The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[najaB]

Which systems in particular were you thinking of? It's probably not fair to compare say, an aircraft carrier, with interceptor drones that, minus the explosive, someone with a soldering iron and a 3d printer could effectively make at home.

Their long range missile systems have been very impressive. The speed with which they adapted the Neptune from a sea to land attack missile puts anything we've done recently to shame. And the Flamingo is a cruise missile with >3000km range developed and in service in just over three years (they're reportedly going to be producing over 200 a month by the end of this year).

 

[Yew]

Russia is spending ~7% of its GDP, ~30% of the federal budget on defence. You can do a lot with that, especially as in home grown tech the Russian militaries relative buying power is very high. The population has accepted deaths of 500,000 in the Ukraine war. Putin hasn’t even fully mobilised, he has enough volunteers, for now. If there is some sort of resolution in Ukraine it would seem the likelyhood of an incursion somewhere else is high, they have now hugely experienced combat ready armed forces now.

They're certainly not going to get that army into the UK, similarly, land based air defences, such as the post I was replying to was suggesting we invest in, are unlikely to be useful against infantry.

Furthermore, the alternative view is that most of their modern equipment is destroyed, and they are regularly using equipment that is over 50 years old.

I can seriously see a limited push into the Baltic states, what would NATO do? Would NATO be willing to take thousands of casualties to free Estonia from Russian control?

If we don't, it sets a precedent that would be concerning. If we are going to help an ally in Eastern Europe, we need a force designed to complement their own. Note that I said complement, and not match, we need to bring the useful tools to the table that they either cannot afford, or are unable to buy. Artillery, infantry and drones have worked so well in Ukraine precisely because they don't have survivable low-observability aircraft and long range precision fires.

The problem is, that anyone thinking that too many things are far fetched are more at risk of being caught with their pants down in a big way, and then trying to catch up in a hurry isn't going to get them very far at all.

Okay, so let's say that Russia decided to attack us, in the UK, first off they are going to need boats to move troops and equipment, then they are going to need ships, aircraft and submarines to escort that fleet, and supply ships to resupply it on the long voyage to the UK. This massive armada would take a decade to build, and therefore would be well telegraphed.

 

[Railwaycat]

The problem is, that anyone thinking that too many things are far fetched are more at risk of being caught with their pants down in a big way, and then trying to catch up in a hurry isn't going to get them very far at all.

Exactly. It's not about boots on the ground, it's about simply destroying a nations infrastructure and economy. See Iran.

 

[Yew]

Interesting to see an article about how much public money goes to private equity featured in the guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/society...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1782713179), I wonder if a new Labour leader will look at bringing this under control.

One pound in every £11 of UK government spending on contractors went to private equity-controlled companies last year, research shows, including key services such as transport, waste management and healthcare.

Politicians and economists have raised concerns over the “financial fragility and sharp cost cutting” created by private equity-backed firms, which often have high levels of debt, and the “conflicting interests” in running public services for maximum profit.


Private equity firms are investment companies that raise money from investors and banks to acquire and manage other companies in order to eventually resell them for a profit. Some have described the rapid spread of private equity across public and private services as a “financial pandemic” the government has yet to fully grasp the scale of.

Exclusive Guardian analysis found that almost £24.4bn of public spending on contractors went to companies controlled by a private equity firm in the year to April 2025 – equivalent to 8.8% of government contracts.

The investigation, based on procurement data provided by the public sector market intelligence firm Tussell, company filings, market data from the financial database PitchBook and reported public information, reveals for the first time the extent of private equity’s stake in Britain’s public services.

Almost £9.8bn in contracts from local councils went to companies majority-controlled by private equity firms, an estimated 10% of their external spending in the year to April 2025. This includes more than half a billion paid to an infrastructure group – providing services across water, energy, transport and telecoms – controlled by the private equity group CVC Capital Partners.

More than £5bn of NHS contracts – 10.7% of its external spending – were paid to private equity-backed firms in the last year.

