Thread 2 Burnham : Coragem e Esperança.

[DuncinToffee]

Welcome to our long running thread for political discussion, general chit chat, a friendly hug and taxes in kind

🍦 for anyone who needs them

New PM, new thread title, the discussion continues.

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5556659-thread-1-burnham-esperanza-en-cada-corazon?page=40

Tax changes benefit everyone. They are fair and easy to administer. We can afford them. We just need to do things that the richest 1% won’t like.

Its deeply worrying that everything we do has to factor in what that 1% want. Terrifies me the way their power is increasing. At some point we will have to call their bluff before democracy slips away completely.

Belated thanks for new thread and kitten tax, I think she is keener on Andy Burnham than most of Mumsnet

That is adorable.

Nice balanced piece from Fraser Nelson this morning.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/81bf8122-3a80-4a42-8978-180f3a76cf1a

Thanks to Johnson, we are all paying for this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1w10e28lvpo
West Ham stadium deal costs taxpayers £19m a year

I went to stadium in 2012 for the Paralympics and it was very impressive

The deal feels typical Johnson.

I can't read the article @BIossomtoes , can you give a summary?

Does this work?

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/keir-starmer-story-andy-burnham-tell-thv820lf7

As the article hints at, it's a terrible ground for football matches too.

DS has a few friends with season tickets and they all agree on that.

For the athletic is was wow though.

Still paywalled Blossom, archive isn't working for me either.

Yes, I saw paralympics there too and then the Anniversary Games where I saw Bolt. It was great.

I couldn’t read it either time, I’m afraid.

I’ll try…

Keir Starmer had a good story, but it’s Andy Burnham’s to tell

https://www.thetimes.com/article/81bf8122-3a80-4a42-8978-180f3a76cf1a?shareToken=9be3d14173a70cd543e5cff6618d0c32

There might be a fiscally neutral way to raise the 20% tax threshold by also reducing the taper threshold (which would soften the £100k marginal rate) but the press would have a field day with the £95k-ers who would lose out a bit.

I can read it this time. Not sure I’d described it as balanced though. It contains some factual inaccuracy and is a bit condescending. Better than I’d expect from Nelson though.

Yup. We seem to mostly care what t( top 1% think and then worry most abput anything happening to the incomes of the top 5%of earners. We could, of course, wealth tax as the Patriotic Millionaires recommend.

The starting point is the constraint of the manifesto that Burnham is nominally constrained by. If you accept that then you won't see any earth shattering policies.

"If".

If you don't accept that, then you are straying towards revolution, not evolution.

I am sure we all have a shopping list of things that would genuinely make a lot of peoples lives a lot better. But by the time you have filtered them through the prism of the manifesto and then the (self imposed) fiscal rules, you are let with this.

Of course only Labour are required to stick to these arbitrary rules. Liz Truss was cheered in when she said they didn't apply to her. But that's another matter that won't be solved here.

However, it's not all doom and gloom. It's a well worn tactic from the Tories to create positive headlines from fuck all. No shame in borrowing it to the best advantage. In fact you'd be a bit dim not to.

I'm not a big one for political podcasts, but Pod Save The UK mulled over the cabinet positions ... John Healy being very behind the devolution drive, and Mahmood reflecting a slightly more complex attitude to immigration than some may have expected. And Ed Miliband tends to Get Things Done.

I can't help but sense a terrible deja vu with peoples expectations and the LIbDems in coalition. People invented all sorts of absolute impossible tosh in their minds and then projected it onto the LibDems to punish them for their own naivete.

The most important aspect of the manifesto is what it said it would achieve. If that can’t be achieved within the ‘rules’ set 2 years ago I think it’s ok to change those. Maybe they should have been more careful with wording - I remember Blair promising to stick to fiscal limits for the first year, so he was able to say ‘well that didn’t work’ and spend more. Ultimately if people’s lives are improved they won’t know or care what fiscal rules were broken. It needs more bravery and radicalism (which I’ve never expected from Burnham, so things will get worse and we’ll slide even further right)

I think it’s ok to change those.

But unless the majority of the electorate agree with you, that doesn't really help.

I am sure we'd all like to be somewhere else. But we are stuck with what we have. I personally can't have 5 years of threads throwing brickbats at the Tories for generally ignoring the electorate and then reward Labour for doing exactly the same. Tempting as it may be.

Ultimately if people’s lives are improved they won’t know or care what fiscal rules were broken.

I am sure you didn't mean to paraphrase that "the end justifies the means", but I am highly sensitive to it's vibe, and feel it rarely - if ever - ends well.

Overall the fact that the last week has promoted questions, discussion, decisions, reactions, and reporting in some unexpected ways is a good sign if you feel that the biggest challenge is to stir people from the apathy and cynicism that will deliver Britain to a tyrant if it isn't stemmed.

France and Spain are burning and Tice is posting 'don't look up' style posts about enjoying the hot weather.

Do people really fall for that crap?

(don't need to answer, we know already)

There is only so much shouting you can do to distract people when their own home is burning.

Wildfires are of course part of nature, and on a purely academic level I would be fascinated to know how they drive the ecosystem.They form an essential part of the life cycle of the Giant Redwood (not that one) that was slowly dying out in California because we (humans) were just too damn good at putting out fires. Which cause the trees cones to crack and germinate.

After the 1987 storm, there was news that tens of thousands of fallen trees could not be removed and had to stay where they fell. Fast forward to May 1988 (and my finals) and there were reports from all over of the huge change that fallen trees had made in wooded landscapes. From letting light through so that long dormant seeds could grow, to the tree itself being consumed by fungi, beetles and other wildlife that then attracted birds, rodents and so on.

Obviously very little consolation to anyone who suffers as a result. But a gentle reminder that maybe, just maybe, nature isn't solely for humans on earth.

These two posts are exactly where I’m at too. Thank you for articulating it so clearly.

As for the Nelson article - thank you for sharing it where I failed @Notonthestairs - it’s the most balanced The Times has managed for some considerable time so I’m grateful and surprised. Added to its excellent coverage of Farage’s affairs The Times seems to be moving back to the centre.

The FT is reporting that thanks to Trump's Iran war, Healey's fiscal buffer is down to £7b from £25b

I can read it this time, and I’m pleasantly surprised and encouraged.

I guess it is a little condescending, @cardibach, but still better than I’d have expected from the Times judging by recent history.

Burnham has made a good start, and for that reason I’m encouraged.