How long do you give Andy Burnham as PM?

[AndyBurnham2L]

Build ‘em up.
Knock ‘em down.

Short honeymoon and then the grumbling will start. It will all be over for him by Christmas.

So, who’s next?

The ASI uses debatable data, similar to New World Wealth and Henley & Partners.

It was gleaned from the government data, that's how they term it.

Oh that unreliable Henley data again.

But is data for small boat arrivals only, not all immigration

I didn't mean to call you out, it was more a question for Yellowshirt.

They are all migrants.
An asylum seeker would move to the nearest country if fleeing war.
But even so a country borrowing 350 million pounds per day shouldn't be funding or allowing any migrants or asylum.
I would slash spending immediately to bring debt and taxes down.

You would save about 0.5% if there were no costs associated with asylum seekers.

And if immigration were eliminated, the UK would experience a net financial loss

BP looks to be selling their North Sea oil capability. Perhaps they have had enough of the 78% tax? Imagine if we had a SWF like Norway….

Yes, imagine if Thatcher had set one up instead of pissing all that money up the wall with tax cuts. Sadly we don’t have a rewind button.

No mention of tax from BP

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bp-hangs-sale-sign-over-074300153.html

"The North Sea remains integral to the UK's energy system," BP chief executive Meg O'Neill said in a statement.
"However, as we focus our portfolio and direct capital to our highest-value opportunities, we believe our North Sea business will be better positioned as part of another company," she added.

She had to pay off the previous Labour government’s spending spree.

Data suggests fears of UK ‘non-dom’ exodus overblown

Number fell by just 0.5% in 2024-25, casting doubt on claims tougher rules would lead to wealthy people leaving

https://www.ft.com/content/655a05ff-ec45-492d-a70e-4f8ba8dc141f?syn-25a6b1a6=1

I think you need to read some history. There was no spending spree by any government in the 1970s when Labour and Tory governments were in and out of power. Even if you were correct, how would paying off a “spending spree” be achieved by tax cuts?

You are conveniently bypassing Blair’s spending spree!

Blair was in power in the 1970s?

Maggie had the sweetest period of UK North Sea Oil production. Where the oil price was high and the extraction easier and cheaper.

Yep and unlike the Norwegians who looked after this money she pissed it away.

The below duplicated.

I don't wish to derail. Just to point out that the Norwegian government was extremely negligent in this period:

BBC NEWS | Magazine | Norway's underwater 'guinea pigs'

I'm interested in all the posters on here who want to pay 50% income tax.
They want north sea oil to be heavily taxed, or else spend a lot of money on importing oil.
I am the only person in the UK who doesn't like paying increased taxes.

This new devolution of income tax to local mayor's is going to mean more layers of paperwork, more pen pushers, more administrators and the mayor's will just urinate it up the wall. But everyone will be in favour of that too. I will just be a little voice crying in the wilderness

Two things can be true at the same time. They may have been negligent about people’s lives, I’ve not come across this information before, thanks for informing us, but they still managed to save the money they made.

Norway saved its North Sea oil revenues by placing them into the Government Pension Fund Global (often called the Oil Fund), which has grown into the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund

AB is giving money already raised via income tax to mayors, he is not introducing new taxes.

I find this rather perplexing. Not necessarily wrong, just because it’s a Labour idea. But genuinely perplexing.

If it’s tax neutral, presumably there’ll be less in the Treasury for central government, for welfare, defence, education and so on. So in effect it would be increasing funds for local government and nothing else.

So if there are no further taxes for central spending, how is that gap being filled? Or is some central spending responsibility being allocated outwards to local government?

If the answers on budgets and responsibilities aren’t known, why is only the redirection of money being announced?

This is what Burnham keeps announcing for various ideas. He says it is "reprioritising". He said that each of his ministers know that money needs to be reprioritised.

The tax on oil companies now totals 78 percent, it is a number so high the uk is seen as tax hostile. They can’t operate with such little margins as they need to reinvest and if they make less than they’d make in a bank it’s pointless.

the thing is if he reduced it and opened up the North Sea he could make up to 25 billion a year in tax and spend it on what he wishes.

but even if he opens the North Sea, the oil companies aren’t coming back not at 78 percent total tax,

My understanding is that it is tax neutral in that the money going to the Mayors in the form of a percentage of income tax / business rates will replace existing grants which would already have been going to the regions. But the big difference is that those grants would have been ringfenced to be used on particular projects (presumably decided by the treasury). So, it is less about how much money the Mayors and central government each have and more about who has control over how it is spent.

Also, I think I read somewhere that it will mean Mayors will be able take out longer term loans against their projected income to fund major projects - so that will mean more available income for house building etc according to local need.

I think more detail is being announced today though.