UPDATE: Reviews section refreshed, redesigned, searchable: Go take a look
You can use another term if that one is upsetting you. I have tried 'the unproductive' before now, but that didn't go down very well either.
How about ‘pensioners’? And their cosseted offspring living off rents rather than working?
It's just popped up on france24 news he is allowing strikes from some UK bases on Iran.
Hope not
Of course he has….dont you know that was a very nice phone call to Trump yesterday morning, I'm sure Trump will now speak very highly of Andy 🙄
All purely defensive strikes don’t ya know……in that case I'm going to carry out purely defensive strikes on every dickhead i meet from now on
Ffs….What a cowed **** (capital C) , get yerself tae **** Burnham, will someone please slap him
Some information for those who applaud Burnham's support for new North Sea oil & gas drilling.
TLDR: It doesn't look like Rosebank is going to make us proles any better off, give us cheaper energy or increase our energy security. It's emissions will definitely heat up the planet though. That's guaranteed. Never mind, it's all about Andy's vibe.
Rosebank oil field: the complete guide - Blogpost from Uplift (News)
www.upliftuk.orgIn brief
- Rosebank will do nothing to lower UK energy bills or strengthen energy security. 90% of Rosebank’s reserves are oil destined primarily for international markets. Rosebank's minimal gas reserves could reduce UK gas import dependency by just 1% on average - and only if none is exported.
- Rosebank's total lifetime emissions are estimated at 254 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, nearly 70% of the UK's entire annual emissions in 2024.
- Rosebank is incompatible with the UK's commitments under the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C. Existing global oil and gas reserves already far exceed what can be safely burned in a world committed to limiting warming to 1.5°C, making new fields, like Rosebank, incompatible with this aim.
- UK taxpayers effectively shoulder over 80% of Rosebank's development costs through generous tax reliefs, while the primary financial beneficiaries, Equinor, and Shell, paid essentially zero UK tax in 2024.
Of course he has...
It's a continuation of Starmer's decision following several drone attacks on and towards Cyprus and strikes on Gulf state hotels where UK citizens were staying.
It's his job to defend UK citizens, although you can argue the semantics of "defend". It would have been simpler had Iran and its proxies not launched drones, but here we are
It would have been simpler had Iran and its proxies not launched drones, but here we are
Simpler still if Israel/US had not launched an illegal war on Iran. Well done on the bus fare though.
I see Milliband is continuing the Cooper/ Lammy two tier policy with respect to invasions.
not wishing to go full rone on it all, but if the same people (civil servants) look at the same data, they'll draw the same conclusions and we'll get the same outcomes.
The musics definately better, but the beer still sucks.
Simpler still if Israel/US had not launched an illegal war on Iran
We all have to deal with the world as it is, rather than how we’d like it to be. Unfortunately the moron in the White House has started a war he has no idea what to now do about. This involves Iran now launching their far-from-depleted stocks of missiles at targets where there are lots of British citizens
What to do you expect the government to do? Pretend it’s not happening and hope for the best? Maybe start an online petition?
It’s not endorsing or supporting Trump to deal with reality and try and prevent people being killed
It’s not endorsing or supporting Trump to deal with reality and try and prevent people being killed
Is that what you think is happening? Bless.
not wishing to go full rone on it all, but if the same people (civil servants) look at the same data, they'll draw the same conclusions and we'll get the same outcomes.
The musics definately better, but the beer still sucks.
I can provide* plenty of examples where governments have overridden civil service advice in order to deliver a policy commitment. Whether the consequences were worth it is a different question
*or I could if it wasn't for the pesky civil service rules
Is that what you think is happening? Bless
The reality is - as pointed out in the article posted above - that lots of governments are now being forced into positions necessary to defend their citizens as a result of a war they neither wanted nor were even consulted about
That is going to have very real long-term consequences as far as shifting international alliances are concerned but that’s for another day. Right now it is quite literally about firefighting
Civil servants look at the same data and draw the same conclusions? No chance. I can look at something at work, the person sitting next to me can look at same, and we both end up disagreeing with each other. Put more of us in the room, and the disagreements just grow.
