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…’

OK well thanks @EasternStandard and @Pineneedlesincarpet for your replies. I agree with @Theseagullwhisperer and all in all it has been an interesting discussion about this. Whatever your exact opinion I do think AB needs to articulate more clearly, especially in the HoC.

No it's not my argument. You are using a tactic of dropping an accusation, framing it as a unique flaw with the body you wish to discredit, then trying to silence me pointing out that it isn't, it is a common flaw, by accusing me of whataboutery/point scoring and so on.
You want free rein to accuse the government of being uniquely culpable for your problem of choice and to shut down anyone suggesting otherwise so we only hear your negatives about the government and have to keep quiet about any others.
All of the things you list in your final paragraph apply to me. I don't feel vilified by the government in the least. Nor do I feel people are persuaded against me, or that I'm attacked for these things. The only time I feel anything close to those things is for supporting the government by people who don't. There's a divide for you.

He has articulated exactly what he means. It's you who keeps warping a very simple message into rage-bait. He is saying it's not a choice between national security and social security. He's going to come up with a spending plan that funds both.

Whether he can do so remains to be seen, but in the meantime it's simply factually incorrect to try and claim that he's prioritising social security over national security. If that's the opinion you've formed then yes, you simply haven't understood.

I think that's true. Hes not on Tiktok. He also needs to stop with the silly "im not point scoring " and then point scoring. I think he and Kemi could actually have constructive useful debates each setting out their sides if he responds properly and answers her questions (which he currently doesn't). Hes slightly easier to listen to than KS. Other wise PMQs is a waste of time particularly if you have to clarify everything you say afterwards.

Having said that I still think the PLP won't let him do what needs to be done for the sake of the country re social security. Ie reduce it. He will be in the same position as KS unfortunately. Nothing has changed. Hes just rearranging deckchairs etc.

What would be the strategic aim?

Do you know what would happen to the global economy - which benefits China more than most?

A nonsensical post.

I think he and Kemi could actually have constructive useful debates each setting out their sides if he responds properly and answers her questions (which he currently doesn't).

The same Kemi Badenoch who has to be called out by the Speaker for her incendiary language to Labour MPs/leader?

Don't make me laugh.

You are using a tactic of dropping an accusation, framing it as a unique flaw with the body you wish to discredit, then trying to silence me pointing out that it isn't, it is a common flaw, by accusing me of whataboutery/point scoring and so on.

Love to see your workings on this. Cant wait to hear you explain your "unique flaw" accusation.

No I think Kemi's really good at the dispatch box. And she's asking good questions. It would be good if Andy Burnham replied to the questions asked clearly so he doesn't get caught out like he has. I think he has more potential than Keir Starmer in PMQs though hasn't shown it yet. We will see.

The point I was replying to was..

"How are China invade us (as if they'd want to) when we're on the opposite side of the world and they don't have the abilty to project power?"

So my reply answers that question. Check out the satellite pics of China's latest naval invasion landing systems. They could do it just as we sent a taskforce to the Falklands and won. In fact its a further distance to the Falklands from the UK

As to their motives, I don't have a view so didn't respond on that point.

All those roundabout flags from temu…

The conversation began with the accusation that this government has caused the division in society. Ie, the government is uniquely responsible for this problem.
I responded to say that they have not. Society has always been divided on the grounds of class and wealth for example.
I said the divisions in society have become more extreme, but that they were not the fault of the government, and gave examples of division that worry me, which have nothing to do with the government, to evidence my point.
I am then told, no, no, we don't want to talk about THOSE divisions that worry you. Only the ones that worry us because we think we are vilified for being hard working. You are bringing those other divisions up only as whataboutery so they don't count.

not tagged the poster

The conversation started with another poster saying:

"National security depends on resilient communities (if we want to be safe as a nation we don't want people poor and desperate, we want them capable and strong)."

I responded to that with:

"Which is precisely why Labour has sown so much division since coming to power..."

I later explicitly qualified that with:

"I'm not arguing that divisive behaviour is unique to this administration. I am talking about attacks on workers."

Neither the statements nor the context is interchangeable with "the government has caused the division in society".

You then make another spurious claim "we don't want to talk about THOSE divisions that worry you."

No. I wasn't talking about your whataboutery divisions. You introduced them because they are the divisions you wanted to discuss. That's fine, but I don't have to follow the direction you want to take the discussion any more than you have to follow mine.

Choosing not to abandon the point I was actually making in order to discuss the one you'd rather talk about is staying on the topic I was dicussing.

Reading comprehension and context.

You have a nice day now 😃

Whether they would or whether they could are very different questions. I've no doubt they could if they wanted to. But what would be the point? We are a welfare state with very limited natural resources. There is a reason that China economic investment is focused in resource rich African countries.

I agree. Although we aren't a quiet defenceless neutral little country like Ireland that any country could safely ignore (military wise). And we are in NATO and we are a nuclear power. And we do like interfering in other countries affairs. So id say we are definitely a strategic target.

Plus interestingly both China and Russia are interested in us. Spying on us and sabotaging us in the case of Russia. So they don't see us as inconsequential. Even if some of us do.

Choosing not to discuss the points I was making is avoiding aspects of the topic you struggle to to challenge. Which is understandable. We are here to pass the time, it shouldn't feel uncomfortable or hard work.
You have a nice day too, if its not evening yet where you are.🙂

No I don’t think we are inconsequential. I mean we’re very lucky not to be next to an expansionary leader such as Putin and we’re not feeling a bit close to China as Taiwan is.

But we’re also not just forgotten about. In any case it makes sense to have a decent defence budget.

The UK is now at best a second/middle tier power economically and militarily, but intellectually we still punch hard. As do France and Germany, and as India and the newly formed ME strategic alliance will very soon. But the big dogs now are the USA and China. I think Putin's version of Russia is pretty fragile.

I am aware that this may upset some people, but the UK is rather good at earning money in the arms trade. I don't think war is ever going to end completely and as we are good at it, I feel we should make the profit. Make drones with and for Ukraine. Our computer games industry is huge and sophisticated, and our teenage sons are already adepts.

Why the insults?

I would say that the thing we need to worry about from Russia is a nuclear attack which would mean Russia was hit in return and who knows if he would go that far?

If we were to go to war with Russia in the same way as they are with the Ukraine, I would imagine Russia wouldn't have much of a chance. He is hardly winning against the Ukraine and if he was to attack a Nato country surely he'd lose pretty quickly?

Oh dear, Reform has received GBP 72m in donations in two days.

No wonder, Labour are desperately trying to change the rules.

Well wonder who coughed up that money 💰.

Do you not find it concerning for democracy that billionaires can buy their way to political influence? Donations of that magnitude don't come without expectations. And before you list donations recieved by other parties, it's a question of scale isn't it? Numerous medium to large donations from multiple sources doesn't give any individual the level of power that a sum this size gives to one. How could you trust Reform to put public interests ahead of the person who has bought them?

If it's legal it doesn't matter. The Labour Party gets funded by the unions and they are special interest groups too. Hence why the rules controlling the unions are being relaxed (one could argue). And why there are such large pay rises for unionised sectors.

I find myself unable to get excited about party funding for any party as long as its legal.