Best Of
Re: What a difference 13 months makes – politicalbetting.com
Not just that, the short term happiness is outweighed by long term pain. It's sacrificing the national interest for the sake of a headline.Good morning, everyone.Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Burnham's either disingenuous or a bloody fool.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Re: What a difference 13 months makes – politicalbetting.com
Good morning, everyone.Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Burnham's either disingenuous or a bloody fool.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Re: What a difference 13 months makes – politicalbetting.com
Good morning, everyone.Isn't that a false dichotomy?
Burnham's either disingenuous or a bloody fool.
(And I've been saying this for months.)
ydoethur
2
Re: What a difference 13 months makes – politicalbetting.com
Iran being bombed to force them to make a deal.That's very unkind. I've known some very charming idiots.
What failed last time will work this time !
Trump and Hesgeth are idiots.
ydoethur
2
Re: What a difference 13 months makes – politicalbetting.com
That's very perceptive. And if this is a new promise, does it indicate all is not quite so rosy in the Makerfield garden for Burnham?He's probably saying this because the female vote in Makerfield is likely to be receptive to him, whereas Reform and Restore are likely to be doing slightly better with men.That's the exact opposite of what we should be spending money on.
Oliver Kamm
@OliverKamm
Ludicrous, and without a shred of justification or principle. The cause of Waspi women is a prime example of a sectional interest overriding the public good.
Quote Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher
NEW: Andy Burnham has hinted at a new multibillion-pound spending commitment if he becomes PM, saying that more than 3.5mn women “deserve” compensation over what he regards as a pension scandal
https://x.com/OliverKamm/status/2064802815067701757
He must be trying to win over a few more votes of older women in Makerfield.
Re: What a difference 13 months makes – politicalbetting.com
Won’t handing over money the country can’t afford to a group of women who unless they were living on Mars should have known about the pension changes just seriously pxss off a lot of voters who are getting zip !
I’m beginning to think Starmer should stay on as PM .
I’m beginning to think Starmer should stay on as PM .
nico67
4
Re: What a difference 13 months makes – politicalbetting.com
One for the economics nerds- there's a growing case that Labour (Rachel Reeves) are generating a lot of productivity growth.
Currently some debate about where the growth is coming from. Is it AI? Is it fewer workers in retail/hospitality? But it looks real.
https://www.ft.com/content/161a60ae-130d-42e1-a5c9-886d98f28d3d?syn-25a6b1a6=1
I do worry that Andy Burnham may undo much of the economic policy which is starting to bear fruit.
Currently some debate about where the growth is coming from. Is it AI? Is it fewer workers in retail/hospitality? But it looks real.
https://www.ft.com/content/161a60ae-130d-42e1-a5c9-886d98f28d3d?syn-25a6b1a6=1
I do worry that Andy Burnham may undo much of the economic policy which is starting to bear fruit.
rkrkrk
2
Re: What a difference 13 months makes – politicalbetting.com
No it just indicates he's an idiot who caves too easily to political pressure.That's very perceptive. And if this is a new promise, does it indicate all is not quite so rosy in the Makerfield garden for Burnham?He's probably saying this because the female vote in Makerfield is likely to be receptive to him, whereas Reform and Restore are likely to be doing slightly better with men.That's the exact opposite of what we should be spending money on.
Oliver Kamm
@OliverKamm
Ludicrous, and without a shred of justification or principle. The cause of Waspi women is a prime example of a sectional interest overriding the public good.
Quote Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher
NEW: Andy Burnham has hinted at a new multibillion-pound spending commitment if he becomes PM, saying that more than 3.5mn women “deserve” compensation over what he regards as a pension scandal
https://x.com/OliverKamm/status/2064802815067701757
He must be trying to win over a few more votes of older women in Makerfield.
Ratters
1
Re: What a difference 13 months makes – politicalbetting.com
It's not just that we can't afford it. It's that this group has no justified claim at all for any money.Is Andy Burnham serious? I'm very concerned."...This is genuinely worrying. I've gone on the record on a number of occasions to acknowledge @AndyBurnhamGM's real bipartisan strengths. I've admired him since we 'teamed up' (@ConHome and him) to unsuccessfully oppose the disastrous Lansley NhS reforms. He was more interested in principle than party then and I still see so much of that in him today.
Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
@montie
But there is no money left! We have no operable military. The young need affordable housing and the private sector won't supply enough of it. We need radical welfare reform (which won't save money in the short-term). A higher tax burden will accelerate Rachel Reeves' brain drain. Sending billions to any other causes is completely unaffordable. Is Andy Burnham serious? I'm very concerned..."
Tim Montgomerie @montie https://x.com/montie/status/2064824259235463343#m
Re: What a difference 13 months makes – politicalbetting.com
You must admit, it's a refreshingly honest slogan.Re WASPI - remember the report recommended compensation of £1,000 to £2,950 each.If its bad Burnham will make it worse.
But the women actually want up to £50,000 each (ie 5 years of pension).
What are the odds that if Burnham caves and gives them the £2,950 then they'll go back to Court and say Govt has admitted liability so we should now get the full £50,000.
The £2,950 is completely wrong but in overall scheme of things it's not huge and the Govt could pay it as a one-off.
But £50,000 each is obviously a massively different order of magnitude.
rcs1000
1