The reality is - as pointed out in the article posted above - that lots of governments are now being forced into positions necessary to defend their citizens as a result of a war they neither wanted nor were even consulted about
That article is about the Gulf states. My geography is not great but I don’t think the UK counts.
Not all UK citizens live in the UK.
But I agree that the UK Military should stay the hell out of this, and UK bases shouldn't be used by the USA military to attack Iran either. The only way to give a clear message to the USA government about what they are doing is to offer no support whatsoever. No matter how much the current POTUS complains about it. Burnham has this wrong, in my opinion.
Here's how Burnham is a better "politician" than his predecessor though... anything he now does as regards the USA and the military will also taint both Streeting and Miliband (arguably the two people most likely to try and carve out support for themselves and their own programmes in side Labour now) in their new roles... he's making sure they both share in the really difficult stuff, and that they have to grab the shitty stick with him.
Bus fares, energy bills, homelessness
these are achievable quick wins, which is exactly what Burnham needs, its savvy comms skills because people want the country fixed tomorrow and he only has ~2.5 years to do that before he has to call a GE (to be held in august 2029)
He's trying to set the narrative of getting things done, which is smart because fixing the wider issues of the economy is going to take much longer than 2.5 years- after a decade plus of austerity breaking everything, trrumps war on the global economy, Iran and general insanity, Putin's war on europe, brexit, climate change, energy insecurity, eyeawering national debt, crumbling infrastructure, creaking NHS, housing shortage, AI upending everything, fascists running social media- Its amazing anyone actually wants the job
Not all UK citizens live in the UK.
Is it the UK govt's duty to protect it's citizens abroad or the responsibility of the country in which they reside?
*or I could if it wasn't for the pesky civil service rules
I had a couple of years in the Home Office looking at reducing costs in the cyber-security arena. The examples I could give of excess charging from "approved" suppliers is eye-watering. I challenged these on many occasions and was roundly ignored. A smarter vendor management system could save the country millions and still allow profits to be made.
Is it the UK govt's duty to protect it's citizens abroad or the responsibility of the country in which they reside?
Sorry, I added to my post.
To answer this... yes it can be the UK gov's duty, but within limits. I'd argue that getting involved in the shit the USA are doing right now is beyond those limits. The UK should stay out of what is happening with Iran, even if Iran is endangering UK citizens living and working in neighbouring countries. If they start attacking Cyprus again, or other UK bases, then it becomes more difficult not to respond... although I still think we probably shouldn't... but it's less clear cut for me then.
It’s not endorsing or supporting Trump to deal with reality and try and prevent people being killed
Timothy Snyder said words very much to the opposite over the weekend, it is supporting trump and Netanyahu and dragging us further in to the conflict , I'll take the word of the scholar please Bob (dunno why but bob holness suddenly popped into my head 😀 )
Is it the UK govt's duty to protect it's citizens abroad
And if it is, is the best way to do that to fuel the war that's endangering them?
supporting trump and Netanyahu and dragging us further in to the conflict
They're a scourge on humanity. Until leaders stand up against them, they are doing humanity and the planet, a severe injustice.
I've seen posts on social media devastatingly critical of Burnham, and I didn't want to believe them, but have repeatedly found out they were right.
I won't hold my breath waiting for Burnham to replicate Mandami's position on this subject.
I won't hold my breath waiting for Burnham to replicate Mandami's position on this subject.
Neither will I but I’m clinging onto a smidgeon of hope for Burnham to come good one he’s somewhat settled into the position of PM, I’ll give him till the end of the year before I’ll fully pass judgement, not that what I consider or say has any possibility of being relevant in any way other than venting steam on my part
I think you’re massively overestimating the influence the UK government (or most other governments) has on this situation.
