Forum menu
I mean...if you want to characterise Farage as a lefty go ahead.
Raising the lower tax threshold to 20k is pretty progressive policy which no one else is proposing. Also removing the interest handout major banks receive on their reserves. Admittedly there's not a lot but they do have some - mostly economic - policies which are to the left of Labour.
Reform also said that tax cuts will be made possible by shrinking the state... who'll pay the real price of those cuts in services? I think we all know.
There's one thing for sure we are going though a sea change, and until we come out the other side I reckon it's fairly hard to predict stuff. Can just toss ideas around I guess.
I do think (including a US perspective here) we're teetering on the edge of some really stormy waters with the economy. Trump's Tariffs are draining the Americans of money. This will filter through to both the house hold and the macro economy. Couple that with extremely toppy equities / crypto (in fact crypto is more or less heading into a bear cycle.) Ai valuations - the mother of all bubbles could be brewing. (It could take a while to play out.)
How, and if the government of the day responds to that - will be completely different to how they're operating now.
Well, OK - turning to you - in your opinion, are the Conservative and Labour platforms right wing populism or not?
Yes they are.
@kelvin I'm not sure if you're still planning to vote Labour, but assuming you are, are you doing it because you support Labour's right wing populist platform?
@politecameraaction if kelvin says yes then I will concede your point. If he denies it will you admit you're talking nonsense?
Raising the lower tax threshold to 20k is pretty progressive policy which no one else is proposing.
Reform UK's policy to nationalise 50 per cent of key utility companies, such as energy and water giants, “to stop consumers being ripped off” is without doubt a left-wing policy and completely at odds with thatcherite free market neoliberalism.
Why aren't Labour promising to match even half of that Reform commitment? To make dissonance's point.
Why does Starmer's "Labour" Party only want to meet Nigel Farage halfway on the nasty anti-immigration anti-refugee racist policies?
I will let you draw your own conclusions but I would suggest that Starmer and his little clique are much more comfortable with adopting nasty anti-immigration anti-refugee racist policies than adopting what might be perceived as a radical left-wing alternative.
Ultimately Labour's huge swing to the right has bugger-all to do with stealing Reform UK's policies as they are extremely selective about which policies they actually "steal".
If he denies it will you admit you're talking nonsense?
Seems a pointless squabble to me. Some people will say they're going to vote Labour despite them making life harder for asylum seekers, some people will say that they're going to vote for them because of this harder line they're taking. I think it's clear to anyone reading my posts here what I think on that issue... but it's not clear to me yet how I'll vote when I next get a chance. It'll be interesting see how more Labour MPs respond... many have already publicly called out the government on this... how my MP responds in particular will influence whether he has any chance of getting my vote again (he tends to be slow and careful and measured with his responses). On the local front, our Labour councillors have already spoken out.
Why does Starmer's "Labour" Party only want to meet Nigel Farage halfway on the nasty anti-immigration anti-refugee racist policies?
Ultimately Labour's huge swing to the right has bugger-all to do with stealing Reform UK's policies as they are extremely selective about which policies they actually "steal".
This is because Reform's support is based around very few of their policies. The rest is just noise that mostly goes unnoticed, and changes at each general election (even more often than their party name).
Well, kelvin doesn't seem to want to play,
So let's ask Theresa May. She said that 80% of people who voted in the 2019 election backed parties who pledged to deliver Brexit. The implication being that 80% of the voters backed delivering Brexit.
So there you go, at least you have Theresa May endorsing your 'analysis'.
I will let you draw your own conclusions but I would suggest that Starmer and his little clique are much more comfortable with adopting nasty anti-immigration anti-refugee racist policies than adopting what might be perceived as a radical left-wing alternative.
The simple explanation is that being racist towards immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers costs very little, while implementing left leaning economic policies to benefit working people is enormously expensive. Labour (or rather Reeves) have been entirely captured by the financial establishment which dictates to them that they can't do anything which impacts the billions being skimmed by the city from economic activity in the real world and the functioning of the financial system.
Weird though how a Labour govt has no money but a reform/tory govt will be fine? It would be in Labour's medium-long term interests for Starmer and Reeves to face down this ludicrous narrative but as they've demonstrated they have neither the courage or the ideas to be able to do that, so instead they choose meek acceptance. It's no wonder they're haemorrhaging support on all sides.
