.
Those in most need will need the greatest support, whether through ill-health or lack of opportunity, while unable to contribute. It’s a simple fact, weaponised by the wilfully divisive.

The anti-welfare diatribe is often amplified in my circle by those in professions with a reputation for excluding the taxman from their financial arrangements. I doubt we will be seeing them being equally demonised in order to……
offer any rebalancing from the current arrangements
 

Magrar

On Moderation
Joined
20 Jun 2026
Messages
195
Location
Reading
Labour’s current tax policies upset far more small business owners, such a women running cafes employing mostly part time workers who are often single parent younger women, than they upset rich non-dom unpleasant middle aged white men.

I think Andy gets that, and more importantly, he's not afraid of saying it. And he surely knows such policies are more harmful when voters all have an equal say in who gets to run things.

I doubt this sort of thing ever even got mentioned to Starmer in one of his many sessions with advisers, as he saught yet another reset, yet another plan for dealing with personal unpopularity and the loss of Labour votes to parties on both the left and right of them.

It's easy to get the left wing voters back just by pointing out Reform want to do some seriously bad stuff and a vote for a minor party lets them do it under FPTP.

It's not particularly going to bother these lost small business owners. They don't want to be in serious financial, emptional or physical trouble, they want to do their bit for growth and thus public zervices, so they're not personally going to be swayed by the argument that it's only Labour who will take care of the poor, the sick, the broke.

It's Labour currently putting them in a position where they have to vote in their own selfish self-interest, leaving matters of the greater good to a later date.
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,874
Location
Newport
It's Labour currently putting them in a position where they have to vote in their own selfish self-interest, leaving matters of the greater good to a later date.
I don’t buy the ‘greater good’ argument. We have a democracy which has elected a government, and hence have made a democratic decision about what the greater good is.

Yes, FPTP means it’s not perfect democracy but until we change the electoral system, that’s our system.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
11,006
Location
London
This is indeed Reform's purpose and, if realised, their approach is likely to be extreme and ultimately bad for the country.

However, the issue is the traditional main parties are not able to offer any rebalancing from the current arrangements - namely exceptionally high rates of taxation simply to service debt and public services which are being crippled with those contributing the least, taking the most.

Mainly because there are structural economic and demographic problems that would need drastic and probably rather unpopular actions to actually resolve. Just look at how France is failing to achieve even moderate (and necessary) reform without riots.

Things like ending the triple lock, reforming social care, looking at other benefits and increasing general taxation - which generally is not actually that high in England compared to Europe - and probably taxing wealth to some extent. This is all whilst trying to improve things like childcare provision and dealing with the infrastructure deficit during a time of relatively high interest rates when borrowing isn’t cheap and the debt interest is already quite high - paying for COVID wasn’t that cheap! Trying to undo essentially 15 years of austerity is also not easy.

Of course Reform don’t really want to go into detail on any of this and would rather cheap scapegoating which attracts voters who want simple answers to deeply complex issues.
 

TravelDream

Member
Joined
7 Aug 2016
Messages
1,162
Mainly because there are structural economic and demographic problems that would need drastic and probably rather unpopular actions to actually resolve. Just look at how France is failing to achieve even moderate (and necessary) reform without riots.

Things like ending the triple lock, reforming social care, looking at other benefits and increasing general taxation - which generally is not actually that high in England compared to Europe - and probably taxing wealth to some extent. This is all whilst trying to improve things like childcare provision and dealing with the infrastructure deficit during a time of relatively high interest rates when borrowing isn’t cheap and the debt interest is already quite high - paying for COVID wasn’t that cheap! Trying to undo essentially 15 years of austerity is also not easy.

Of course Reform don’t really want to go into detail on any of this and would rather cheap scapegoating which attracts voters who want simple answers to deeply complex issues.

Totally agree on the first point. Britain, like most Western countries, has an unsustainable economic model because of demographics. Unlike what some think, at some point the music has to stop as it can not go on forever.

On taxation, you're sort of right, but there are fundamental differences with how we tax and how European countries tax. Essentially, most of them tax lower earners a lot more than we do whilst taxing higher earners comparably.
'Taxing the rich' simply doesn't work as the rich move activity offshore out of HMRC's reach. Instead, taxing the rich has come to mean slamming the middle class - even the lower middle class. Some people act as though £30k is a great salary. It was when John Major was PM, but is barely above national minimum wage nowadays and is poverty level stuff in central London. Slamming the middle class is the fastest way to harm productivity and harm growth.

