Andy Burnham is just a dumbed down version of Starmer

[WarmHiker]

Just caught a snippet of some confident sounding commentator on tv repeating a line that you tend to hear in all news programmes. That Burnham is personable and has charisma. That line is starting make me think that as a country, the tyranny of low expectations has really hit a new low.

First thing’s first, when did saying ‘isn’t it’ after every sentence pass for charisma. Is the bar for charisma really that low.

Second, the guy’s failed upwards into a job that he’s clearly not fit for. His answer to everything is ‘Booses’.

The economy is on fire, buses. Immigration is out of control, buses. Crime is a problem, buses. We have the most expensive energy, buses. Industry and businesses are shutting down, buses.

He’s basically a small town mayor who accidentally became the prime minister because the quality of talent in parliament is non existent. Manchester is not a small town but running buses in Manchester doesn’t make you fit to be a PM. He was a failed health secretary, failed to be Labour leader twice when he actually had to have proper fight, somehow grifted his way to a mayor job for a decade. And yes his predecessors were any better. But why all the fawning over Burnham.

AIBU to think that we are headed towards a point soon when the public turns on him. He’s utterly out of his depth and the false shine will wear off in no time. A General election is looming.

All in all, so sad to see that this is the calibre of person at the top of government. What has happened to this country that no one smart wants to go anywhere politics.

I couldn't work that out either.

The gran story is misleading.

It is a mockery of Burnham’s northern accent.

I’m guessing Bus ( taking the piss 😂)

Yep

but he is banking on everyone being thick and greedy and to be fair from what I have read on line most people think it includes free care homes so it’s working

It wouldn’t be £1200 a week if personal and nursing care was funded. More like £800 a week which for those who are better off could be funded from income and savings.

Totally agree … sad to say!

I was a Labour supporter but their underhand lying (Burnham included) during the coup, opened my eyes. I expected Tories to be duplicitous but never Labour!

Now I don’t trust any of them! Politically homeless😡

But who is to blame for politicians lying (or at least being evasive with the truth)?

if political candidates ever told the truth then they would never be elected to be politicians and would always be losing candidates.

Imagine if you had two candidates- Candidate A said that they would increase spending on healthcare etc but it would come at the cost of higher taxes. Or Candidate
B who promised higher spending on healthcare etc but would find the money from "efficiencies" or "growing the economy " etc. Then Candidate B would always be elected.

Once elected they then blame the state of the economy on the previous party or "events" and say unfortunately we have to increase taxes to pay for additional spending or not do the additional spending or in most cases a mix of the two.

Its the fault of the voters for wanting a pain free solution of a diet where can eat what you want and still lose weight or get fit without doing any exercise.

The solution is clear- cut Government spending so that spending is not more than taxation. This way you lower interest rates which helps to grow the economy. But which political party is ever going to get elected promising to cut spending and not cut taxes.

Its really not the fault of politicians but the voters- as demonstrated by the responses on this thread.

I often wonder why those bitching on about politicians being such a bunch of talentless grifters don’t run for office themselves and show us how it should be done.

who is picking up the tab for the £400 transferred to taxpayers?

Do we also assume there are no profit maximising care providers?

@1dayatatime ,

‘Imagine if you had two candidates- Candidate A said that they would increase spending on healthcare etc but it would come at the cost of higher taxes. Or CandidateB who promised higher spending on healthcare etc but would find the money from "efficiencies" or "growing the economy " etc. Then Candidate B would always be elected’

I am not so sure about that. Unfortunately, no politician has had the courage to test this out for some time. To be fair, I think that Burnham is trying that approach now. He is saying what he needs to sacrifice to achieve his objectives.

What we have had recently are a bunch of technocratic centrists who don’t ‘do politics’. They promise everyone solutions that suit all, and then rely on ‘experts’ to achieve the unachievable. When it fails, people are prone to believe extremists who promise even easier solutions.

I am guessing that people are more than ready for some tough truths as long as they are elucidated intelligently by someone with charisma and communication skills.

