The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[GRALISTAIR]

My point is more that nobody- and I mean nobody- living in a million pound house can say they are poor.

+1 - I totally agree.

 

[3141]

Given the Tories are unelectable how do people see this going? More Reform seats? Another Labour PM maybe? Will the Lib Dem’s become second party? Or is there one of the Tory candidates who could be next PM? Or an early election possible? There’s talk of two Scottish elections too not sure how that will affect things.

As Harold Wilson (I think it was) said, "A week is a long time in politics". So just imagine how much can happen in five years - as Boris Johnson discovered.

The problems left behind by the Conservatives cannot all be fixed quickly. Any government that sets out to make major changes is bound to annoy or offend some people. Starmer and the Labour Party were seen by many as the ones who could fix things. If you're going to attempt big changes you need to start out early, in the hope of getting through the pain and beginning to show some results by the time of the next election. They won't have fixed everything by 2029, and if other events intervene they may not have been able to do as much as they hoped. Farage can always present himself as the one with the answers. I don't want him to get the chance to prove that he hasn't, but if things don't go well for Starmer public opinion may begin to say "Let's give Farage a go". Some people will want to return to the Tories, depending perhaps on who their leader is. None of the present candidates appeals to me. We're well into crystal ball territory here. Some Tories will suppose that with Farage as leader they'd be back on the winning track. Alternatively, imagine an alliance between Lib Dems and Reform in order to get proportional representation introduced, which would benefit both of them. It seems improbable but strange things do happen. So I cannot see how things are going, because there are too many uncertainties.

 

[Harpo]

Labours honeymoon period is long over

It’s only two months. The honeymoon period shouldn’t be over but the inept termination of WFA has killed it stone dead.

I hope that whatever comes next, whoever it affects, is far more considered and is not as brutal as WFA.

 

[Magdalia]

And they had 20+ years notice as it was first raised in, I think, 1995.

Equalisation at age 65 was announced in 1995, with a transition running from 2010 to 2020. But the 2011 act accelerated the transition, at very short notice, to reach 65 by November 2018 and 66 by October 2020. Women born in 1953 and 1954 had their pension age increased significantly when they were only a few years away from what they thought was their retirement.

 

[takno]

It’s only two months. The honeymoon period shouldn’t be over but the inept termination of WFA has killed it stone dead.

I hope that whatever comes next, whoever it affects, is far more considered and is not as brutal as WFA.

I keep hearing that here, but honestly absolutely nobody I've talked to outside of people on this thread has any issues with it at all, and if anything I'd say it's broadly fairly popular. It's just possible that this thread is operating in a bit of an echo chamber. What's more it's an echo chamber which is quite heavily populated with people who didn't vote Labour anyway.

People have every right to be angry about pretty much anything they like, but if they think this policy is some kind of grand defining moment then I think they're pretty much deluding themselves.

 

[Harpo]

Perhaps the people you have ‘talked to outside of this thread’ is a similar ‘echo chamber’? You also claim to have knowledge of how those on this thread voted?

Nick Clegg’s actions on student fees were also dismissed as being of little import. That turned out well.

 

[AlterEgo]

Nick Clegg’s actions on student fees were also dismissed as being of little import. That turned out well.

What happened to the students 10-15 years after the student fees U-turn, and what will have happened to the average pensioner in 10-15 years?

I really can't see the WFA being the big issue people say it is.

 

[david1212]

...
I suppose I’m really just challenging the idea that all the OAPs are little old ladies freezing to death in a cottage and Big Bad Kier has stolen their only lifeline. The truth is a significant proportion of OAPs are really very comfortable and simply don’t need the money.

First I had never realised that the winter fuel payment was paid to all receiving the state pension. I had thought you also had to be receiving some additional benefit too because no other source of income e.g. occupational / private pension or significant savings.

Once I realised this knowing some OAP's have a significant occupational / private pension and/or while reduced from a few years ago an income from savings and investments I support making the winter fuel payment means tested.

... If I reach the stage where I can’t afford to run my home then I will be forced to sell it. And I’ll be forced to move. And I’ll very likely be forced to move to a cheaper area, with the upheaval (schools, etc) that that entails. That’s life. It sucks, but there we are ...

