Labour isn't Working - Thread 37

[NoWordForFluffy]

In Nuthatch's absence, I've been asked to start the new thread!

A chat thread for those of us who don't like this Labour government.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5548208-labour-isnt-working-thread-36?page=1

If, Burnham proves to be the people pleaser that some assert, we could have a Truss moment, where he chucks unfunded promises at all and sundry, and gilt yields blow out.

In the words of Ms Morissette….

That was my first though when I read that she'd been offered Defence. There is no way on earth she could have accepted a job swap with Healey after what happened with the DIP, so why offer it to her?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgrkv8e8l9qt?post=asset%3Ad00f898f-fb93-43b0-9df8-622750b7337e#post

It's definitely a non-offer, isn't it? 'Well, I offered her a senior role and she refused it'.

Funny that he claims not to be concerned about the markets, but took advice and didn't make Miliband Chancellor.

I think he's more cautious than he makes out.

Well Burnham seems to have opened with a "£45 reduction in electricity bills" at the cost of the Digital ID scheme.

For me this is bad for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it will not be £45 for everyone, but high users (who we are probably keen to discourage to try to reduce emissions) and who are probably far richer anyway will get greater savings than the poor. Again it does not encourage people who have high and unnecessary bills to downsize or people who have outdated equipment such as electric heating on to heat pumps.

Secondly I think we really need digital ID. Identity theft is becoming rife, and we need something to counter that. I understand many have concerns about it, and I think there need to be safeguards in place so it is only required for certain things (for example banking and finance but not for more trivial things like shopping and TV streaming) but in the end I still think it is vital in order to move the digital economy forwards.

My take is that Burnham neither understands or cares about the markets. They're an inconvenience to him. However he does care that putting Miliband in the treasury would have made Burnham unpopular. Also Miliband could pose a future threat to Burnham if things go wrong. Better to have Ed flying around annoying people abroad than interfering on the domestic front. Healey is ultra loyal.
Basically its all about what makes Burnham look good.

Exactly 😡

True!

I’ve noticed that every search he’s made he refers to sticking to the fiscal rules. I think his way of calming the markets. He didn’t believe in it but soon found out they do exist, can wreck careers and will use that line like a religious mantra.

On the flip side Burnham did a media only Rose garden event where he said he increase borrowing for infrastructure and it was ok within the rules. So I guess we’ll see how that increased debt servicing feels.

White House ‘deeply concerned’ over Miliband as Foreign Secretary

Steve Bannon, a close ally of the president and his former chief strategist, told The Telegraph: “The Trump administration took the extraordinary step of warning the new Prime Minister that the United States would view the appointment of ‘red diaper’ baby and self-described socialist Ed Miliband as very injurious to the ‘special relationship’.
“Burnham could not care less – he appointed this twit anyway.”

HAHAHAHA

Isn’t twit what the electorate mostly thinks of Ed?

One vowel change for me.

We’re going to need some humour - I suspect AB’s working on some very fair tax rises so his spending commitments don’t stay unfunded for long…

Oof. Good start then.

Haha, and me. 😂

Yep, you can feel it in the water can't you. As I said yesterday, they're all nutters.
Hopefully Matt will keep us laughing.

True, but I think, this time - he’s going to be on the receiving end of some serious pushback. There’s already blood in the water.

And if Healey tries to tackle welfare for defense, it’s going to get tasty.

Burnham’s honeymoon is looking very short-lived.

Plus it means that AB can sack Miliband when he annoys the Trump administration enough.

It’s true, it is going to get interesting. I do like Healey and the defence situation is burning hot so…but, they’re close to burying anyone who isn’t on significant benefits in despair. There are no fair taxes left to raise against the current matrix of taxes.

Spot on. Unfortunately Labour malfunction if they can't spend spend spend.
They can't compute that cuts need to be made.

If anyone needs a giggle, funny sketch on Burnham's first speech as PM.

Say what you like about a lectern, it at least lets you know where you’re meant to look. With every other word, the prime minister’s gaze switched from left to right. When he told the nation he’d been invited to “form a gubman”, the main thing the nation could see was his right earhole.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/4f26ce04-7bf4-440c-ac9d-fd0fe8047fd5?shareToken=ec21eafa074c52fe78659c9bb2ff5154

I suspect that Healey is going to get rid of the triple lock on state pensions and justify it by saying that defence needs a boost.

I agree broadly. The leftwingery is more for show than action. That’s why I think he’s shaping up to be a political fraud.

He’s just saying what different audiences want to hear at any particular time.

I was thinking that as Labour posters repeat the rough sleeping line. He knows his audience better and how to get fast repetition of key lines.

I considered that, too.

Left wing rhetoric, yet his cabinet appointments suggest a far more Blairite approach on the economy.

I do wonder whether he is trying to con the Labour left into thinking they are getting one thing while intending to govern quite differently.