Among the top recipients were a business software company jointly controlled by the private equity firms Hg Capital and TA Associates, which received almost £1bn. Almost £500m went to a pharmaceutical and healthcare services company controlled by the London-headquartered Vitruvian Partners.

 

[Kite159]

I wonder if a new Labour leader will look at bringing this under control.

All depends on the contracts between the various private companies & the likes of the NHS/MOD/Councils, as no doubt there will be large penalties if the NHS/MOD/Councils (etc) attempt to end it early

 

[Brightonboy]

Do I think that Russia will launch a surprise assault by sea against Tyneside? Of course not. There are, however, two credible threats that we need to equip for. The first is the possibility that Putin may decide to try an assault on one of the Baltic states who then invoke Article 5. NATO, including the UK, would be duty bound to respond and that means that the UK must provide those force elements (and attrition replacements) that it has committed to and that form part of a 'whole force' package. That should include the possibility that there are shortfalls from other nations that need covering. Once the shooting starts, we have to be able to show a robust defensive posture around all out key infrastructure and facilities, both at home and overseas, bearing in mind that other actors (e.g. ISIS, Iran etc) may see a NATO engagement in Europe as an useful distraction for them to make mischief of their own in areas such as Cyprus. That takes more than the existing limited defensive capacity we currently have. A Russian attack in the Baltic states is, I think, unlikely while Ukraine conflict is ongoing however Putin is unpredictable and there appears to be a number of 'hawks' in the Kremlin who may exert influence or, worse still, come to power should he have an unfortunate heart attack.
The second credible threat is Russia stepping up its covert activities against the undersea networks that we (and the rest of the West rely upon to keep normal life going. Lose some or all of them to 'mysterious', unclaimed and (officially) unattributable 'accidents' and we become very much weaker than we currently are (for example. less able to support a NATO Article 5 response or provide extended support to the security of the middle east. ). Those undersea networks therefore have to see greater physical monitoring and oversight than is currently possible.

Defence of the UK requires more than just defence of the physical mainland UK.

 

[JamesT]

Interesting to see an article about how much public money goes to private equity featured in the guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/society...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1782713179), I wonder if a new Labour leader will look at bringing this under control.

Though it says nothing about whether the services provided by those companies are better or worse value for money than those provided by companies with different ownership structures.

 

[JamieL]

I see Burnham intends to nationalise utilities etc. So short sighted- the Tories/Reform will have a firesale of shares when they get back in.

 

[PGAT]

I see Burnham intends to nationalise utilities etc. So short sighted- the Tories/Reform will have a firesale of shares when they get back in.

"Public control" and "nationalisation" are not the same thing

 

[Yew]

"Public control" and "nationalisation" are not the same thing

Indeed, this way the public takes all the risks, but the private sector still gets to extract money from the system, so it can run the risk of being the worst of both worlds.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2026 ==

Though it says nothing about whether the services provided by those companies are better or worse value for money than those provided by companies with different ownership structures.

Why do these services have to be provided by companies, rather than the state its self? I can understand getting in external people to support delivering things that aren't your core competency, but it does often feel that we are outsourcing the core functions of government, which rarely provides better value.

 

[Harpo]

I see Burnham intends to nationalise utilities etc. So short sighted- the Tories/Reform will have a firesale of shares when they get back in.

There’d be little point in having elections if every administration did nothing simply because an alternative government might reverse it.

Talking of reversing stuff, Burnham’s got three years to a) gain some trust and b) expose Reform.

 

[JamieL]

Burnham won't last 3 years, he will be busted within 2 IMHO.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There’d be little point in having elections if every administration did nothing simply because an alternative government might reverse it.

Talking of reversing stuff, Burnham’s got three years to a) gain some trust and b) expose Reform.

Hes got no mandate for some of the stuff he spoke about today although there well in credit with the Torys shenanigans over their terms so I'm sure he wont be rushing for an election but if really turns the polls then maybe a snap one.

 

[najaB]

Interesting to see an article about how much public money goes to private equity featured in the guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/society...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1782713179), I wonder if a new Labour leader will look at bringing this under control.