Likewise. To gain significant capital after costs certainly would require moving to a cheaper area. The property bought needs to not need significant work as first that swallows up part of the capital and second at the point in life the move would be a big upheaval so would not want arranging the work and the disruption on top.

Around here the price gap between a 3 bedroom house and a small bungalow is not that great due to demand for the latter. I've only briefly looked in to retirement apartments but was surprised at the prices then the annual maintenance payments.

While no gain to me but rather the value of my estate it could well be better to use equity release to build a downstairs wet room then have the downstairs of this house as a flat with living room, dining room becoming bedroom and kitchen.

 

[Shrop]

Perhaps the people you have ‘talked to outside of this thread’ is a similar ‘echo chamber’? You also claim to have knowledge of how those on this thread voted?

Nick Clegg’s actions on student fees were also dismissed as being of little import. That turned out well.

It's long been a classic Tory voter thing to blame Nick Clegg for all sorts of things during the coalition. Much of what he did was to moderate stronger Tory schemes and keep them within reason, but since he was representing the smaller Party, he quickly became the "Whipping boy" for anything the Tories did that wasn't popular. If you listen to much of what he said while he was Deputy PM, it was a great deal more fair and reasonable than most of what the leaders of the two Big Parties said, either then or now.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I keep hearing that here, but honestly absolutely nobody I've talked to outside of people on this thread has any issues with it at all, and if anything I'd say it's broadly fairly popular. It's just possible that this thread is operating in a bit of an echo chamber. What's more it's an echo chamber which is quite heavily populated with people who didn't vote Labour anyway.

People have every right to be angry about pretty much anything they like, but if they think this policy is some kind of grand defining moment then I think they're pretty much deluding themselves.

Could therefore be representative of the U.K. population.
About a third of people who voted, voted Labour. The proportion is of course even smaller if it's compared to those with the franchise who didn't vote.

 

[JonathanH]

I really can't see the WFA being the big issue people say it is.

The reality is that no one likes having something taken away from them or being asked to pay more for something.

The reality is that WFA could, and possibly should, be the start of applying means testing to a lot more benefits and services provided by the state to get the economy on a more stable footing.

A genuinely progressive government would be open and honest about the need to increase taxes, perhaps significantly, in proportion to income and find more ways of helping the less well off. When it would actually come to implementation, there would be significant grumblings about it from those having to pay more.

 

[JamesT]

It's long been a classic Tory voter thing to blame Nick Clegg for all sorts of things during the coalition. Much of what he did was to moderate stronger Tory schemes and keep them within reason, but since he was representing the smaller Party, he quickly became the "Whipping boy" for anything the Tories did that wasn't popular. If you listen to much of what he said while he was Deputy PM, it was a great deal more fair and reasonable than most of what the leaders of the two Big Parties said, either then or now.

@Harpo specifically referenced tuition fees. No matter what Nick Clegg did or didn't do during the coalition, he and his party were associated with making a pre-election promise and then breaking it.
An acquaintance was a LibDem councillor in Oxford and he was very clear that the voters were punishing the LibDems specifically on that issue when he lost his seat at the next election.

 

[takno]

Could therefore be representative of the U.K. population.
About a third of people who voted, voted Labour. The proportion is of course even smaller if it's compared to those with the franchise who didn't vote.

Absolutely, but point is that Labour already won without the votes of the people predicting doom for Labour. They're absolutely entitled to predict what they like, but they only get one vote, so it's not like they can vote extra hard for another party at the next election.

 

[Tetchytyke]

An acquaintance was a LibDem councillor in Oxford and he was very clear that the voters were punishing the LibDems specifically on that issue when he lost his seat at the next election.

The LibDems got squeezed out in 2015, it really was no more than that. The SDP-leaning side of the party went and voted Labour in 2015, the more classical Liberal side went and voted Conservative.

The LibDems lost 48 seats. They lost 27- over half- of them to the Conservatives. I can't imagine anyone was punishing the LibDems for tuition fees by voting Conservative. They lost 11 to the SNP and that won't have been about tuition fees either- the tuition fee scheme is completely different in Scotland.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The reality is that no one likes having something taken away from them or being asked to pay more for something.

