It’s telling that everyone apart from the Labour party has been saying how good John Healey was and what a good job he was doing - allies, Conservatives, just about anyone. Downing Street and government departments have totally ignored this and basically tried to rubbish him by not saying anything.
-
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
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The UK is one of few blue-water navies in the world with limited global reach force projection. Obviously it's not on the same level as the US who have true global reach capable of sustaining multiple operations in force projection, but a limited global reach is something not even China has managed to achieve yet. We might not be the imperial power we once were, but we're hardly a tiny little island on the shores of Western Europe.
To be fair, this is also a criticism that can be levelled at Starmer. He has been astonishingly unwilling to take any action that affects the middle or upper classes.
If Starmer had put forward the welfare reforms as part of a package that spread the pain around, especially with a few measures ostensibly aimed at the rich, I think they might have got through. It's politically stronger to be able to say "you either vote through all of this, or none of it". It's also easier for MPs to defend their vote as "everyone is sharing in the pain".
brad465
Veteran Member
Labour and co. should be speaking up yes, but I wouldn't be surprised if, to take a cynical view, some of the opposition voices are only saying this as opportunism. The Tories in particular don't have a leg to stand on as they underinvested in defence even at a time when it was clearly necessary (i.e. when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine). There is clearly a clash of departments though, which would explain why they haven't really said anything.
I think the Winter Fuel Allowance cut affected the Middle Class ..... I expect the problem is that the Middle Class is so wide now that any action that affects them gets a loud howl and fear of losing their support.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,770
If the WFA cuts are affecting the middle class, it's the working class that benefit, but aren't the working classes moving to Reform? Might be worth asking Farage what his plans are to aid our defences and where that money is coming from. From what I read, cutting the welfare bill is a start - but how many of Reform voters are on welfare and will suffer?
Railwaycat
Member
Many, but they don't have the intelligence to realise it.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,770
Do we know where the cuts are scheduled to be - as "welfare" covers an awful lot! Is the state pension considered "welfare"? As this is the "Labour" thread the angle I'm looking for is for Starmer/Burnham (eventually) to persue this angle against Reform - and see if Reform call it "project fear" like Leavers did in 2016. Once bitten, twice shy?
Railwaycat
Member
Do we know? Does Deform know, and have they actually costed anything?
weeklycommuter
Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,039
I assume the reason is an attempt to reduce the overall cost of local government prompted by the dire state of local government finances at a time when the country is not overflowing with cash.
Some councils, notably Woking and Thurrock, were in effect bankrupt, the former prompting the fast track reorganisation of local government in Surrey. Many others are in a poor financial state. The February 2026 report by the Chief Financial Officer of Hampshire County Council shows that council to be on course for a Section 114 Notice early in 2027.
Didn't they sail a flotilla of ships up the straight recently. Lets not confuse a lack of political will, for an incapability.
They've decimated the command and control of the Iranians, inflicted lots of damage, all whilst suffering minimal losses?
Did we object, did we make threats, or did they just guess that we would be apathetic and not want to get involved
If we don't bother using it, then it wont. If we want to start exerting influence, then it would
We can be a regional power, we have expeditionary capability against many nations, those things are not valueless, particularly in this increasingly unstable world.
After seeing how vulnerable aircraft are at airbases in the Middle East the RN carriers look an even better buy. No Western military ships have been hit recently by drones or missiles. Trying to hit a moving ship with a ballistic missile is quite difficult.
The carriers are good value for money for the capability they provide. They were the right choice for the RN. If we had gone all in with CATOBAR, as people continually suggest, they would have required more crew and training and would have been much more expensive to operate. As an aside the ski ramps allow operations in heavier sea states than US and French CATOBAR carriers, so for the RN that’s important. F35B is a very capable aircraft. It just needs more weapons integration, particularly UK Spear 3 (and UK Meteor) which is a stealthy mini cruise missile which will give stand off capability against ground and sea targets. Yes it has less range than the other F35 variants but not by much. Yes it has a smaller internal weapons bay but only very large weapons make this an issue. It can still hold 8 air to air missiles internally or 8 spear 3.
If your carrier is defending its self you are in a really bad position. It has aircraft for that and escort ships. A RN carrier shouldn’t be going anywhere without a RN T45 air defence destroyer. Then are plenty of NATO allies that have escorts and no carriers that like the prestige of joining NATO carrier groups. As far as carrier self defence, if submarines may be a problem then take more Merlin helicopters with dipping sonar and torpedoes. If drones or anti ship missiles are a likely threat then take more Wildcat helicopters with radar and Brimstone mini missiles. The carriers are very flexible, they don’t have to be loaded with just F35s.
I’ll stop there…
The Tories and opposition parties are only greasing their wheels as they are using it as the usual political weapon against the sitting government. Which is a tale as old as time.
Healey and Carns are a prime example of the wind vane politicians who claim to have convictions - but turn out to have that ethos inhabited by a vacuum of nothing even space would be proud of.
Putin must be rubbing his hands with glee thanks to the actions of his useful idiot twins tonight
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Good to see a politician that has morals and principles. He wull be back when Burnham wins next week.John Healey has resigned as Defence Secretary over the spending plans, guessing he thinks they are insufficient.
