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?

Not only that, but will reduce tax revenue as the big banks will leave London and relocate in other countries. It's not "retail" banking that makes the money, it's the financial markets. The big banks making billions in the financial markets can relocate anywhere.

That's a good suggestion but it's controlled by the ruling council. Our council is joint Labour/Independent led and it has increased bus services throughout the area. Major towns and rural.

Yep, in am in the markets, so your post is valid.

However, retail banks generate their P&L primarily from mortgage lending - their ability to lend the volumes or at the same margins will be impacted by any increase in corporation tax, hitting both FTB and those seeking to move.

All on top of increased inflation.

This thread made me question what is planned to be devolved. Some internet searching leaves me none the wiser apart from 'something' to the Cornish even if they don't have a mayor.

Devolution is an odd one. it is always sold as a good thing because the local people have more control over local issues. But then we end up with inconsistencies that are confusing across the country.

Examples:

• Different ULEZ / Low emissions zones in different cities.
• Low traffic neighbourhood rules (and signs in Wales)
• Planning rules are different in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to England.
• Laws are different in Scotland - so need different experts.

Also devolution adds costs (i.e. increases gov spending), such as different rules, the bureaucracy around those. The devolved Parliaments etc.

Then AB is for returning to the EU which takes the UK in the opposite direction, i.e. into a larger quasi-state with more centralised control.

I'd like a clearer articulation of the vision and rationale for the seemingly opposing views. Other parties seem pretty clear on no re-entry to the EU and no further devolution within the UK. The current government seem to want to appeal to both extremes of this issue. I suspect chasing popularity over considered thought.

As an aside there is an ARAF sign that lights up in Wimbledon. That makes me smile in it's randomness!

I don't t think the EU is incompatible with more local control. Germany has a much more federalised system with far more control given to it's local governments and is part of the EU. Likewise France devolvea more power to it's regions. In fact the UK is quite unusual in the amount of power that gets centralised in Westminster and this does cause issues/resentment "London metropolitan elite" anyone? Really the biggest issue isn't just "power" but spending money. The amount that flows back out to councils is much less than in equivalent countries and the main things councils have responsibility for have been steadily increasing in price and will continue to do so (bins, social care etc). They aren't allowed to raise council taxes by more than a certain amount so have filled in the difference in ways that piss people of and have bad side effects (eg cutting bin collections, charging shops higher rents damaging the high street further and even raising the dreaded parking charges).
The powers that go to the EU are completely different powers to the ones that might/might not go to councils and regional governments. I think the biggest contradiction is money in the sense that redirecting money would be needed if you wanted genuine devolution, but money isn't exactly growing on trees right now.

AB seems to have a unique talent for focusing on relative trivia while the world burns around him.

Who’s going to police and enforce music playing and vaping on public transport!? My guess is… nobody!
So, unless the words become action that leads to real and noticeable change, it’s all pretty meaningless.

I’ll be impressed if he scraps the standing charge on fuel bills, though.

For all those who say “big gestures matter more”: that’s a very big IF the promises can be kept. I’ve no time for politicians who make promise after promise of miracles, total fairness, and the moon on a stick: that’s what buffoons like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage do. Tony Blair was also “Blair pledges this, Blair pledges that.”

Hopefully Burnham knows that the public don’t believe things like that any more, so he’s promising small and manageable things. Sometimes, less is more. (Starmer took this to extremes, though: promised little, and gave people nothing to hope for.)

For all those who say “big gestures matter more”: that’s a very big IF the promises can be kept. I’ve no time for politicians who make promise after promise of miracles, total fairness, and the moon on a stick: that’s what buffoons like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage do. Tony Blair was also “Blair pledges this, Blair pledges that.”

Hopefully Burnham knows that the public don’t believe things like that any more, so he’s promising small and manageable things. Sometimes, less is more. (Starmer took this to extremes, though: promised little, and gave people nothing to hope for.)

You seem to have a not so unique talent to catastrophise when all around you is fairly calm; although storm Austen will be here tomorrow! Don't panic!

Would it help if he send out a phone alert?

If he focused all his attention to what is happening in other parts of the world, he'd get lambasted for that too.

Of course he would. Remember the oh so witty “Never here Keir”? Oh how they laughed.