The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Yew]

I would argue that those, " Viciously distorted widely held views" are because of the Daily Mail,
As regards Keir, I wonder if he were to be deposed and replaced by a more left-wing firebrand, who was not scared of the right-wing media, and tackled it head on, including measures to curb it, would labour do better?

My worry would be that we end up with someone that is progressive socially, but still sticks to the neoliberal economic policies that are the cause of our economic woes.

 

[oldman]

I would argue that those, " Viciously distorted widely held views" are because of the Daily Mail,

A convenient argument.

 

[Cowley]

Discussion of the news coming out of the BBC can be found here:

Tim Davie and head of BBC news resign

stopping them from outright lying. How come broadcasting has to face such restrictions but the printing press doesn’t? mods note - split from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/the-labour-party-under-keir-starmer.272035/ The BBC's conduct concerning Trump would suggest that...

www.railforums.co.uk

Other press related discussions can be found here:

Bias in the media and should more be done about it?

As regards Keir, I wonder if he were to be deposed and replaced by a more left-wing firebrand, who was not scared of the right-wing media, and tackled it head on, including measures to curb it, would labour do better? mods note - This has been split off from the thread about Labour. There are...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[LYradial]

I have never been really interested in politics but the news that police and crime commissioners are to go, along with 18 thousand administrators in the NHS is the best bit of news for ages
isn’t it a bit “Trumplike” in some ways

 

[ainsworth74]

I have never been really interested in politics but the news that police and crime commissioners are to go, along with 18 thousand administrators in the NHS is the best bit of news for ages

Whilst ditching the PCCs is an excellent idea and should have been done years ago, I'm not entirely sure that the thing the NHS is screaming out for is less administration....

 

[Kite159]

I have never been really interested in politics but the news that police and crime commissioners are to go, along with 18 thousand administrators in the NHS is the best bit of news for ages
isn’t it a bit “Trumplike” in some ways

Although no doubt those NHS administrator staff will simply get changed from being employed direct by the NHS to being a 3rd party contractor providing services to the NHS at a higher cost but because it's a contractor the costs are hidden.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although no doubt those NHS administrator staff will simply get changed from being employed direct by the NHS to being a 3rd party contractor providing services to the NHS at a higher cost.

What would be good would be streamlining the NHS's administrative procedures so they aren't necessary, but one of my concerns about it is that it's so big that it's hard for it to actually manage that. It is one reason I favour transitioning to a German style social insurance system - while it does require more inter-organisation admin, things are overall simpler.

 

[LYradial]

I think the proposal for nhs England is to put half of them under control of the dept. for health.
i have been a regular and frequent visitor th our local hospital for 8 years and have seen a very efficient streamlined complex operational system almost destroyed by dictates from above by people unfamiliar with the proces.

(I have cost the taxpayer a lot of money )

 

[brad465]

Time for this classic I think:

(Video from Yes Minister where Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey Appleby discuss hospital staff)

 

[telstarbox]

Every business has administrative staff so why would the NHS be any different? It's not a good use of highly paid and trained doctors' time to book appointments or fix computers.

 

[Egg Centric]

What would be good would be streamlining the NHS's administrative procedures so they aren't necessary, but one of my concerns about it is that it's so big that it's hard for it to actually manage that. It is one reason I favour transitioning to a German style social insurance system - while it does require more inter-organisation admin, things are overall simpler.

The most interesting one is the Israeli system where they basiclaly have 4 NHSs and you choose which one you want to use (registering with one is compulsory). It usually ranks in the top couple of world healthcare systems.

There's just enough competitve forces there to really improve things, while still getting economies of scale and avoiding wasting piles of money on duplication.

It'd never happen here because the NHS is the national religion, despite being rubbish.

 

[LYradial]

Every business has administrative staff so why would the NHS be any different? It's not a good use of highly paid and trained doctors' time to book appointments or fix computers.