Those in most need will need the greatest support, whether through ill-health or lack of opportunity, while unable to contribute. It’s a simple fact, weaponised by the wilfully divisive.

At the end of the day, Britain is fundamentally a country of fairness.

Nobody, even Farage or Lowe, wants to see the genuinely disabled and unable thrown to the wolves. Even with a Reform government, the revulsion would be too great if they tried.

But you fail to see the other side of the coin too.
There are young families who would love to have more children or would love to get on the property ladder, but simply can't. They are taxed to the hilt and live under a system that works against them.
At the same time, there are vast numbers of people who live under huge state largess with free council houses and free luxury cars simply as they can't be bothered to work and know how the system works.
And, yes, I said vast numbers. Since Covid, countries like Sweden, France and Germany saw their equivalent of PIP/ DLA see a bit of a bump, and then return to normal. Britain's has gone like a rocket to the moon. Clearly Britain is a huge outlier.

Some people take umbrage at Motability being called 'free', but that's what it is. PIP, the state pension, JSA, Universal Credit are not 'my/ your money'. It's the taxpayer's money which has been provided to you.

And I have fundmental issues with parts of the welfare state. Some are far too 'generous' whilst others simply aren't good enough. But we seem stuck in this cycle where nothing cut be cut.
Winter fuel allowance - why should millionaires who live in multi-million pound properties get a bung each winter whilst ordinary people struggle to put food on the table vs. heating their home? It's fundamentally unfair.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
8,014
Location
Surrey
At the end of the day, Britain is fundamentally a country of fairness.

Nobody, even Farage or Lowe, wants to see the genuinely disabled and unable thrown to the wolves. Even with a Reform government, the revulsion would be too great if they tried.

But you fail to see the other side of the coin too.
There are young families who would love to have more children or would love to get on the property ladder, but simply can't. They are taxed to the hilt and live under a system that works against them.
At the same time, there are vast numbers of people who live under huge state largess with free council houses and free luxury cars simply as they can't be bothered to work and know how the system works.
And, yes, I said vast numbers. Since Covid, countries like Sweden, France and Germany saw their equivalent of PIP/ DLA see a bit of a bump, and then return to normal. Britain's has gone like a rocket to the moon. Clearly Britain is a huge outlier.

Some people take umbrage at Motability being called 'free', but that's what it is. PIP, the state pension, JSA, Universal Credit are not 'my/ your money'. It's the taxpayer's money which has been provided to you.

And I have fundmental issues with parts of the welfare state. Some are far too 'generous' whilst others simply aren't good enough. But we seem stuck in this cycle where nothing cut be cut.
Winter fuel allowance - why should millionaires who live in multi-million pound properties get a bung each winter whilst ordinary people struggle to put food on the table vs. heating their home? It's fundamentally unfair.
Burnham is unlikely to tackle it as this is the voter base he needs to appeal to to keep them out of Reforms clutches. Terrible though it would be for many we need a proper financial crisis to get a forced reality check into the welfare state. Greece had it forced upon them in the end in 2008 crisis and endured years of pain but has come out the other side with a far stronger economy and the ability to borrow at over 1% less than the UK. It would far better for us do on our terms than have no say in the matter as that will destroy the party whose watch it happens under
 

martin butler

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2018
Messages
879
I think no one's not going to agree we as a country can't carry on as we are, and that somethings got to give, but the result will ensure that party never ever gets back in power, so instead we continue tinkering around the edges, until society just collapses,

One percent having all the wealth, whist the rest are in poverty is how revolutions are begun, we are not there yet, but easily within a short time will. and if Reform/ conservatives have their way, it will be sooner, and of course the 1% will just fly off leaving everyone else to their fate, as they are not going to stick around

So Whats needed is a programme that rewards hard work, that rewards those who stayed on in higher education, but also protects the weakest from exploitation, The minimum wage is a joke, it needs abolishing, and instead replaced with a wage that reflects the true cost of living, and does not reward slave wages, so that people in work don't need to rely on the state to top up an unlivable wage, Taxation needs to be more progressive, that a millionaire can pay less tax than his cleaner, on minimum wage, clearly is wrong,
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,874
Location
Newport
At the same time, there are vast numbers of people who live under huge state largess with free council houses and free luxury cars simply as they can't be bothered to work and know how the system works.
I agree. I know a few but I know far more who prefer to dodge taxation by working ‘cash in hand’ or by shielding assets. Rooting out welfare abuse must be matched by rooting out taxation abuse.
 