I think you are being too kind on the average voter. You just have to read a number of the posts on both this thread and others to despair at the thought process of the average voter.

I mean we've got the Greens with their cunning economic plan of printing money and Reform who are making massively unfunded promises.

I am guessing that people are more than ready for some tough truths as long as they are elucidated intelligently by someone with charisma and communication skills.

What about integrity, vision or fair and reasonable tradeoffs? Charisma is low down on my checklist.

I have no time for the blame and spend culture which, IMO, Labour and AB are currently presiding over.

Oh for goodness sake. KS is good human but Andy will be a much more successful PM, get used to it.

Even the most minimal estimates from OBR are that we have incurred a permanent decrease of 4% in the GDP

The OBR 'calculated' that assumption simply by taking the average of 13 external estimates - the 'minimal' estimates were much lower than 4%.

The National Bureau of Economic Research says the Treasury is losing £65-90 billion of revenue annually in consequence

Bloomberg economists critiqued that study in June this year. NB Bloomberg donated £250,000 to the Remain campaign in 2016, so if anything they are biased to remain/rejoin;

'Bloomberg Economics used a variety of models to calculate its central estimate of the cost to date. It found the damage was far smaller than the 6% to 8% of GDP hit set out in a recent and widely read National Bureau of Economic Research paper.'

Looking forwards, if we rejoin the EU, how much will the UK's budget contributions be and how quickly will the Treasury recoup those payments in 'extra tax revenue', if at all?

@NorthXNorthWest ,

‘What about integrity, vision or fair and reasonable tradeoffs? Charisma is low down on my checklist.’

Fair and reasonable tradeoffs are exactly what I am talking about.

However, you can’t achieve them without selling them to people, especially those who will have to make the sacrifices. And that is where charisma comes in.

you would prefer higher taxes and open
immigration?

@1dayatatime ,

‘I think you are being too kind on the average voter. You just have to read a number of the posts on both this thread and others to despair at the thought process of the average voter.’

What scares me a little bit, and this was catalysed by Brexit, is how many people are prepared to disrespect the electorate. I think this especially applies to centrist politicians with their focus groups, and the idea that you target only marginal constituencies with policies to get you over the edge. I think that if you don’t respect the demos in a democracy, you will get exactly what you deserve.

If you are someone increasingly finding it hard to make ends meet, centrist politicians tweaking top rate tax a couple of percent or focusing on ERASMUS, while you keep getting poorer, you are going to be pushed to extremes and looking for someone to blame.

‘I mean we've got the Greens with their cunning economic plan of printing money and Reform who are making massively unfunded promises.’

They are both awful parties run by charlatans. However, they do have a consistent message and know who they want to appeal to.

The point is that you can be centrist but actually have a passion for making society better and a road plan to do it. And you can communicate this clearly and lead people to follow you. This is what politics is and it seems to be something of a forgotten art. I do think Burnham, and maybe an English degree is helping him here, gets it. It is a long road and he may well end up being beaten down by his party and very tough circumstances, but I do feel he is the first conviction politician we have had since Blair in his early years.

The lowest estimates were made early on, before the damage became apparent. One influential document from the Johnson years prediction ‘only’ a permanent 2% contraction in the economy assumed that the UK would stay in the Single Market.

Estimates and reports based on the data that has come in since the consequences have begun to unfold have been gloomier.

Who has proposed open immigration?

Is there an option for ‘am I a Russian bot’?

Have you seen any studies that do not say the GDP has decreased because of Brexit?

@clavinova,

The median estimate is about 5% damage (that is missed opportunity, as opposed to actual damage, as we haven’t been in recession.

There are two types of model, ‘doppelganger’ models, which compare us to a simulated set of countries which behaved similarly to ours pre Brexit, and sectorial models, where they estimate the cost sector by sector and add them up.

They all tend to converge around the 5-6% level with outliers at 2-4% and 8-10%.
There are zero economic models which think we are doing better now due to Brexit.

GDP has not actually decreased - it's grown. Some economists claim that GDP might have been higher if we had not left the EU.

Only some?

Which economists have claimed otherwise?