So long as they stick to admin there is no problem but when they make decrees with no understanding of the circumstances it becomes difficult.
if you have 50 patients to treat and 10 items of equipment you can draw up a schedule but if you do not realise that a treatment can take 30 mins or 3 hours, not known until you have started the job the imposed schedule is useless, but I think this is a topic for another thread or even a different forum

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2025 ==

The imposed schedule and staffing levels

 

[Railwaycat]

Looks like Mc Sweeney lives to fight another day.

Starmer's chief of staff McSweeney not leaving role over briefing war, BBC told

The PM's top aide was not involved "directly or indirectly" in briefings against cabinet ministers, sources tell the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Asked whether he still has confidence in McSweeney, the Labour leader said: "Of course I do. I work closely with my whole team. Our focus is on working for the country."

He might not be guilty in this instance, but he's seen as having too much power, just like Cumming etc.
Please, please, please Keir, wake up and get rid of him!

 

[styles]

Please, please, please Keir Labour, wake up and get rid of him Starmer!

 

[jfollows]

Alastair Campbell - who was a pillock in the past - now seems to be the only Labour-ite who talks sense.
Stop stupid in-fighting, come up with a real agenda and start fighting the real enemy such as Reform.
Starmer isn’t the issue. Labour without a direction is.

 

[styles]

Alastair Campbell - who was a pillock in the past - now seems to be the only Labour-ite who talks sense.
Stop stupid in-fighting, come up with a real agenda and start fighting the real enemy such as Reform.
Starmer isn’t the issue. Labour without a direction is.

I'd have supported Emily Thornberry for leader. The one thing which sticks in my mind though was the weird Rochester flag tweet. Might've blown over, but with the current rate of flag-shagging, I imagine it'll be brought up and used against her all over again. Otherwise she appears to have conviction, actually speaks like a normal person rather than a PR bot repeating, "My father was a toolmaker.", and holds views which I believe mostly embolden the Labour Party values. She seems not so popular among her peers when it comes to leadership contests though, so not holding out much hope.

I still believe Starmer is in it for the full term if he can. He was elected mainly on a ticket of bringing some sort of stability to government after the chaos we had for years before. If Labour follow the Tories into changing party leaders every couple of years, or without a general election mandate, they'll lose this angle. I think we'll have to see how the Senedd and Holyrood elections go next year mind; if Labour really tank them, it could be vote of no confidence territory for Starmer. Labour has been in-fighting over their leader since Brown took over without a general election; it's nothing new.

 

[brad465]

I'd have supported Emily Thornberry for leader. The one thing which sticks in my mind though was the weird Rochester flag tweet. Might've blown over, but with the current rate of flag-shagging, I imagine it'll be brought up and used against her all over again. Otherwise she appears to have conviction, actually speaks like a normal person rather than a PR bot repeating, "My father was a toolmaker.", and holds views which I believe mostly embolden the Labour Party values. She seems not so popular among her peers when it comes to leadership contests though, so not holding out much hope.

I still believe Starmer is in it for the full term if he can. He was elected mainly on a ticket of bringing some sort of stability to government after the chaos we had for years before. If Labour follow the Tories into changing party leaders every couple of years, or without a general election mandate, they'll lose this angle. I think we'll have to see how the Senedd and Holyrood elections go next year mind; if Labour really tank them, it could be vote of no confidence territory for Starmer. Labour has been in-fighting over their leader since Brown took over without a general election; it's nothing new.

McSweeney seems to be the biggest problem, and is comparable to Dominic Cummings who of course controlled Johnson. If he and any other incompetent No.10 staff were replaced with folk who know what they're doing, Starmer will improve considerably.

Given how reluctant he is to dismiss McSweeney, I've jokingly wondered if Starmer's being blackmailed into keeping him in post. Perhaps what we need is for McSweeney to refer to Starmer's wife as "Princess Nut Nut"

 

[styles]

McSweeney seems to be the biggest problem, and is comparable to Dominic Cummings who of course controlled Johnson. If he and any other incompetent No.10 staff were replaced with folk who know what they're doing, Starmer will improve considerably.

Given how reluctant he is to dismiss McSweeney, I've jokingly wondered if Starmer's being blackmailed into keeping him in post. Perhaps what we need is for McSweeney to refer to Starmer's wife as "Princess Nut Nut"

I'm not convinced personally.