Private Equity isn't, by definition, bad. Not all PE firms operate under the "maximise the profit in the short term, who cares about the long term" model. My employer is owned by a PE firm whose model is to buy companies that are underperforming, give them the investment and assistance needed to get them into a shape that's attractive to investors (a lot of whom are long-term institutional investors like pension funds) and sell out at a profit. Several well-known players in the tech sector have been through this process.

 

[edwin_m]

Which systems in particular were you thinking of? It's probably not fair to compare say, an aircraft carrier, with interceptor drones that, minus the explosive, someone with a soldering iron and a 3d printer could effectively make at home.

But that's kind of the point. Ukraine has shown that many defence tasks are better done with many less sophisticated weapons than with a small number of costly systems that are difficult to replace. This is against an opponent who have (or had) arguably the world's second most powerful military and the same one the UK might be up against.

Russia is spending ~7% of its GDP, ~30% of the federal budget on defence. You can do a lot with that, especially as in home grown tech the Russian militaries relative buying power is very high. The population has accepted deaths of 500,000 in the Ukraine war. Putin hasn’t even fully mobilised, he has enough volunteers, for now. If there is some sort of resolution in Ukraine it would seem the likelyhood of an incursion somewhere else is high, they have now hugely experienced combat ready armed forces now. I can seriously see a limited push into the Baltic states, what would NATO do? Would NATO be willing to take thousands of casualties to free Estonia from Russian control?

Part of that is to maintain a strategic relationship with Ukraine, the largest army in Europe outside Russia and very motivated to strike back if Russia moves forces away to try something elsewhere (with or without a settlement). Bringing Ukraine into NATO or some similar arrangement minus the USA is very much in everyone's interest.

 

[Broucek]

Though it says nothing about whether the services provided by those companies are better or worse value for money than those provided by companies with different ownership structures.

Right. I've seen the bad side of PE in some industries but this is simplistic thinking.

 

[TravelDream]

If you're referring to climate measures which is what he's best known for strongly believing in, then there's a pretty good argument to say those are in Britain's self-interest as well as that of the rest of the world.

Yes, climate change is a real issue and one that is becoming ever more apparent in our lives.

However, if Britain shut down today, the impact that would make on global climate change would be essentially zero.

And the idea we should shut down our economy whilst at the same time buying our own oil from Norway is total madness.

Climate change needs global action and action which doesn't destroy economies along the way. It needs sensible action like building a lot more nuclear power stations allowing for green cars and air conditioners etc.

I know words change in meaning over time but for the sake of clarity what you call tax avoidance is better described as tax planning is using the tax laws to reduce your tax bill in ways the legislation intended e.g. Putting your money in an ISA. Tax avoidance is using the law as it stands in ways that were not intended, to reduce your tax bill. This can, depending on the scale, result in a costly dispute with HMRC.

Evasion is not paying what is due and is a criminal activity.

'Tax planning' and 'tax avoidance' are essentially synonymous and you are talking semantics here.

Tax evasion is, of course, illegal.

 

[Richard Scott]

Climate change needs global action and action which doesn't destroy economies along the way. It needs sensible action like building a lot more nuclear power stations allowing for green cars and air conditioners etc.

How long does it take to recover the CO2 emissions from building said power station and extracting Uranium from its ore?
Any so called green initiative has some CO2 emissions linked to its construction but not sure Nuclear Power is the way forward. Happy to be proved wrong if you have data to back it up.

 

[Brightonboy]

Bringing Ukraine into NATO or some similar arrangement minus the USA is very much in everyone's interest.

I would disagree with that for the foreseeable future. Russia (or, to be more precise, its leaders) has always sought to maintain strong borders in order to maintain a tight grip on the many disparate communities within the Russian homeland. Part of their methodology in that since the 1920's has been to have a buffer zone of subservient countries around them to keep the homeland free from exposure to 'western' media with its revelations of more freedom and general wealth. That has become harder with modern electronic media. The westernisation of the Baltic states, Poland etc since the era of Glasnost, Perestroika and the fall of the Berlin Wall at the end of the 1980's has worried the traditionalists in the Kremlin and moving NATO & the EUs borders (and remember, the EU contains a large proportion of the NATO countries so an expanding EU can be seen in Moscow as a threatening expansion of NATO) right up to the Russian homeland is akin to poking the bear with a stick. Russia did not like western involvement in Ukraine as it was, so strengthening and formalising further that western involvement would be sharpening the stick and poking harder.

