Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

UK Politics


kalifire

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Seems a strange role for him as he is one of the best attack dogs Labour have, whoever the shadow health secretaries were they never laid a glove. There is often consensus about government and opposition about defence, however maybe defence spending will see more differences.

I'm guessing that a big part of the job is negotiating with the heads of armed forces rather than other politicians, and he will have the Chancellor on side. He also may have a bit more tech knowledge than many others in govt... I wasn't a fan of him in health (NHS employee), but he did have a big thing about AI and the like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Burnham has announced they will cut VAT to 0& on household electricity bills. Is that good? Good for customers I guess.

It's a good symbolic gesture and will help poorer households a little bit (I think someone said c. £45 a year). VAT on gas would help a lot more over winter months 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sheffinghell said:

It's a good symbolic gesture and will help poorer households a little bit (I think someone said c. £45 a year). VAT on gas would help a lot more over winter months 

I suppose they want to make electricity cheaper to nudge people into moving away from gas. There is talk of switching the green levies from electricity to gas.  It doesn't help with bills right now though which is what they need to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, sheffinghell said:

I'm guessing that a big part of the job is negotiating with the heads of armed forces rather than other politicians, and he will have the Chancellor on side. He also may have a bit more tech knowledge than many others in govt... I wasn't a fan of him in health (NHS employee), but he did have a big thing about AI and the like. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, sheffinghell said:

It's a good symbolic gesture and will help poorer households a little bit (I think someone said c. £45 a year). VAT on gas would help a lot more over winter months 

it's not exactly progressive, but it is definitely something that will get then positive headlines and off to a good start as opposed to everything is sh*t so we're going to take some money away from old people that came from Starmer and Reeves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One big problem for Burnham is that we are moving into the  austerity phase of Reeves plans. She met her fiscal rules by raising taxes at the start and pushed spending cuts to the end of the parliament.

The chart below compares our plans with other large economies. We are on the left of the chart with higher taxes used to reduce borrowing and no overall increase in spending. 

The new Govt can switch from deficit reduction to spending but they might break their rules.

 

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/04/29/why-uk-taxes-are-rising/

 

 

 

image.thumb.png.66febce2dcce11f368173377597955c9.png 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

That seems to be harsh to me. What do you think someone can achieve in that job? I can’t remember many people who have had that role and have never got a strong feeling how successful they have been.

She could be managing online hate/twitter usage, she could be putting pressure on OFCOM to manage GB News, she could be regulating football agent spending, she could be working on standing capacity in stadia, she could be introducing regulations on social media misinformation, she could be working with schools around getting childhood sports programmes supported. There's thousands of little things she could have done and a handful of big things. She just hates this job and has decided not to do it, and Burnham is clearly fine with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sheffinghell said:

I'm guessing that a big part of the job is negotiating with the heads of armed forces rather than other politicians, and he will have the Chancellor on side. He also may have a bit more tech knowledge than many others in govt... I wasn't a fan of him in health (NHS employee), but he did have a big thing about AI and the like. 

And negotiating with Palantir who W*s is big mates with.

 

Less dangerous for people in this country than him being in health at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, Mahmood kept as Home Secretary, Phillipson kept as Minister for Equalities, and McFadden kept at the DWP says that Burnham won't make changes on the human rights stuff that pissed me off so much under Starmer's tenure. 3/4 of the roles where I was begging for a change and we didn't get them. There's a few good bits (Rayner in housing, Cooper in health), but this is a pretty bad weathervane for those of us who think immigrants, trans people, and disabled people deserve to be treated like human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sense is Burnham is a bit more of a liberal than Starmer, bit less likely to bash minorities, but we'll see. I think welfare reforms are coming though, and some people might not like it, balancing carrots and sticks to get people off welfare and into work, some of which might mean an increase in spending in some places.  I think focus will be especially on young people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Mahmood was always likely to water down some of her more controversial proposals for changes to indefinite leave to remain etc., because there was going to be an almighty rebellion...so think that was coming anyway, whether it will be enough to get through we'll see. Not sure Burnham is going to be all open borders bleeding heart liberal on immigration though, he has the voters of Makerfield and similar to worry about, but immigration numbers are coming down, asylum seeker numbers are coming down, maybe it will become less of an issue for a lot of people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

She could be managing online hate/twitter usage, 

 

Aren't we already number 1 in the world for arrests for this type of stuff?

 

you've got to think any new laws are there forever and so if Reform get in your opening the door for say action against Bluesky over the Ann Widdecombe murder. This has happened time and time again. Thatcher used laws against striking miners that were introduced to stop the black shirts grouping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lost said:

 

Aren't we already number 1 in the world for arrests for this type of stuff?

 

you've got to think any new laws are there forever and so if Reform get in your opening the door for say action against Bluesky over the Ann Widdecombe murder. This has happened time and time again. Thatcher used laws against striking miners that were introduced to stop the black shirts grouping.

I don't mean on an individual level, where currently someone gets arrested if there's enough reports that the police decide it's more annoying to keep getting reports than to arrest someone.

 

I mean introducing a strategy of actually managing the platforms. Even though I dislike the Digital ID stuff and the Online Safety Act, why was Darren Jones doing it not Nandy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 I think focus will be especially on young people.

What's the last government that put any focus on young people except as punishment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

She could be managing online hate/twitter usage, she could be putting pressure on OFCOM to manage GB News, she could be regulating football agent spending, she could be working on standing capacity in stadia, she could be introducing regulations on social media misinformation, she could be working with schools around getting childhood sports programmes supported. There's thousands of little things she could have done and a handful of big things. She just hates this job and has decided not to do it, and Burnham is clearly fine with that.

Thanks you’ve replied for me . Along with reform of the bbc board and political coverage . Just seems like she’s not doing anything …ofcom need greater powers in my opinion or actually just need to act at all 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Thanks you’ve replied for me . Along with reform of the bbc board and political coverage . Just seems like she’s not doing anything …ofcom need greater powers in my opinion or actually just need to act at all 

Yeah, all the sorts of things where people are upset that media/online places "just do what they like" would fall under her purview. All the sports stuff people talk about.

 

Tories generally do things at arms length because they don't believe in govt spend, but https://chancetoshine.org/ spoke to that department fairly heavily about what support could and couldn't come from government, and it did make an impact. It's the sort of role where if you're making an impact you don't attract headlines, but dozens of small positive things add up to reporters going "they've done this and this" and it gets acclaim from smaller commentators, those trying to do something related, and political nerds. In Nandy's case noone has a single thing to say about her other than "what's she doing? Anything?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...