I've no doubt that he may be part of the problem, but Starmer's issue isn't just policy and strategy - it's his actual personality, of which he appears to have quite little. He's up against the likes of Farage and Polanski who actually appear to hold strong beliefs, don't excessively repeat soundbites, and speak like 'normal' people rather than talking in obscure non-specific terms about vague policies which fall short of being committal (though the few things they do commit to like not raising taxes they appear to fail at as well!)

He's just a wet fish. I don't believe a new political strategist will fix his image.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm thinking Starmer would have been better as Foreign Secretary - he seems to have done pretty well overseas. But it's hard to think of anyone else for PM (from any party) who wouldn't have a big chance of turning out to be worse.

 

[Purple Train]

I'm thinking Starmer would have been better as Foreign Secretary - he seems to have done pretty well overseas. But it's hard to think of anyone else for PM (from any party) who wouldn't have a big chance of turning out to be worse.

Agreed.

 

[brad465]

I'm thinking Starmer would have been better as Foreign Secretary - he seems to have done pretty well overseas. But it's hard to think of anyone else for PM (from any party) who wouldn't have a big chance of turning out to be worse.

I'm with you on the first part, but with the last sentence I'd point out that several PMs have come and gone where we said that and it turned out their successor was worse (Johnson to Truss being the most notable), although some of this could also be fickle minds.

 

[gg1]

I'd have supported Emily Thornberry for leader. The one thing which sticks in my mind though was the weird Rochester flag tweet. Might've blown over, but with the current rate of flag-shagging, I imagine it'll be brought up and used against her all over again. Otherwise she appears to have conviction, actually speaks like a normal person rather than a PR bot repeating, "My father was a toolmaker.", and holds views which I believe mostly embolden the Labour Party values. She seems not so popular among her peers when it comes to leadership contests though, so not holding out much hope.

The problem is that's not her only gaffe.

The two others which stick in my mind are:
The cringeworthy Dermot Murnaghan interview in 2016 when she was shadow Foreign Seceretary, he asked her a 'gotcha' question (asking her to name the French foreign minister) which she didn't know the answer to, nothing unusual there, interviewers often throw those questions at politicians who invariably don't know the answer. The problem was her reaction, losing her composure and effectively accusing him of victimising her, treating her differently to other politicians he'd interviewed, when in fact he had asked similar types of questions to other politicians in the past. Someone that easily wound up is not a good choice for PM.
Not knowing what 'Defcon One' meant, maybe not too bad, until you bear in mind she was shadow Defence Secretary at the time.

The big problem for Labour is none of their current MPs really jump out as leadership material. I do quite like Lisa Nandy, but she has the same failing Ed Miliband had 10 years ago, sometimes coming across as a little awkward and lacking self confidence.

 

[styles]

So now the FT is reporting Reeves has submitted a plan to the OBR which doesn't include tax rises after all.

I really despise this approach of chancellors and PMs in recent years using the press to sort of put the feelers out about potential policies.

Reeves has spent weeks now refusing to rule out tax rises, leading us all to believe the government is going to be raising taxes. All of these potential but never confirmed policies just end up spooking the market.

And it doesn't really stack with 'not raising taxes'. The plan is apparently now to change the tax thresholds instead. That's still effectively raising taxes, just in some slightly more obscure way so they can continue to pretend they're not raising taxes because the rates of tax remain unchanged.

What a load of garbage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And it doesn't really stack with 'not raising taxes'. The plan is apparently now to change the tax thresholds instead. That's still effectively raising taxes, just in some slightly more obscure way so they can continue to pretend they're not raising taxes because the rates of tax remain unchanged.

It's dishonest. This is a vote-loser from me. Tax needs to increase, and it should be done honestly, forthrightly and with explanations as to why the situation has changed since the original promise.

I cannot abide dishonesty. It is the absolute worst attribute possible in any person.