The simple explanation is that being racist towards immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers costs very little, while implementing left leaning economic policies to benefit working people is enormously expensive.
I think you are being far too generous. The simple explanation imo, and the one which I think is the most likely, is that it is for exactly the same reasons as Tory politicians.
Tory politicians embrace racism towards immigrants and refugees and reject left-wing economic solutions because it reflects best their own personal preferences, it has bugger-all to do with how "expensive" policies might be (plenty of left-wing economic policies are self-financing, despite right-wing myths) And there is after all a whole orchard-full of magic money trees for right-wing policies.
Starmer and his clique are simply Tories who, with some justification, see the Labour Party as a better vehicle for their own career self-fulfilment than the Conservative Party which is chock-a-block with barristers and other professionals like themselves.
So why then does Nigel Farage combine nasty racist immigration policies with a few token left-wing economic policies in a way that Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch don't ?
Because Farage is smart enough to know that his nasty racist immigration policies have a limited appeal and that if he is to form a government he needs go beyond his core support base and attract those who aren't necessarily bigots with a few popular left-wing policies.
With regard to the recently announced plans to limit the price of ticket resales, I'm putting it in writing that I'm prepared to bet £20 to a STW charity of choice (Greggs?) that the legislation will not be in place 12 months from now.
The simple explanation is that being racist towards immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers costs very little, while implementing left leaning economic policies to benefit working people is enormously expensive.
The current asylum system is enormously expensive: it cost £5.4 billion in 2023/24 (which seems to be the last available year for which data is available). The cost of the asylum system grew about 250% in 2 years: it was £2.1 billion in 2021/22. And two years before that it was just £733 million. It's a ****ton of money - close to the entire energy and net zero budget - and pretending it's some statistical irrelevance is nuts.
A massive chunk of that is shovelled into the pockets of private landlords that provide variable-at-best accommodation; another massive chunk is for outsourcing ****s like Serco and Sopra-Steria. The cost of the asylum system is deducted from the UK government's 0.7% of GNP foreign development and aid commitment (which is a scandal in itself), so people are dying as a result.
If you really wanted to benefit working people in the UK, wouldn't you think it would make sense to sort out the totally dysfunctional, out of control, massively expensive, slow asylum system to free up some time and money for more useful things than putting money in the pockets of landlords and outsourcers?
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/
In your opinion, is Reform's platform right wing populism or not?
Sure.
The part I disagree with is your 'creative' use of statistics to come to the conclusion that right wing populism has 63% of the vote share.
Well, OK - turning to you - in your opinion, are the Conservative and Labour platforms right wing populism or not?
Yes they are.
...
@politecameraaction if kelvin says yes then I will concede your point. If he denies it will you admit you're talking nonsense?
1) do you even know what you're arguing about at this point?!? If you believe that Reform (27%), Conservatives (17%) and Labour (19%) are all right wing populists, then how do you figure that right wing populism has 63% of predicted vote share?
2) I have no idea who Kelvin is, what his politics are or what it has to do with polling or the fact that right wing populism is demonstrably more popular than "progressive" politics in the UK right now.
do you even know what you're arguing about at this point?!?
Yes, I'm arguing with a forum member who went on the Scottish thread and, while not making an invalid point, used supporting data that was comically inappropriate, who then came over here and tried to use 'maffs' to prove that populist rhetoric enjoys 63% of the vote share.
Misuse of statistics is a particular bugbear of mine, especially when it comes to politics where the practice is particularly widespread. So I pointed it out and you went off on a merry path to try to justify it.
Please learn some statistics and learn why what you've been posting is wrong. Or just paste this:
right wing populism has 27% (Reform) + 17% (Tory) of voters compared to 17% (Green) for progressive politics. If you count Labour (19%), which many of you do, them right wing populism has 63% of vote share - about 3.5 times more than progressive politics.
into chatgpt and ask, 'Please tell me what is wrong with this statement from a statistics point of view'.
OK, bud. It seems like you're having a rough night. Hope it improves for you. 👍
The current asylum system is enormously expensive: it cost £5.4billionin 2023/24 (which seems to be the last available year for which data is available)
Government never needs to free up money - ever.
It just has to want or not want to do something.