 

[simonw]

Yes, climate change is a real issue and one that is becoming ever more apparent in our lives.

However, if Britain shut down today, the impact that would make on global climate change would be essentially zero.

And the idea we should shut down our economy whilst at the same time buying our own oil from Norway is total madness.

Climate change needs global action and action which doesn't destroy economies along the way. It needs sensible action like building a lot more nuclear power stations allowing for green cars and air conditioners etc.



'Tax planning' and 'tax avoidance' are essentially synonymous and you are talking semantics here.

Tax evasion is, of course, illegal.

Not semantics at all. You repeat a fallacy.

As an example none of the following are tax planning

Current list of named tax avoidance schemes, promoters, enablers and suppliers

www.gov.uk

Engaging in them will get you a visit (and more) from HMRC

 

[najaB]

Climate change needs global action and action which doesn't destroy economies along the way.

And if everyone waits for someone else to go first...

 

[thenorthern]

Not just that, but he surely is not going to win that many votes (at a national level for a GE) for that to be a vote winner? And like you say, just being seen as him benefiting his old mayoral stomping ground over others.

Given Greater Manchester is already a Labour stronghold I don't think he would get many extra votes. Also his expectation that it would be in Manchester is a bit strange. There would have to be contest and consultation first and it's not guaranteed that Manchester would win.

He is also now talking about now living in Number 10 or London and having his main residence in Manchester. That has got to be the most idiotic policy he has come up with.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Given Greater Manchester is already a Labour stronghold I don't think he would get many extra votes. Also his expectation that it would be in Manchester is a bit strange. There would have to be contest and consultation first and it's not guaranteed that Manchester would win.

He is also now talking about now living in Number 10 or London and having his main residence in Manchester. That has got to be the most idiotic policy he has come up with.

I can already see this becoming a problem for Burnham. For years many people have grumbled (justifiably or not) about London getting all the money and jobs etc. If it suddenly becomes the case that Manchester is getting lots of money spent on instead (despite already having had that), this will just get people’s hackles up. I do not want this country to be governed by a regionalist party. Indeed while many people grumble about London they have almost all at least been there and recognise it as a great city and the nation’s capital. Most Labour voters are not in the North.

It is also an unforced error. There is no need to do this performative “Northern-ness”. He could have waltzed into Downing Street anyway.

 

[Harpo]

'Tax planning' and 'tax avoidance' are essentially synonymous and you are talking semantics here.

Tax evasion is, of course, illegal.

Sorry. Fraud cannot be remotely synonymous with allowable tax breaks.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2026 ==

He is also now talking about now living in Number 10 or London and having his main residence in Manchester. That has got to be the most idiotic policy he has come up with.

What Burnham has actually proposed is replicating Manchester’s success in orher parts of the country through the same ‘bottom-up’ approach.

In parochial railway terms, causing MPs & ministers to sample the realities of a ‘not London’ rail journey can only help improve the railway away from London.

 

[speedy1]

It's typical small-minded thinking to not see any "not London" as potentially beneficial. The status quo is 'London first, then the rest of you peons'. It was entirely predictable that people from anywhere except Manchester would all go "what about us??"

He should have worked on that message first before announcing locations

 

[edwin_m]

I would disagree with that for the foreseeable future. Russia (or, to be more precise, its leaders) has always sought to maintain strong borders in order to maintain a tight grip on the many disparate communities within the Russian homeland. Part of their methodology in that since the 1920's has been to have a buffer zone of subservient countries around them to keep the homeland free from exposure to 'western' media with its revelations of more freedom and general wealth. That has become harder with modern electronic media. The westernisation of the Baltic states, Poland etc since the era of Glasnost, Perestroika and the fall of the Berlin Wall at the end of the 1980's has worried the traditionalists in the Kremlin and moving NATO & the EUs borders (and remember, the EU contains a large proportion of the NATO countries so an expanding EU can be seen in Moscow as a threatening expansion of NATO) right up to the Russian homeland is akin to poking the bear with a stick. Russia did not like western involvement in Ukraine as it was, so strengthening and formalising further that western involvement would be sharpening the stick and poking harder.

