To be sick of people being so negative about the things Burnham is putting into place

[histrainersbythedoor]

Nobody thinks they’ll fix everything but he’s doing small things that can be actioned quickly and will drastically improve aspects of our lives that have got worse over the last two decades - parking fines, music on trains, vaping on public transport. They’re all small things, yes, but they will make things a little better.

He’s not said anywhere that he thinks that doing these things will save Britain. So why are people acting like he has said that?

But isn’t the OP’s point that if and when these policies failed in their stated aims, people can complain then, instead of the constant nay-saying over every announcement?

I think anyone who uses public transport will be delighted about the banning of loud music etc. However, it’s valid to question how it will be enforced.
It’s illegal to travel without paying a fare but on the tube young men blatantly ignore this and jump over the ticket barriers and the tfl employees do nothing - presumably because they have been told not to for their own safety.
However if this law does prevent what it is supposed to, then I will be grateful to the PM.

Funny nobody's mentioned the sticky little problem of Man city 😆😆

You're most certainly not a bot. Hopefully you are open to a debate and a challenge of views.

Back at you.

Because there isn’t a problem much as you’d love there to be one. It must be so frustrating for you that Burnham’s squeaky clean.

Constant nay-saying over every announcement?

Do you mean announcements like these?

We understand student debt is hard on young people. We’ve listened and come up with a solution. More debt to get onto the housing ladder with a 2.5% deposit. We’ll also take a 20% equity stake in the house... How would that equity stake work? On what terms? I seem to remember a similar lack of transparency... Actually I stand corrected, it was determined to be misselling..

Or my current favourite:

We understand prices at the pump are an issue for workers. Our solution? You can now see where the cheapest fuel is in your area. If “helping people keep more money in their pockets” is the aim, perhaps VAT and fuel duty deserve a mention. Just a thought, given that the RAC foundation estimates that the government has made £1.27 billion in extra VAT between February and September thanks the war in Iran pushing up prices. So that meagre 5p fuel cut starts to look a lot less generous or helpful.

Or

A National Care Service that many initially misunderstood as covering care home fees so their parents wouldn’t have to sell the family home. Clearly, well articulated. But no, it’s about covering care provided at home to all people to stay there longer (good) and to avoid them having to sell the family home (not so good). Funded by removing the triple lock... Except dropping to a double lock is unlikely to cover the full cost of providing the new service. So what exactly will it cover? Who will qualify? Who will pay? Who will pick up the shortfall. It’s that pesky transparency again. Also, I’m actually now confused. Is unearned wealth good or bad? If the “Bank of Mum and Dad” is criticised as perpetuating inequality, why are unrelated taxpayers being asked to subsidise someone else’s family home inheritance?

Scrutiny and an expectation of transparency are not automatically nay saying. It’s asking what is actually being offered, on what terms (always a tough one, it seems), and at whose expense.

If he is going to make announcements he would do well to to take a leaf out of the old public information films featuring the likes of John and Petunia, Charley the Cat and the Green Cross Code man. They at least were informative and transparent.

Silly me course he is 😉

Because there isn’t one.

The fuel price thing makes me laugh too. Everyone I work with has reported that prices have been a few pence cheaper per litre. Not earth shattering, but when you fill up once a week it adds up!

The best way to get more young people on the housing market is to build more houses and bring prices down. But they don’t want that, so they just help young people get bigger and bigger debts.

So the fraud and waste doesn't matter?

Here was me thinking that we were drowning in debt and struggling to make ends meet as a country. £300m is immaterial, isn't it...

They are going up again. And some of that reduction was administrative reduction.

Burnham is the wrong bloke at the wrong time.

The UK is one huge welfare state and its problems are systemic. Annual budgets will not fix it. All Burnham and Healey can do is to massage the books in a way that doesn't spook the bond markets for one year.

The UK will simply limp from one budget to another. It is not a cynical view, it’s just what it is.

Well you’re failing miserably to find any dirt, aren’t you?

Who would be the right person?

I don’t plan to answer just so you can continually ask me Q’s.

Tell me why Burnham is the right person.

Can you explain what he's actually done about music on trains and what you expect to improve?

AB is a waste of space. Scared to tackle controversial issues like welfare, illegal immigration, defence spending etc. but desperate to appear like he's helping. Its bullshit and he's an embarrassment.

What do you mean ‘goes unclaimed’? There’s plenty of people that could claim but think they should stand on their own two feet if they are able. This is a good thing.

Someone who can perform miracles.

Yes but if houses go down then all the people who own houses will get upset. I do think house prices need to go down over time relative to inflation but it's a hard conversation to have and a politically difficult thing to do. Lots of the people decrying the fact that their children/grandchildren can't get on the housing ladder would lose their shit of their own houses went down in value. To force house prices down long term (short term doesn't work because you just have people not selling as they wait for prices to go up again so it doesn't help first time buyers) you need to change houses purpose from being an investment to being shelter. And doing that would mean doing quite radical things like taxing land value etc.
I would like to see that happen. But I don't think there is enough voter appetite for it. If younger people want it to happen they need to vote at the same rates that older home owners do.
In the interim, helping young people get their feet through the door is a sticking plaster but that's better than nothing

I didn't say that. But I think it is an important figure to flag up for various reasons and would be helpful.

The Conservatives’ economic plans are better suited to growth: for example, through cuts to business and employment taxes and regulation to unleash animal spirits; and by slimming government spending to lower borrowing costs, as the IMF and Bank of England have recently highlighted.

The route to growth comes from priming the private sector, not pump-priming the public sector. Voluntary government spending restraint is needed today as insurance against the possibility of sharper, involuntary cuts in the teeth of a crisis.

The earlier bot-referenced posts have now been removed, I see.

After Sunak, Truss and Johnson he's a bloomin god send! Noone is perfect but jeez he's got a LOT of mess to clear up after 14 years of Tory neglect.
The 'Great' British public have shockingly short memories. Give him a few months atleast.

I didn't say that. But I think it is an important figure to flag up for various reasons and would be helpful.

Those are two different issues, one does not cancel out the other. Are you always so free and easy with waste and fraud relating to tax payers money?

Don’t forget clearing up two years of Starmer’s & Reeves’s mess.