How did you decide that was expensive?
Btw that's 0.38% of current UK spending.
(I'm not saying all your other points might be relevant but this one is nonsense.)
All arguments expressed like this simply feed into the worst possible narratives that there ain't enough money to help people.
"Why don't we help our own first eh?"
(P.s.it's 2.8bn as of 2024.)
I have no idea who Kelvin is, what his politics are
You are about the only person here who doesn't. I haven't argued much with Kelvin for quite a while, there's too much to agree with
OK, bud. It seems like you're having a rough night.
Condescending, provocative... fits what we know about you. 😛
The current asylum system is enormously expensive: it cost £5.4billionin 2023/24 (which seems to be the last available year for which data is available)
Government never needs to free up money - ever...How did you decide that was expensive? ... "Why don't we help our own first eh?"
I mean, yeah, if you believe that the government has infinite money, then nothing is ever expensive, that's true.
I think most people would think £5.4 billion is a lot of money, especially when the main beneficiaries are private landlords (juicing the UK property market further) and some of the most inept, grasping outsourcing companies around. It's certainly not asylum seekers living on 9 quid a day. But maybe normal people think this is a great use of public money and much better than, idk, child and adolescent mental health services or better buses or social housing.
Personally - and this is an unpopular view - I think it's ****ing absurd that the asylum system is paid for out of the ODA commitment and I'd like to see it stripped out entirely, and full ODA funding restored. So you can put me down as "why don't we help other people instead of landlords and G4S types, eh?".
"There is no disguising my embarrassment."
Well everyone gets caught short like that at some point in their life.
What I don't suppose that the shameless friend of paedophiles and top "Labour" politicians is in the least bit embarrassed about is the revelation that he had just come out of the home of a former Tory Chancellor whose austerity policies resulted in 300,000 excess deaths.
THAT is what I find most shocking about the story,. Although perhaps I shouldn't be bearing in mind how the current centrist clique in government have been so relaxed about continuing George Osborne's two child benefit cap, a policy known to increase child poverty.
And it was Zahra Sultana voting against George Osborne's two child benefit cap that was the excuse for her having the Labour whip removed.
There is no disguising my contempt.
https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2022/october/headline_885099_en.html
And it was Zahra Sultana voting against George Osborne's two child benefit cap that was the excuse for her having the Labour whip removed.
She choose to start another party, rather than stay in Labour and fight. Unlike others. Nothing wrong with that, but she made a choice, she isn't some kind of political martyr.
She choose to start another party,
That was after she was kicked out of the Parliamentary Labour Party for voting against a nasty Tory policy which is known to increase child poverty. She wasn't elected to vote in support of Tory policies.
And yes, she has come to the conclusion that the "Labour" Party is lost, just like millions of other people.
It's now the party of shameless individuals like paedophile-friendly Peter Mandelson
There's a good summary of the Starmer cluster**** in the grauniad today. I particlularly like this quote from a 'senior labour figure'...
“Keir is highly unusual as a prime minister in giving the impression that whatever he personally thinks is none of your business.”
I guess this is what happens when we elect boring technocrats into high political office.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/19/keir-starmer-labour-leadership
That picture of John McDonell just reminds me of what the Labour party should have been.
It’s just a shame he was wise enough to not put himself through the pain of being leader. He’d have made a great PM.
He’s not the only Labour MP speaking out from inside the party. There are more Labour MPs speaking out where the government are getting policy wrong than there are Reform MPs (or Green Party MPs as it happens). Don’t forget that back bench MPs have stopped and amended policies already only 18 months in.
It’s just a shame he was wise enough to not put himself through the pain of being leader. He’d have made a great PM.
John McDonnell? He has tried to stand for Labour Party leader twice but failed to get enough nominations from other MPs to be on the ballot.
Apparently before the 2015 leadership election a small group of left-wing MPs got together, as they have always before leadership elections, to decide whose turn it was next, apparently Corbyn said "I guess it's my turn this time".
Obviously no one, including Corbyn himself, expected him to win. Which is why staunch centrists like Margaret Beckett were happy at the time to sign Corbyn's nomination papers, and make the election process look democratic, confident that he would stand no chance.
What they hadn't factored in was huge desire among the Labour Party membership for a change of direction and a radical alternative to neoliberalisn. It was indeed a reflection of how disconnected the New Labour control freaks were with their own members.