martin butler

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2018
Messages
879
I agree. I know a few but I know far more who prefer to dodge taxation by working ‘cash in hand’ or by shielding assets. Rooting out welfare abuse must be matched by rooting out taxation abuse.
And at the same time, Multi nationals that offshore their earnings for taxation avoidance, should face punitive measures that ensure tax evasion just isn't going to be worth the savings, Tax saving dodges that the wealthy can legally use also need to be cut down on, and if some of these chains, such as Starbucks, were to threaten to leave the UK, there are always other retailers to use.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,583
Labour’s current tax policies upset far more small business owners, such a women running cafes employing mostly part time workers who are often single parent younger women, than they upset rich non-dom unpleasant middle aged white men.

I think Andy gets that, and more importantly, he's not afraid of saying it. And he surely knows such policies are more harmful when voters all have an equal say in who gets to run things.

I doubt this sort of thing ever even got mentioned to Starmer in one of his many sessions with advisers, as he saught yet another reset, yet another plan for dealing with personal unpopularity and the loss of Labour votes to parties on both the left and right of them.

It's easy to get the left wing voters back just by pointing out Reform want to do some seriously bad stuff and a vote for a minor party lets them do it under FPTP.

It's not particularly going to bother these lost small business owners. They don't want to be in serious financial, emptional or physical trouble, they want to do their bit for growth and thus public zervices, so they're not personally going to be swayed by the argument that it's only Labour who will take care of the poor, the sick, the broke.

It's Labour currently putting them in a position where they have to vote in their own selfish self-interest, leaving matters of the greater good to a later date.
Sorry to ask this but why do you refer to him as Andy, is he your mate or a relative?
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
5,457
Those in most need will need the greatest support, whether through ill-health or lack of opportunity, while unable to contribute. It’s a simple fact, weaponised by the wilfully divisive.

The anti-welfare diatribe is often amplified in my circle by those in professions with a reputation for excluding the taxman from their financial arrangements. I doubt we will be seeing them being equally demonised in order to……
Why would they be equally demonised? They may not be contributing as much as you would like them too, but they likely won't be directly getting support from taxpayers either.
 

Broucek

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2020
Messages
945
Location
UK
Why would they be equally demonised? They may not be contributing as much as you would like them too, but they likely won't be directly getting support from taxpayers either.
Yeah, even the much maligned Starbucks is paying VAT, employer's NICs, business rates - and employing many thousands. (I don't necessarily condone its approach to optimising corporation tax but it's perfectly legal, as far as I understand.)

And does anyone really believe that Gordon Brown and Alasdair Darling didn't give any thought to making sure rich companies or individuals made an appropriate contribution? There's less low hanging fruit than people think
 

SargeNpton

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2018
Messages
1,742
Sorry to ask this but why do you refer to him as Andy, is he your mate or a relative?
Some politicians get talked about by their surnames, some by their first names and a few by their nicknames (the latter usually derogatory).
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,686
Location
Nottingham
Why would they be equally demonised? They may not be contributing as much as you would like them too, but they likely won't be directly getting support from taxpayers either.
By virtue of being multinationals they can engineer various internal transactions so profits and other taxable things magically appear in low-tax jurisdictions. Competitors operating only in the UK don't have that opportunity.
 

JamieL

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2022
Messages
947
Location
UK
Wonderful, some left leaning Labour MPs are already aghast at Burnham:

Burnham’s choice of Purnell has already caused some consternation among many of his supporters on the Labour left, who fear it has echoes of Keir Starmer’s decision to appoint key Blairites such as Peter Mandelson as US ambassador and Tim Allan as director of communications – both of whom still had stakes in lobbying firms that they did not give up while in post.

One Burnham-supporting MP on the left said they felt the appointment was a “very bad sign that he is not thinking things through enough”.

“I am deeply worried about this,” said another senior adviser. “I am worried this does not look like change and it will lead to the same scandals that have hamstrung Keir. He is being convinced to dilute himself to placate the rightwing forces that will never support or agree with him.”

I wonder how long Burnham will last? 24 months maybe?

Source:
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,874
Location
Newport
Why would they be equally demonised? They may not be contributing as much as you would like them too, but they likely won't be directly getting support from taxpayers either.
Which version of fraud do you prefer?
 

Top