 

[jfollows]

Freezing the income tax thresholds after 2028 (from when it was previously promised they would go up in line with inflation) will mean 1 in 4 employees and 18% of the adult population will be paying 40% tax or more by 2030.
I paid 40% tax in 2008 but that was for a CPI-adjusted salary of >£80,000 today. I will potentially end up paying 40% tax on my pension in a couple of years on a vastly lower amount - a good problem to have in some ways I guess.

One in four to pay UK higher rate of tax if thresholds stay frozen, research shows

Extending the freezes beyond 2028 would raise £8.3bn in 2029-30, estimates Institute for Fiscal Studies

www.ft.com

Delphine Strauss Published10 HOURS AGO Updated10:12 118

One in four employees in England and Wales will be higher rate taxpayers by the end of the decade if Rachel Reeves extends a freeze on personal tax thresholds for a further two years, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said.

The thresholds at which the 20 per cent basic rate, 40 per cent higher rate and top 45 per cent rate of income tax start to apply have been frozen in cash terms since 2021, rather than rising with inflation. Thresholds for national insurance contributions have been unchanged since at least 2023.

This already represented “one of the most significant changes to the personal tax system in recent decades — fundamentally reshaping who pays tax and at what rate,” the IFS said in analysis published on Friday.

But the chancellor is widely expected to extend the freeze on tax thresholds to April 2030 in her upcoming Budget, despite ruling it out last year when she said they would rise in line with inflation from April 2028.

The FT reported on Thursday that Reeves had dropped previous proposals to raise the basic and higher rates of income tax. But still facing a hole in the public finances estimated at between £20bn and £30bn, Reeves is considering many other options to plug the gap.

Extending the freezes beyond 2028 would raise £8.3bn in 2029-30, the IFS estimates, while dragging almost a million more people into the tax net as their income rose above the threshold — including pensioners, benefits recipients and low-wage workers.

It would bring the total number of people paying income tax to 42.1mn, or 73 per cent of the population over 16 — 960,000 higher than on current plans and 5.1mn more than if thresholds had risen with inflation since 2021.

Meanwhile, one in four employees would by 2029-30 be paid more than the £50,271 at which the 40 per cent higher rate of income tax kicks in outside Scotland, the IFS said. When this threshold last increased by more than inflation, in 2019-20, it covered just one in 10 employees.

A freeze to 2030 would mean the number of people paying income tax at higher rates of 40 per cent or more rising to 10.1mn, or 18 per cent of the adult population — 790,000 more than on current plans and 4.8mn more than if there had been no freezes.

Matthew Oulton, research economist at the IFS, said the result would be to increase tax “on all employees working full-time, most working part-time, most minimum wage workers and many low-income pensioners”.

Changing thresholds was “a reasonable tool” to raise revenue in a progressive way, he added — but doing it through freezes meant the size of increase “depends upon the unknown and unpredictable path of inflation”.

All pensioners who receive the full new state pension will see their annual income exceed the tax-free personal allowance of £12,570 in 2027-28 — forcing millions of them to file tax returns, while also making more of them eligible for means-tested benefits.

Extending the freeze would also mean that minimum wage workers become liable for income tax by working as little as 18 hours per week.

Future increases in the national living wage will increasingly benefit the exchequer as well as employees.

A further 110,000 people paying income tax in families entitled to receive benefits — a group that would face high marginal tax rates if they worked more — would end up keeping just 32p of each extra pound they earned on average as their benefits tapered.

 

[brad465]

So now the FT is reporting Reeves has submitted a plan to the OBR which doesn't include tax rises after all.

I really despise this approach of chancellors and PMs in recent years using the press to sort of put the feelers out about potential policies.

Reeves has spent weeks now refusing to rule out tax rises, leading us all to believe the government is going to be raising taxes. All of these potential but never confirmed policies just end up spooking the market.

And it doesn't really stack with 'not raising taxes'. The plan is apparently now to change the tax thresholds instead. That's still effectively raising taxes, just in some slightly more obscure way so they can continue to pretend they're not raising taxes because the rates of tax remain unchanged.

What a load of garbage.