For the record I am not a huge John McDonnell fan. I used to be and I have heard him speak locally on multiple of occasions going back many years, but whilst I very strongly agree with his political positions I think his political analysis is sometimes poor, and imo he is reluctant to accept much left-wing self-criticism.
Besides what is he doing now? Just sitting on the Backbenches doing bugger-all too scared of having the Labour whip removed.
I meant post 2017. I'm still listening to him... just because you aren't doesn't mean he's saying and doing nothing.
I think most people would think £5.4 billion is a lot of money
That’s because it is. It all comes from us and I don’t see what’s wrong with the government doing all it can to not waste it. It’s not like the economy is a great place and we have a net surplus on government spending so can throw around a bit of largess
I don’t see what’s wrong with the government doing all it can to not waste it
Agreed. That could mean replacing the poor contracts the last government entered into with private landlords. It can mean speeding up the asylum system and helping successful applicants get employment sooner (and turning away failed applicants quicker). It can also mean sorting out our employment market more generally so fewer workers of all origins aren't having their incomes subsidised by the state. It doesn't have to mean making people live for 20 years with the fear of deportation hanging over their heads, and hanging over the heads of any children they might have in that time.
That’s because it is. It all comes from us and I don’t see what’s wrong with the government doing all it can to not waste it.
Selective quoting. Why @pca said was:
I think most people would think £5.4 billion is a lot of money, especially when the main beneficiaries are private landlords (juicing the UK property market further) and some of the most inept, grasping outsourcing companies around. It's certainly not asylum seekers living on 9 quid a day. But maybe normal people think this is a great use of public money and much better than, idk, child and adolescent mental health services or better buses or social housing.
There's a good summary of the Starmer cluster**** in the grauniad today. I particlularly like this quote from a 'senior labour figure'...
“Keir is highly unusual as a prime minister in giving the impression that whatever he personally thinks is none of your business.”
I guess this is what happens when we elect boring technocrats into high political office.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/19/keir-starmer-labour-leadership
The vultures are certainly circling as Crace has a similar article out today. I'm just really disappointed with Starmer and his mob. I voted for them without any real warmth but they seem absolutely incapable of hitting any notes. It shouldn't be that hard to produce something that makes people feel a bit happier but it's been non stop doom and gloom which plays straight in to Fartage's hands.
We need someone who can speak as well as McDonnell, regardless of what they are saying (to a point). He was a good friend to Fire Fighters after we'd fallen out with Labour and I've heard him speak plenty of times. He has the ability to lift the room and give people hope and that's exactly what we need atm. He certainly wouldn't put himself forward so who's out there?
Starmer and his clique are simply Tories who, with some justification, see the Labour Party as a better vehicle for their own career self-fulfilment than the Conservative Party which is chock-a-block with barristers and other professionals like themselves.
According to Wikipedia Keir Starmer joined the Labour Party Young Socialists when he was 16, so in 1978 or 1979, so either he has been playing a very, very long game, or rather than this all being some sort of cunning careerist plan something has shifted his opinions so he's become this fearful, timid leader who's bought into believing the narrative of austerity and the need to dance to the tune of the political right.
Given that the other major Labour government in my lifetime also was more right wing than a lot of Labour's traditional supporters would have liked it to be, it feels like the issue deserves more thought than writing it off as the fault of Tory sleeper agents.
I meant post 2017. I'm still listening to him... just because you aren't doesn't mean he's saying and doing nothing.
I am surprised that you are listening to him, he definitely represents the hard-left of the Labour Party, which is why politically there isn't much that I disagree with him on. Just to emphasize I did say:
whilst I very strongly agree with his political positions I think his political analysis is sometimes poor
To give an example many years ago when Tony Blair was PM I heard him speak at a small local meeting about the Left making a leadership bid for the party. What struck me more than anything else was his claim that should a socialist become Labour leader the Parliamentary Labour Party would fall into line and enthusiastically support them because, in McDonnell's precise words they were mostly, quote, "ideological air-heads".
I remember at the time being a little bit taken back but thinking "I guess it is probably true because he must know what is Labour parliamentary colleagues are like". Could McDonnell have been more wrong about anything?