Considering that Russia invaded Ukraine anyway when its future membership of NATO was highly uncertain, this is not a valid reason to keep Ukraine outside NATO (or a similar institution without the US) now. Your argument also implies that the countries of eastern Europe should be denied the benefits enjoyed by those further west simply because of their proximity to Russia, which I suggest is morally repugnant. And if nearby countries joining NATO risks them being invaded then the Baltics are very much at risk today and need to be defended - which is much more achievable if Ukraine is on side.

 

[Cross City]

It's typical small-minded thinking to not see any "not London" as potentially beneficial. The status quo is 'London first, then the rest of you peons'. It was entirely predictable that people from anywhere except Manchester would all go "what about us??"

He should have worked on that message first before announcing locations

Tbf, it's not "London first, then the rest of you"... It's "London first, and if they don't want it then Manchester instead, then the rest of you can rot".

Anything that isn't London goes to Manchester, and it has done for the last 30 years, looks like it's set to continue that way.

That being said, regional devolution is a good idea.

 

[Yew]

'Tax planning' and 'tax avoidance' are essentially synonymous and you are talking semantics here.

I quite like it, it's a good way of distinguishing between using the system the way it's intended, and gaming it through loopholes.

Legalisitically speaking, it's of course possible to argue that contributing to a pension pot is no different from havinng a dozen shell companies in tax havens to hide your money, but there is a real, practiccal difference.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2026 ==

Yes, climate change is a real issue and one that is becoming ever more apparent in our lives.

However, if Britain shut down today, the impact that would make on global climate change would be essentially zero.

And the idea we should shut down our economy whilst at the same time buying our own oil from Norway is total madness.

Climate change needs global action and action which doesn't destroy economies along the way. It needs sensible action like building a lot more nuclear power stations allowing for green cars and air conditioners etc.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we shut down, but in this increasingly unstable world, having a sovereign source of power, instead of relying on importing oil from despots half a world a way, seems more and more like an advantage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2026 ==

Private Equity isn't, by definition, bad. Not all PE firms operate under the "maximise the profit in the short term, who cares about the long term" model. My employer is owned by a PE firm whose model is to buy companies that are underperforming, give them the investment and assistance needed to get them into a shape that's attractive to investors (a lot of whom are long-term institutional investors like pension funds) and sell out at a profit. Several well-known players in the tech sector have been through this process.

It is, however taking money out of the system, and we have to ask whether that is idealogical, as opposed to actually offering the best value to money compared to doing it in-house. Often the presumption has been that "the private sector is inherently more efficient" so the cost of doing these activities in-house simply hasn't even been evaluated.

We're in a situation where we're paying for consultants that have been working in the same public departments for a decade or more, the question has to be asked if they should simply be staff.

 

[martin butler]

What do you meaningfully think we can get into service within 5 years? Similarly, which threats do you think will be particuarly severe within the next 5 years?

I think we need to look at what the next likely conflict is going to be, and re arm to meet it, most likely scenario would be on mainland Europe in the Baltic's So IMHO we need to ensure we have the capacity to alongside our European allies, head off and then turn back any invader, so better mobile missile systems, upgrading our militaries intelligence, and jamming capability, upgrades to equipment that's already in service to better its capabilities.

 

[speedy1]

Tbf, it's not "London first, then the rest of you"... It's "London first, and if they don't want it then Manchester instead, then the rest of you can rot".

Anything that isn't London goes to Manchester, and it has done for the last 30 years, looks like it's set to continue that way.

That being said, regional devolution is a good idea.

The South East is #2 in total spend.

Country and regional analysis: November 2025

www.gov.uk