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…’

Both pretty decent and clever men oddly too.

And what makes Labour think they would be around in power then ?
They can promise what they like if they think they will never have to deliver

Can you expand? What is about to happen and where can I find out more?

For me, I don’t think any political party has yet articulated a vision for the economy that fully rises to the seriousness of the moment, and I think most economists agree. I’ve read both Dan Neidle and Jim O’Neill arguing from different ideological perspectives that what we actually need are much bigger structural tax reforms.

I do think Andy Burnham is closer to the reality of the situation though: there clearly isn’t just a binary choice to be made between funding defence and making damaging cuts to the welfare state.

I know it is easier to spout ideological, populist sound bites from opposition but Kemi Badenoch really sounds like she is in cloud cuckoo land. No serious economist thinks cuts to benefits will be enough to fund defence - because it’s just a fact that punitive cuts within the benefits system, done quickly and bluntly, will push up costs elsewhere.

So you think they should have said 7% by 2035 or 80% by 2029 or whatever they thought you might want to hear, safe in the knowledge they won't have to deliver? In fairness, its a tactic Reform seem to be enjoying success with, so I can see your thinking.
However, as things stand, Labour are in power for the foreseeable, as even a GE would likely see them heading a coalition, so they're coming at it from a different angle from those who have no realistic chance of power, and are speaking of things they feel to be realistic rather than populist.

@swimsong It is an invasion by a brutal and deadly occupying force.

You can't invade your own country !
The territory was not under legitimate sovereignty before 1967 so it does not fit the definition of an occupied sovereign state.
It was annexed by Jordan in 1948 (no-one took Jordan to task over that did they ?)
The Arab League: Most member states viewed the annexation as illegal and a challenge to Arab unity and the Palestinian cause. The Arab League demanded Jordan's expulsion, declaring the annexation a temporary trustee measure pending a future resolution.
Global Community: The vast majority of nations considered the move illegal and void under international law, refusing to recognize Jordanian sovereignty over the territory.
Only a few countries formally recognized the annexation, including the United Kingdom, Iraq, and Pakistan.
The Palestinians didn't help themselves by trying to assassinate the King of Jordan under the direction of Yasser Arafat.

Jun 25, 1994
In Washington, Jordan's King Hussein and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the Washington Proclamation ending the state of belligerency between Israel and Jordan. Radical Palestinian groups protested the declaration.
Oct 26, 1994
Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty at the Arara crossing in Jordan. Many Palestinian groups opposed the treaty. A ban on all demonstrations in Jordan was put into effect before the signing of the treaty.

People need to study the complex history of the area.

The sky is falling!

@sunshinesuki

UN rights office sounds the alarm over forced displacement in the West Bank | UN News https://share.google/DjRmtbfZfbODzrYj0

I rest my case.

There is link above, if you care to look.

Where please? The BBC link is about the possibility of interest rates rising acrosd the world but @RedToothBrush implies there is something more (she said the article is "nonsense" and "won't age well").

Where please? The BBC link is about the possibility of interest rates rising acrosd the world but @RedToothBrush implies there is something more (she said the article is "nonsense" and "won't age well").

The UN has 50-plus Arab member states, and only one Jewish member.

@sunshinesuki People need to study the complex history of the area.

Thanks to you both. I saw this documentary, no longer on iPlayer sadly, it is very uncomfortable and personal

taking ‘a land without a people for a people without a land'

But, the land already had a people.

Blue Box - UK Jewish Film

This is why governments stopped investing in infrastructure, because they realised the only thing that matters is their time in Parliament. And look how that worked. Things like defence spending, national infrastructure like transport, internet, utilities etc should be removed from the parliamentary system and voted on once a decade or something, they should be about expertise and planning not the whims of popularity.

The UN is sadly a discredited organisation when you have serious human rights violators regularly on the UNHRC.

For what it's worth, I did actually have occasion to chat with some guys who do finance related stuff recently about whether there's a big ol' crash coming. One shrugged it off, the other mentioned the possibility of AI somehow managing to fck up the mechanics that generate the value of bitcoin to make all those holdings worthless.

This morning there was some boffin pondering the possibility of AI being able to pose a major threat and there's already been that warning from a systems developer about there being a 1 in 10 chance of it wiping out humanity in the next decade. So . .....

That's why Norway did the right thing by removing it's energy policy (ie what happens with the oil drilling) from political control.

I completely agree. Other countries manage to deal with defence budgets in a much less party political way, and I’d really like to see the same happen here. In Norway, they set out long term defence plans, and a new long term defence plan needs total parliamentary consensus - that way the military aren’t just relying on the whims of the party of the day.

I hate the way defence spending is being used a party political football right now, it’s so simplistic and short termist.

Was that the same chap who was on Newsnight? It was rather 😱

Possibly. I think it might have been an ex head of MI5

This is from last year so they are monitoring for it

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/director-general-sir-ken-mccallum-gives-threat-update

I think he's doing a great job. The Labour Way is a good approach. I am very happy he is PM.

Oh this is the AI warning by the way

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgwy1k42w4o

There’s only one Jewish state though? Correct me if I’m wrong? However, UN seems to be committed inactive right now. They need a wake up call!

Hmmmn! System’s developer, no vested interest there then!

Will interest rates rise? It's such an utterly wet headline under the circumstances. It's massively under playing current geopolitics almost to the point of being misleading.

There is crunch coming.

An absolutely massive one.

"Oh do we think interest rates are going to go up?"

-Blinks in bewilderment-

Frankly we will be bloody lucky if they don't skyrocket.