We’re a tiny and completely irrelevant, faded, post-colonial power and what this countries leadership has to say on the subject is of zero significance to any of the major players.
Things will pan out however those in Tehran, Washington and Tel Aviv decide it will, and the rest of us are incidental. So it’s all the British State can do to try and avoid their citizens, a lot of whom are in the region, becoming ‘collateral damage’…. a lot of which tends to happen when the US, Israel and Iran starts lobbing lots of exploding things about. None of those regimes having ever been known for their concern about large amounts of civilian casualties
Why let them use UK bases to "lob lots of exploding things about" from then? They can carry on with that without any assistance from the UK... so why should the UK government give them any assistance?
Anyway… fun though it is discussing how he’s just, like, totally failed to bring peace to the Middle East in the 2 days he’s been PM…
Why let them use UK bases to "lob lots of exploding things about" from then? They can carry on with that without any assistance from the UK... so why should the UK government give them any assistance?
This?
The UK’s actions and related support to its allies is solely focussed on ending the threat of air and missile attacks against regional allies unlawfully attacked by Iran and who have not been involved in hostilities from the outset. It does not signal the UK having any wider involvement in the broader ongoing conflict between the US, Israel and Iran.
The UK remains of the view that a negotiated solution should be supported, and that further escalation into a wider regional conflict should be avoided.
The Government will notify the United Nations Security Council of relevant actions taken under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
The UK’s actions and related support to its allies is solely focussed on ending the threat of air and missile attacks against regional allies unlawfully attacked by Iran and who have not been involved in hostilities from the outset.
What a crock. Iran was unlawfully attacked and responded by targeting states that had hosted the attacking forces. Nobody is fooled by the usual mealy-mouthed foreign office wriggling, any more than we are swayed by Yvette Cooper's expressions of "regret" and "concern" when our ally slaughters children.
I think you’re massively overestimating the influence the UK government (or most other governments) has on this situation.
Yeah you’re possibly correct in such an assumption, we have limited influence but that does not absolve us of paying no heed of advice from international law experts and genocide scholars regarding our “static participation” in such conflicts.
You should watch the Sky report on the Iranian children’s school that was bombed on the first day of the U.S. bombing campaign, I won’t post it here as i don’t wish to pollute the Burnham thread, I posted it in the Iran thread earlier today, if you have 40mins try and watch it
This U.S/Israeli conflict will only increase and spread due to the coming U.S. and Israeli elections,
TBH I don't really give much of a shit about what's going on in the middle east any more or what our part is in it. Obviously I'd like our involvement to be minimal, zero even, but I'm realistic enough to know that if the price of pissing off the US is politically damaging at home and prevents Labour doing stuff here to help working people then maybe allowing the use of a few bases is worth it.
Anyway, bus fares! Binners will be livid, I remember he wasn't too keen on Labour leaders spending much time thinking about buses. Burnham clearly should be worrying about more important things. 🙂
Civil servants look at the same data and draw the same conclusions? No chance. I can look at something at work, the person sitting next to me can look at same, and we both end up disagreeing with each other. Put more of us in the room, and the disagreements just grow.
Do we work together?
Iran unlawfully attacked a holiday island and targetted tourist hotels that hadn't hosted the attacking forces
Perhaps.
The US dispersed personnel to various hotels and there are reports of cyber attacks to try and identify those dispersed personnel location using a mix of access to mobile networks to identify roaming phones and also possibly some ad network attacks.
So there does seem to be an attempt to target US personnel.
Ultimately given the USA and Israel started the war it is unclear why we should support those hard right loons and not just consider our responsibility ends at helping UK citizens evacuate (perhaps after checking their tax status).
In terms of the allied countries I would suggest they should be asking the USA and Israel to cover the bill.
I'm in two minds about any VAT reduction for hospitality anyway.