This is not a new strategy, given Yes Minister was making material about leaks back in the 80s. That doesn't make it anymore acceptable, just pointing out the history.

It's dishonest. This is a vote-loser from me. Tax needs to increase, and it should be done honestly, forthrightly and with explanations as to why the situation has changed since the original promise.

I cannot abide dishonesty. It is the absolute worst attribute possible in any person.

The problem is a critical mass of the population don't want to hear the truth, because it's human psychology to prefer good-sounding lies. This is the same reason we lie in our personal lives to people we know. It's also evident in Boris Johnson's "many loved ones will die before their time" remark - one of the few times he told the truth, and the country lost its mind and locked down, and the rest is history.

Of course politicians lying for personal gain (including covering up dodgy behaviour) is completely unacceptable, but if you want politicians to be honest about the state of affairs and the necessity of hard decisions, the public as a whole need to get their act together.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is a critical mass of the population don't want to hear the truth, because it's human psychology to prefer good-sounding lies. This is the same reason we lie in our personal lives to people we know. Of course politicians lying for personal gain (including covering up dodgy behaviour) is completely unacceptable, but if you want politicians to be honest about the state of affairs and the necessity of hard decisions, the public as a whole need to get their act together.

Politicians are supposed to be leaders - it needs to come from them. We have elected them to manage the country. The right thing to do to manage the country at present is to increase taxation in order to fix our public services. Thus what they need to do, with four years to an election, is do exactly that, and then PROVE why they were right to do so by using the money to fix things that are broken. Visible things, such as potholes, NHS access and the likes. And explain why and how it happened.

It is on them to convince the public by being honest and delivering improvement. That's what a professional Government does - sadly this isn't one, and it makes me totally understand why people are looking towards Reform - no, they aren't either, but people are seeing how bad all the classic politicians are...

While there are blips, such as a failure to explain why specifically Hereford isn't getting a train service today when other places are (there is clearly a reason, it just isn't being well articulated), Network Rail have got quite good at this sort of explanation of why something happened and what can be done to resolve it, including pictures and good quality explanations in simple terms. Time the Government did too.

 

[Yew]

The right thing to do to manage the country at present is to increase taxation in order to fix our public services.

I would probably prioritise investing in growing the economy, so that they don't have to pull the same trick every year.
Similarly, we need to be focusing on investing in our public services to help improve their efficiency, unfortunately the idea that there is a lot of easy fat to cut (as often suggested by Reform) simply isn't true. If we want improvements, we need CapEX, not just an increased OpEX budget.

 

[styles]

I would probably prioritise investing in growing the economy, so that they don't have to pull the same trick every year.
Similarly, we need to be focusing on investing in our public services to help improve their efficiency, unfortunately the idea that there is a lot of easy fat to cut (as often suggested by Reform) simply isn't true. If we want improvements, we need CapEX, not just an increased OpEX budget.

This is my view also, and where I feel Labour falls down at the moment.

Reeves talks in very broad terms about capital investment versus ongoing costs, but it doesn't translate into actions.

The UK has become strangely conservative (small C) when it comes to capital investment in projects which will grow the economy. We're too obsessed with 'balancing the books', and Labour would historically be a party to change that, but it seems they're committed to a broadly similar economic strategy as the Conservatives (capital C). In fact, both parties appear to see squeezing the middle class as some fantastic way to fill a gap in opex. Both parties are reluctant to invest in significant infrastructure projects. Reeves'/Starmer's last budget introduced the highest tax rises for over 30 years, and most of it fell on businesses and the middle class. The latest proposals floated to the media to just ruin the UK investment market include measure to punish lower and middle workers even further.

It's honestly baffling to see a supposed Labour government acting in this way. And that's just the economy - don't even get me started on e.g. protest rights.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The UK has become strangely conservative (small C) when it comes to capital investment in projects which will grow the economy.

Agreed. HS2 is a case in point, as would be a "proper" Northern Powerhouse Rail and other significant public transport improvements. Plus say a brace of new nuclear power stations.

Borrowing to fund capex of this nature makes sense, as the cost can be paid back from the tax receipts from the growth delivered.