Burnham

[briantrumpet]

Would have been a more significant saving to remove vat on gas, as well,

I suspect that the rationale is to limit the cost in lost tax but also not to encourage fossil fuel usage.

 

[briantrumpet]

Stephen Bush (Financial Times) is much better informed than I am.

https://bsky.app/profile/stephenkb.bsky.social/post/3mr4cfgkvnk2d

 

[Pblakeney]

I suspect that the rationale is to limit the cost in lost tax but also not to encourage fossil fuel usage.

I was about to post similar.
An attempt to make electricity cheaper and the switch to renewables more attractive.

 

[briantrumpet]

I was about to post similar.
An attempt to make electricity cheaper and the switch to renewables more attractive.

It's nothing major either, supposedly 'funded' by the cancelling of Digital ID. But it's something that will affect every household and is easy to implement. And unlike other VAT reductions, it'll be harder for the companies simply to raise prices to gobble up the reduction.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

It's nothing major either, supposedly 'funded' by the cancelling of Digital ID. But it's something that will affect every household and is easy to implement. And unlike other VAT reductions, it'll be harder for the companies simply to raise prices to gobble up the reduction.

Perhaps this is where Burnham will largely reside, the smaller scale 'sensible' policy stuff that can actually be implemented within fiscal means and isn't wildly controversial, supplemented by one or two 'big ticket' items like voting reform that won't get beat down as he will have stored up enough credit with the smaller stuff. If you take away the political extremes what most people want (I assume!) is to be able to afford to live and have the odd treat, to feel safe in their communities, access to decent quality public services and a general sense that the country is operating well for most of us.

I always feel if you stop trying to deliver ridiculous extremes i.e. virtually curbing any immigration, and focus on the day to day improvements to the economy, public services, general social and cultural prosperity, then people largely stop being concerned with much of the other policy as they are generally happy and no longer look for the silver bullet approach to solve all their problems.

 

[icowden]

Burnham's cabinet. Thoughts?

I'm surprised he's kept Mahmood. I'd have kept Millibean on the old renewables. I'm also surprised to see Nandy kept on.

 

[briantrumpet]

Perhaps this is where Burnham will largely reside, the smaller scale 'sensible' policy stuff that can actually be implemented within fiscal means and isn't wildly controversial, supplemented by one or two 'big ticket' items like voting reform that won't get beat down as he will have stored up enough credit with the smaller stuff. If you take away the political extremes what most people want (I assume!) is to be able to afford to live and have the odd treat, to feel safe in their communities, access to decent quality public services and a general sense that the country is operating well for most of us.

I always feel if you stop trying to deliver ridiculous extremes i.e. virtually curbing any immigration, and focus on the day to day improvements to the economy, public services, general social and cultural prosperity, then people largely stop being concerned with much of the other policy as they are generally happy and no longer look for the silver bullet approach to solve all their roblems.

Maybe he's looking at Mamdani for how a lot of relatively little things that are relatively to implement can shift people's perception of what governing can be about. Apparently the VAT cut led a lot of news bulletins: what's the last time a positive political decision did that?

It was one of the maddening things about Starmer that the ineptness (or absence) of his political instincts left positive achievements largely unregistered by the public.

 

[briantrumpet]

Burnham's cabinet. Thoughts?

I'm surprised he's kept Mahmood. I'd have kept Millibean on the old renewables. I'm also surprised to see Nandy kept on.

Mahmood agreed, though I suspect that there's more to this than meets the eye. Consensus is that Milband's replacement is a really good choice. Nandy, agreed.

 

[First Aspect]

Maybe will find out who “the rich” are soon, when he raises their taxes?

£98,599 and above.

 

[First Aspect]

Perhaps its some sort of broad church ethos, to unite the party.

Other than that I don’t know.

I think this is the answer.

If you consider that the immigration policy wasn't all that persuasive for the Reformy people, it must also follow that changing course won't have much effect either.

 

[C R]

Burnham's cabinet. Thoughts?

I'm surprised he's kept Mahmood. I'd have kept Millibean on the old renewables. I'm also surprised to see Nandy kept on.

Confused.

Re Mahmood, is he setting her up to fail miserably and by implication making blue labour look like idiots? I live in hope.

Re Milliband, it will make it harder to wield the antisemitic excuse if the government finally decides to take a moral stance on the Palestinian issue.

No view on Nandy either way.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Burnham's cabinet. Thoughts?

I'm surprised he's kept Mahmood. I'd have kept Millibean on the old renewables. I'm also surprised to see Nandy kept on.

Looking through the morning papers page on BBC, looks like the playing cards close has wrong footed the RW press, they don’t seem to have any snidey remarks lined up for Healey as Chancellor.

 

[spen666]

It's nothing major either, supposedly 'funded' by the cancelling of Digital ID.

The digital ID that Darren Jones says was never funded in the first place?

But it's something that will affect every household and is easy to implement. And unlike other VAT reductions, it'll be harder for the companies simply to raise prices to gobble up the reduction.

 

[spen666]

Its quite funny reading so many comments on here from people of all political persuasions who think their little social media bubble reflects how the majority of the country views things.
There is no attempt anymore to persuade people of why your view or idea is the right way to go - instead there is scorn and abuse for anyone not persuaded as they must be an outlier

Social media bubbles are not helping

 

[First Aspect]

Its quite funny reading so many comments on here from people of all political persuasions who think their little social media bubble reflects how the majority of the country views things.
There is no attempt anymore to persuade people of why your view or idea is the right way to go - instead there is scorn and abuse for anyone not persuaded as they must be an outlier

Social media bubbles are not helping

As far as social media goes, this is the least like a bubble. Its got a white middle class middle aged male bias for the ages, but that aside seems like the only bias is Stevo boycotting this thread out of principle.