Keir Starmer faces fresh blow after resignations by Al Carns and John Healey over defence spending
Armed Forces Minister Al Carns follows Defence Secretary John Healey in quitting the government over a dispute about military funding.www.bbc.co.uk
GusB
Established Member
Al Carns has gone too.
www.bbc.co.uk
Keir Starmer faces fresh blow after resignations by Al Carns and John Healey over defence spending
Armed Forces Minister Al Carns follows Defence Secretary John Healey in quitting the government over a dispute about military funding.
www.bbc.co.uk
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
The dominoes are falling and Burnhams not even in No.10 yetAl Carns has gone too.
Keir Starmer faces fresh blow after resignations by Al Carns and John Healey over defence spending
Armed Forces Minister Al Carns follows Defence Secretary John Healey in quitting the government over a dispute about military funding.
The best interests of the country are to ensure the Defence Investment Plan is fully funded whilst also avoid crashing the economy with yet more tax rises. A 10% reduction to all welfare benefits would comfortably fund all requirements.
I thought only in the case of at the point of sale, I was describing a system which allowed the state to pay the interest on an existing mortgage if someone got into financial troubles and otherwise was gong to need to be provided with a council house.
Also, if you're paying (say) £30,000 a year to a member of staff (so with office space, employers costs, etc at least £60,000) to investigate chancers and they are only getting (say) £6,000 more than they should, then they've got to find at least 11 a year to cover their costs.
Chances are most who are getting too much are getting far less than that and so the cost of finding them is likely to be more than they cost in extra payments.
It's one of the arguments for a Universal Basic Income, if everyone gets a fixed amount (which is generally clawed back by a given amount, so say at around £35,000 the take home is broadly similar through higher taxes) in that the admin of such a scheme is low and then the numbers who truly need help are tiny and so are easier to monitor where they are taking the micky.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How's that going to go down with pensioners where that's around 55% of the UK welfare budget of just over £330bn.
Last edited:
You still haven’t told us what you would personally sacrifice.
The state pension will still be underpinned by the triple lock so will still be very generous even if a 10% reduction is then applied on top.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Or how he’s going to fund the additional health and social care interventions caused by the additional poverty.
philosopher
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 1,513
I know people always say cut welfare when there is a pressing need to spend money elsewhere, but in practice it is a lot harder to do. Pensioners tend to vote more than the rest of the population, so any cuts impacting pensioners is very risky for a government. This is why the triple lock remains in place as it would be too politically unpopular to scrap it.
Cutting other welfare such child benefit, universal credit and housing benefit likely would lead to other issues, such as increased poverty, crime and homelessness.
The current government did in fact reduce benefits by mean testing the winter fuel allowance but it went down extremely badly.
Democracy works then? It’s a useful message to those who don’t use their vote.
Merle Haggard
Established Member
The Government seem to define 'Poverty' as being below an income level relative to the mean of all incomes.
It follows arithmetically that, when Government policy 'lifts x million people out of poverty' - by raising them above an income related to the mean - there will also be people who then move below that mean.
The use of 'mean' in the calculation of 'poverty generally means that there can't be many additional people in poverty either.
That's how statistics based on 'mean' work.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
It depends what you're talking about, whether it is relative poverty or whether it is absolute poverty.
Relative poverty isn't defined by the mean average income, though. It is defined as a proportion of the median average income; you're in relative poverty if your income is less than 60% of the median. Moving people at the bottom up slightly wouldn't affect the median in the same way.
In terms of educational, employment, and health outcomes it doesn't much matter though. The statistics show that people in both absolute poverty and relative poverty have worse educational, employment, and health outcomes, and all of those issues cost money.
My view, formed from 20 years working in the third sector as a debt and benefits adviser, is that benefit cuts don't actually save the taxpayer any money. They just move the expenditure from one budget line to another.
Merle Haggard
Established Member
Sorry, I accept that I used the wrong word, but I understood that the calculation was not a simple average (ie adding all the values and dividing the number) but the value at the middle point of all when listed in order. It's a long time since I did statistical maths...
The Government certainly uses 'poverty' based on the median figure in its announcements.
The calculation of the value of absolute poverty must be an interesting one; but the arithmetic fact remains that, whatever actions you take, you can only reduce the number of peopled in absolute poverty and any actions relating to median poverty will only move people upwards or downwards relative to the median with the number below the median ('in poverty') unchanged.
The choice of median for what amounts to a Key Performance Indicator for poverty does - like many KPIs - show perverse effects from change. For instance, reducing the income of a group of people above the median would alone move people previously below the line above it, ie 'move people out of poverty'.
greatkingrat
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 3,289
While it is true that mathematically 50% of people will always be under the median, that is not the definition of relative poverty. The definition is 60% of the median.
So take three people earning £50, £100, £150. Median is £100, 60% is £60, 1 person in poverty.
Change that to £70, £100, £130. Median is still £100, 60% is £60, nobody in poverty.
MicroLithium
Member
But this is exactly the purpose of a redistributive tax and benefit system - to reduce inequality by transferring money from rich to poor
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The threshold they use for relative poverty is 60% of the median figure.
As @greatkingrat also points out above, you can raise incomes for people at the bottom (and at the top) without raising the median.
If you have five people and they earn £30, £50, £100, £150, £200 then the median is £100 and relative poverty is £60. Two people are in relative poverty.
If you have five people and they now earn £61, £70, £100, £300, £400 then the median is still £100 (and relative poverty is still £60). But now nobody is in relative poverty, even though the income gap between the poorest and richest has doubled.
In my example the person in the middle who is still only earning £100 is going to be upset though. They're closer to the poor people and further away from the rich. Hence all the anger.