And straight after the 2019 general election, again at a small local meeting, I heard McDonell claim that it was all the fault of social media, Facebook, or some other bollocks, for the disastrous election result, nothing to do with him or the Labour leadership of course. An impressive lack of self-awareness.
It used to be said that people moved right as they got older, and it seems that is still the case, but the difference now is that they can pretend otherwise to ease their conscience by denying the massive shift that has occurred in the overton window.
There are several things listed on wikipedia about SKS, especially about the "human rights" cases and causes he once fought that are clearly contrary to his current authoritarian use of power and legislation he has tried to push through parliament.
What he did when he was 16 is of no consequence to the person he has shown to be over the past 5 years.
According to Wikipedia Keir Starmer joined the Labour Party Young Socialists when he was 16, so in 1978 or 1979, so either he has been playing a very, very long game, or rather than this all being some sort of cunning careerist plan something has shifted his opinions.....
Almost certainly a combination of both I would have thought. You do realise that he was named after a founding member of the Labour Party don't you? Joining the Conservative Party when your name is Keir doesn't sound like the most obvious thing to do.
Yeah I fully accept that Starmer's politics have changed since he first joined the Labour Party, as far as I concerned he is now pretty much indistinguishable to a Tory politician, I doubt he was like that when he was 16.
So why has he remained in the Labour Party? After all to give another example Liz Truss was just like Keir Starmer brought up in a left-wing household and at a young age joined the LibDems as an anti-monarchy lefty.
When Truss's politics evolved, as did Starmer's, she did the obvious thing and joined the Tories. So why didn't Starmer? I will refer to my earlier answer :
Starmer and his clique are simply Tories who, with some justification, see the Labour Party as a better vehicle for their own career self-fulfilment than the Conservative Party which is chock-a-block with barristers and other professionals like themselves.
Starmer is the very definition of a political opportunist. Five years ago he was making "the moral case for socialism", today he is defending hard-right anti-immigrant and anti-refugee policies.
Guessing it would find it a step too far to join the tory party as presumably he spent most of his life hating them.
There are several things listed on wikipedia about SKS, especially about the "human rights" cases and causes he once fought
If you are a very bright and hard-working barrister and you *only* cared about getting your snout in the trough, then you'd specialise in tax or planning (where you can squeeze tons of cash from big corporate clients). You wouldn't go into human rights law if you didn't have some kind of interest for it because it's not where the money is.
But beyond that, I think Starmer would be technocratic and professional in the way he treated his work at rhe bar and in the CPS: he's a hired gun that's expected to represent his client as best he can within the bounds of the law, and the system doesn't work if everyone doesn't have their own advocate, but that doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with all his clients or that laws that came up in the cases should stay the same or be changed.
Edit: meaning he shouldn't take the credit for working for clients that did good things or the blame for clients that did bad things, and working in that area doesn't necessarily make you a saint or a demon...despite what the Daily Mail says.
Starmer is the very definition of a political opportunist. Five years ago he was making "the moral case for socialism", today he is defending hard-right anti-immigrant and anti-refugee policies.
It's what happens when a socialist enters the real world. Just a shame so many of them never make it.
It's what happens when a socialist enters the real world. Just a shame so many of them never make it.
You think that Sir Keir Starmer was a socialist 5 years ago? 🤣😂
It doesn't have to mean making people live for 20 years with the fear of deportation hanging over their heads, and hanging over the heads of any children they might have in that time.
You've been quite passionate about saying that all refugees should be given indefinite leave to remain because they may have built a life here and it would be inhumane to send them back to their home countries. Just out of interest, do you feel the same way about other visa holders?
For example, imagine two neighbours: one is Olha, a Ukrainian with a 5 year Skilled Worker visa. The other is Oleksandr, a Ukrainian who has been given refugee status. Is it inhumane to tell Oleksandr he may need to leave the UK if it safe to return to Ukraine (in a hypothetical future) but not inhumane to tell Olha she may need to leave the UK at the conclusion of her visa? Or do you think all visa holders should be entitled to indefinite leave to remain...? Or something else...?
Do I feel that someone who comes for work, study or for relationship or family reasons should be able to find it easier (and cheaper) to stay for good than under the current visa rules? Absolutely.
Do I feel that it is more important that we help refugees to live their new lives here, and stay for good? Yes.