This is the absolute truth and human nature. But I agree with the Labour strategy of getting most of the pain out of the way at the start of their 5 year government period. It makes total sense to me.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I didn't have High hopes for Starmer but he's shattered my expectations (not in a good way), he's not even done the bare minimum when it comes to reversing the mess left by the Tories. No idea how Starmer will win a second term.

How the hell do you think they would reverse this in such a short time?

 

[JonathanH]

not even done the bare minimum

Can you define the bare minimum you expected to be done in two months?

 

[Darandio]

How the hell do you think they would reverse this in such a short time?

Can you define the bare minimum you expected to be done in two months?

I guess they are working off the logic that if Truss can destroy the country in 50 days then surely Starmer should have fixed it in 70?

 

[YorkRailFan]

How the hell do you think they would reverse this in such a short time?

I was expecting some more radical announcements than the ones they're making, like not continuing Austerity. From what I've seen, we're getting Tory Lite for the next five years. I know we haven't seen the Budget yet, but with the general consensus being "the worse is yet to come", I'm not optimistic.

Can you define the bare minimum you expected to be done in two months?

Some sort of announcement, whether that be in the manifesto pre-election or in Starmer's first speech as PM, saying that this Government will not continue the austerity this country experienced for the past 14 years.

 

[PGAT]

Labour are now polling under 30%

 

[Thirteen]

Labour are now polling under 30%

There's not going to be another election until 2029, there's nothing to worry about.

 

[Pete_uk]

If the state pension was a more reasonable figure and we weren't being ripped off for energy prices the WFA would not be a issue.

 

[brad465]

There's not going to be another election until 2029, there's nothing to worry about.

Under 30%, if only just under, is also only 4-5% down on the actual result. Truss sank polling for the Tories by around 10% in her short stint, and that was when already well behind Labour at the start.

 

[JonathanH]

Some sort of announcement, whether that be in the manifesto pre-election or in Starmer's first speech as PM, saying that this Government will not continue the austerity this country experienced for the past 14 years.

The problem is that they stood on a manifesto that said they wouldn't increase rates of Income Tax, National Insurance or VAT. Had they not done that, it might have been possible to generate the tax revenues needed to remove the some of the austerity policies.

It will be a slow rebuild on the path they have chosen.

 

[edwin_m]

The problem is that they stood on a manifesto that said they wouldn't increase rates of Income Tax, National Insurance or VAT. Had they not done that, it might have been possible to generate the tax revenues needed to remove the some of the austerity policies.

Had they not done that, the might have lost! Yes it's a big majority but on a low share of the vote.

 

[YorkRailFan]

It will be a slow rebuild on the path they have chosen.

Indeed, 10 years for the NHS according to Starmer.

Sir Keir Starmer has said as he laid out a 10-year plan to fix the health service.

Sir Keir Starmer says there is no money for the NHS without reform, as he admits plan will take 'years not months'

Sir Keir Starmer refused to say how quickly improvements would be felt in the NHS as he set out a 10-year plan to fix the "broken" system.

news.sky.com

 

[Citybreak1]

There's not going to be another election until 2029, there's nothing to worry about.

The last few parliaments never lasted full term also the Scottish elections in 18 months. If SNP win big it will be a bigger push for independence. I expect a large SNP majority.

 

[brad465]

The last few parliaments never lasted full term also the Scottish elections in 18 months. If SNP win big it will be a bigger push for independence. I expect a large SNP majority.

If a parliament lasts 4-5 years I'd consider that a full term, thus the 2019-2024 parliament was effectively a full term. 2015-17 and 2017-19 however yes were far from full terms.

 

[JamesT]

The last few parliaments never lasted full term also the Scottish elections in 18 months. If SNP win big it will be a bigger push for independence. I expect a large SNP majority.

Unless something magic happens in the next 18 months, the SNP will no longer be the largest party according to the opinion polls. The Tories were seen as being tired and unfit after 14 years in government, the SNP have been in power for 17. They're associated with scandals (ferries, donation fraud) and on many metrics Scotland is now on a downward trend. I think it would have to take something spectacular going wrong for Starmer for the Scottish electorate not to choose Labour as the largest party in the next election, even if the voting system prevents them getting an overall majority.

 

[Falcon1200]

I expect a large SNP majority.

Given the SNP's undoubted incompetence in Government, not to mention the ongoing investigation into their finances, I expect the exact opposite.