AIBU to think Burnham’s words may haunt his premiership?

[Greyrock79]

To think that Burnham’s words are going to haunt his premiership?

‘…national security can’t come at the expense of social security…’

Doesn't sound like Mittal was paying much tax anyway?

Under standard non-dom rules during much of his residency, individuals who lived in the UK for long periods paid a flat annual remittance charge (ranging from £30,000 to £60,000 depending on the length of residency) if they wished to keep foreign earnings offshore, a negligible amount relative to a fortune worth over £15 billion.

A £393m payday... but tycoon Lakshmi Mittal won't be taxed on it here as he's a 'non-dom' | London Evening Standard | The Standard

This is pretty much it. That other line he used about not being in hoc to them was tested as soon as he started.

I think Burnhams mistake here is suggesting differently and that he has the freedom to do anything for social security. I honestly don't think he's going to have the headroom to do that tbh.

It’s very insightful. It shows for the whole world to see what an absolute bitch the woman was and how little she regarded people. Real people.

I see….

With Labour in government, I am inclined to agree.

Again, you seek to explain it away.

You do understand that London was a nexus for these people - they employed people, invested, spent.

In the last week there have been at least 2 separate news items on a looming debt crisis and whether a global recession is about to kick off.

Gordon Brown did at least have the heft to try and bring together world leaders to counteract the worst excesses of a financial collapse but that led to QE and austerity. What would happen now.

I think we are fucked regardless of who is in government in the next few years.

I don't think any party would manage to get out of this mess.

Blaming Burnham is missing the point and failing to understand where we are.

Look at the damage Labour have achieved in two years - and they are powerless to stop.

I genuinely predict a financial crisis - perhaps bond market led, or a banking run.

Oh, I thought it was the combination of a willing parliament, good military leadership, the men from the commonwealth who all got behind the war effort, the world wide merchant navy and then the women who kept things going. You're right though, awful, awful man. Chamberlain needed to go, I'll give you that.

@RedToothBrush I am less pessimistic but I do think until we address the fact that all the majority of wealth in the country is tied up in land ownership we will not get our economy back on track. Without the economy generating money, we will always be caught robbing Peter to pay Paul, whilst still increasing our debt.

No. 'Social Security' means the the benefits system. I linked a pp to the gvt report on this very thing, earlier on the thread. Read it, maybe?

There was no need to waste money on bombs until Trump failed to stand up to Putin then started an illegal war

We have nuclear weapons that why Ukraine was invaded not us. Increasing the army or adding more ships is not making much difference. Once the white house idiots term is over maybe things will return back to normal.

We need to spend more on NHS not guns

I think only those who are either stupid or pretending to be so will misunderstand what Burnham said. Hard to imagine people who have been made homeless, had benefits cut to starvation levels and seen their crippled nan’s disability payments cut rushing to defend the country. We can have all the weapons in Kemi’s dreams, but with no-one willing to use them they’re a bit pointless. Social security is where the citizens feel valued, have a stake in society and where government doesn’t aim to make people’s lives worse, rather than better.

Recalling veterans ?? - I'm sure they'll be queuing up to support a Labour Gov after Starmer's antics

@Greyrock79 as a result of the Liz Truss experiment, the country faces a higher premium on selling its debt relative to even similarly indebted peers! Surely even you have to acknowledge the damage she managed in her incredibly brief tenure.

Sounds like a reasonable statement to me. Government have to balance both. Need to defend the country but also have something worth defending.

You happy to step up and pay the minimal amount of tax that he now isnt paying, in his absence?

What has Labour done that's worse than the Tories?

Have you forgotten Liz Truss' tax cuts effect on bond confidence so easily?

Why is it up to me to make up the shortfall? Do you think I told them to leave or something? 😂

"I for one am really happy to see dangerous traitors - the type who get funded by the Kremlin, or the owners of cryptocurrency platforms that help Russia evade sanctions - getting exposed for what they are."

You've been reading too much John le Carre and now you're seeing too many spooks.👀

Can we be serious now, please?

Where were 10-year gilt yields during the Truss budget, and how quickly did they fall?
Where are 10-year gilt yields now, and what was the high during Reeves’s tenure?

Would you like me to tell you?

You realise if you don’t defend the country, then the people who live there are at the mercy of whoever steps into the vacuum? It’s like not bothering to lock the front door because you’ve closed an interior door. We have to keep the invaders out as a priority or a country that is perceived as weak is incredibly vulnerable, particularly now as previously peaceful regimes are looking to collect land.

See my reply to the PP.

Quite.

I've been looking at this all week.

The thing is, Trump potentially has incentive to crash the global economy including the dollar. That's what really scares me.

The assumption is he would work in the best interests of the American people. But what if that's not true? What if he is more interested in his own financial interests and power. With the ability to know the inside decisions be can make financial decisions that benefit his empire at the expense of others. An Oligarchs charter if you will.

Putin did similar within Russia and essentially robbed the Russian population.

High unemployment and poverty traps people. Yes riots would happen but that gives the trigger to enact emergency powers too... Messy.

And the power of America isn't lost. It's just gets privatised in Trumps name.

All this noise about Canada and Greenland makes sense if he's looking for mass defaults around the world with US money (private money) being the only way that other economies can bail themselves out of that mess.

The option to tax the super rich or the banks isn't going to be one open to us at that point. Even if a PM wanted to.

Looking at the Iran crisis - Trump has too things here. He wants to destroy the Iranian Republic. He's willing to take down everyone in the process because he doesn't personally lose because disaster capitalism ensures he wins one way or another.

China is acting to insulate itself against an oil supply shock. Take note.

I am struggling to see how there isn't going to be a recession - a big one - with interest rate hikes. And that's not pretty.

It doesn't matter what policy any PM had at this point. We are passengers who aren't in control. That's the issue. We can pretend differently but it won't change much. The 'middle class quality of life' thread which is running may not age well.

It scares me.

I sincerely hoping I'm going to look a prat with this post in twelve months time and my fears never come to pass.