Slashing business rates (which he's already talked about) for small businesses is a much better way of supporting the hospitality industry (and other industries based on the high street)
It’s happening for hospitality.
And I agree. I hope he can extended it to other “in the community” small businesses at the budget.
From the business rates cut report... "The most eye-catching thing is the idea this support is going to be paid for by reviewing tax reliefs currently given to businesses “that don’t make a positive contribution to local communities” specifically highlighting vape shops."
That's some interesting mental gymnastics to say alcohol good, vape bad.
It’s happening for hospitality.
And I agree. I hope he can extended it to other “in the community” small businesses at the budget.
The principle is great, but there's a lot more to problems in hospitality than the cost of business rates. It's a similar story with cutting VAT on electricity.
Lots of licensees are tied into contracts which make them responsible for the fabric of the building as well as only buying (expensive) stock from the brewery chain, limited options on cutting a contract short (or extending), etc.
The British Beer and Pub Association ^^ represents 90% of brewers and its members own 20,000 pubs, so it's not that surprising that they welcome a cut in rates rather than an examination of their practices.
All of these short-term measures, welcome as they are, must now be backed by a critical look at the relevant industry and how their structures can be changed to cut consumer costs, rather than by what is effectively long-term funding of business by the public
That's some interesting mental gymnastics to say alcohol good, vape bad.
Pubs, clubs and music venues serve a much bigger purpose than selling alcohol. They're places where the community comes together, socialises and lets off steam. They're also places which serve a significant community purpose. My old granny used to say if you ever needed help with something don't go to the church, go down the local working mens social club. She's right, in my local all sorts of people interact with each other and lots of stuff gets sorted very quickly. They even perform a useful function in sorting out any anti-social behaviour or problems. You'd be amazed how much the threat of being put on pub-watch will stop errant youth or others from causing problems in the community.
I expect we’ll get more on pubs Timba, both Burnham and Healey are very aware of the issues.
We’re about to lose one of our local pubs because of the problems you point out, as it happens.
As someone pointed out on socials...
• Starmer and Reeves first act in government was to remove the winter fuel allowance and project a climate of doom and austerity.
• Burnham has removed VAT from gas/leccy, capped bus fares at £2 and reduced hospitality rates by 20%. The vibe is completely different. Not bad for a couple of days work.
He’s much better at the “touch your lives” politics. It’s all small stuff, but, as you say, it sets a vibe. It’s the easy stuff that his predecessor didn’t seem to understand was important to keep voters on side (even if not really that important compared to the big stuff that needs sorting).
even if not really that important compared to the big stuff that needs sorting
There'll be big stuff coming, but needs to wait for the budget and potentially a new mandate via an election (which I doubt he'll risk). What I've particularly liked is that despite the rhetoric of saying how they'll pay for stuff, they really haven't done that because it's not really necessary. They know that, we (at least some of us) know that, but they're keeping up the pretence by talking about 'reprioritisation'. It's a positive sign that unlike Starmer and Reeves, they're not going to be constrained by a 'how do we pay for it' austerity narrative.
All good there Dazh.
It's astonishing 😉 that actually doing things; material things, might just click with the public - and fix things. Calm everyone down about immigration etc.
Everybody knows the country is in a mess so standing back and pretending they're fiscally constrained (because they don't understand double entry accounting) is technical and political bullshit - that has held us back for years.
As someone pointed out on socials...
• Starmer and Reeves first act in government was to remove the winter fuel allowance and project a climate of doom and austerity.
• Burnham has removed VAT from gas/leccy, capped bus fares at £2 and reduced hospitality rates by 20%. The vibe is completely different. Not bad for a couple of days work.
Exactly this.
The roll of government and certainly the treasury has fixated for far too long, and even normalised - household accounting in government departments at the detriment of the country.
If you do this - watch the country fall apart - like it has done. The private sector doesn't magically come to the rescue.
I like these little changes. Positives.