People who have been forced out of their homes should be helped to settle here long term if that's what they feel they need to do. Return should be an option not something forced on them. I think we should be more welcoming to people who come here for work, love or to widen their lives as well, but they have chosen to spend time outside their previous country, rather than be forced out because they fear for their lives. So yes, I do think different rules for those who gain asylum here is fair. Their circumstances are quite different to other migrants. That doesn't mean that I think recent tightening of rules for visa holders are fair (I don't think they are).
Is it inhumane to tell Oleksandr he may need to leave the UK if it safe to return to Ukraine (in a hypothetical future) but not inhumane to tell Olha she may need to leave the UK at the conclusion of her visa? Or do you think all visa holders should be entitled to indefinite leave to remain...? Or something else...?
I think the normal timeline is you can apply for ILR after 5y and I see no strong reasons why it should be different for the two people.
FWIW the time line in the notoriously racist and insular Japan is that you had to wait 10y to apply for permanent residence though you could apply for citizenship (which obviously also gives you the right of permanent residence) after only 5 years. Citizenship there does normally require you to give up your original nationality and there are also tests of integration though nothing as formal and officious as in the UK - just a face to face interview, which will be in Japanese language. Whereas permanent residence is basically a box-ticking automatic process (that I went through without much in the way of language skills or demonstration of integration).
Return should be an option not something forced on them.
Hold on - but earlier you said it was inhumane because they might have built a life here. So might the other visa holder have done. Now you're shifting the emphasis to th reason why they came initially, not what has happened in the interim while they were here.
Why is it inhumane for the accepting community to say "we are willing and compelled to give you safety and protection while you are in danger, but you should expect and plan to return to your home country once you are no longer in danger"? What is the effect on the home country when people flee en masse and never return?
To reiterate: until we know the number of people that are presently affected, we have no idea how big a question this is. We could be talking about a handful of people or a gigantic number of people at the moment.
The "other visa holder" isn't here for the same reason. I'll repeat this just one more time, you can continue to pretend not to understand me if you wish...
People who flee a country, having their whole lives turned upside down, are forced to move away and live elsewhere... shouldn't then spend 20 years of their new lives living in fear that they will be forced to move on a second time.
People who flee a country, having their whole lives turned upside down, are forced to move away and live elsewhere... shouldn't then spend 20 years of their new lives living in fear that they will be forced to move on a second time.
Absolutely agree with this of course.
I would also say that anyone who obtains a legal residency visa through normal processes, and lives in a new country for 20 years, shouldn't then get kicked out without having the right to apply for permanent residency. Unless perhaps they have behaved in some heinous manner. Regardless of whether they came as an economic migrant or family member. After all, by this point they have already done far more to demonstrate a meaningful contribution to society than any natives have been required to.
Here is a good example of how not to deal with the threat that Reform UK poses to the Labour Party today.
Most voters will, quite rightly, not be concerned with what Nigel Farage was saying 45 years ago, or what his politics were when he was a teenager.
In the same way that they are unlikely to be bothered that as a teenager Sir Keir Starmer was possibly a socialist, it has absolutely no relevance to the present-day and present-day politics.
The only people likely to be bothered that Nigel Farage might have been a raving nazi at the age of 14 are never going to vote for him or his party anyway so it is a totally pointless and futile exercise.
A much better tactic for Starmer to deal with the current threat that Farage is posing Labour is to focus on what Farage is actually saying today.
But here lies the problem for Starmer and McSweeney, there is not a significant difference between what Farage is saying today and what Starmer is now also saying.
Attacking Farage for what he is alleged to have said aged 14 by someone else who was also a similar age at the time is likely to backfire imo because it strongly suggests that Starmer has nothing constructive to aim at Farage, I can see it actually boosting Farage's support.
The tactic seems to have come from the same source who thought that it would boost Starmer if Wes Streeting was publicly warned with regards to leadership ambitions and briefed against. That tactic spectacularly backfired and actually made Starmer much weaker. I suspect that Morgan McSweeney is behind both stupid tactics.
Labour MP suggests he would give up seat for Andy Burnham Commons return - Yahoo News UK https://share.google/qYisu02Ixqcpb4VHM
The MP said he had spoken to Mr Burnham as he complained about the Labour Government’s “quandary”.
