Forum Topic

Hallelujah - my redeemer Burnham Cometh

Unless there is a big surprise from Reform in his own backyard, it looks as if we will soon have a new Labour PM in the form of 'Mr Manchester' Andy Burnham when he is elected in the Makerfield constituency and his own Party then forces Kier Starmer out.Well at lease he cannot be criticised for lack of experience in politics because since he left Cambridge he has never had what some people (me !) would say is a 'proper job'.He has been a Labour advisor, Councillor, MP, Minister and Mayor.But does he know what it is like to compete for and hold down a role in the private or even the public sector and have to competitively compete in the market place of life ?And he does seem to have changed his mind over social issues, most notably gender identification.Some good points from Andrew Neil in the MailOnline.https://www.dailymail.com/debate/article-15859349/ANDREW-NEIL-real-beef-Streeting-Burnham-promoting-dreary-socialist-agenda-70s.html(Sorry Mr Ainsworth. Could not find anything pertinent on this issue from your beloved Guardian !)'My beef with the Streetings and Burnhams of the Labour Party – indeed with the current Leftward drift of the party as a whole – is how they propose to make us more equal: higher taxes – especially on the wealth creators – more welfare, more government ownership and more regulation. In short, the same dreary socialist concoction that brought us to our knees when Labour was in power in the 1970s.I recently suggested Labour should rebadge itself the Welfare Party. But perhaps the Back-to-the-Future Party would be more appropriate.Burnham is especially guilty of this. In the Makerfield by-election, which he hopes will be his springboard to the Labour leadership, it’s almost as if he’s running against Margaret Thatcher and wants to return us to a mythical pre-Thatcherite idyll.Even though she stepped down as Prime Minister 36 years ago (and died 13 years ago) she gets it in the neck from Burnham for all the ills of the constituency for which he has suddenly decided he wants to be MP'.By railing against ‘40 years of Thatcherite neoliberalism’ he (Burnham) is burnishing his credentials with the Labour Left, which has always despaired that so little was done to reverse the Thatcher revolution during the Blairite era.He intends to put that right. In his response to Blair’s mini-manifesto he argued for a ‘very interventionist’ government with ‘strong public control and direction’ over investment and key industries such as transport, energy and even housing – the antithesis of the New Labour years. And all in the name of a more equal society.He intends to put that right. In his response to Blair’s mini-manifesto he argued for a ‘very interventionist’ government with ‘strong public control and direction’ over investment and key industries such as transport, energy and even housing – the antithesis of the New Labour years. And all in the name of a more equal society.So let’s look at how that might work out. But before we do, a word about inequality. Left-wing rhetoric increasingly implies that the rich and well-paid barely pay any taxes at all.Nothing could be further from the truth. Our tax receipts are more dependent on a small number of the well-off than almost any other advanced economy.The top 10 per cent of income-earners stump up 60 per cent of all income tax revenues. The top 1 per cent pay 30 per cent and the richest 0.1 per cent account for 11 per cent – which is a bigger share of income tax receipts than the lowest 50 per cent of earners contribute.'I wonder how it will all work out ?

John Hawkes ● 23d78 Comments

"Do you think that most immigrants currently given IRL status would pass the education requirement in Maths and English or the equivalent aptitude tests?""The vast majority of immigrants currently granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) can easily pass the required English standards, while Maths is not required for settlement.The UK government does not test mathematical ability for ILR. For English, the bar has recently been raised, meaning standard applicants already possess a very high command of the language.English Language Realities for ILRMandatory Higher Standards: To get ILR, standard applicants aged 18–64 must pass a Home Office-approved secure English language test (SELT). The standard has been elevated from a basic B1 level to a strict CEFR B2 level (equivalent to an A-Level standard of English fluency).Pre-vetted Work/Study Routes: A massive portion of those reaching ILR status come from Skilled Worker visas. Since new skilled work rules require immigrants to meet high-level professional standards (RQF Level 6 or degree-equivalent jobs), these individuals are highly educated professionals who already use advanced English daily.Degree Holders: Anyone who holds a bachelor’s, master’s, or PhD degree taught or researched in English automatically satisfies the requirement. This covers most former international students transitioning to settlement""Background checks could be a problem because many might have destroyed their documents.""Many"?You seem to assume that there are a high proportion of illegal immigrants. It is not so.Even getting ILR status would be very difficult if someone had destroyed their documents. So reaching the situation of needing background checks for fire service jobs are pretty unlikely (in my opinion).I was lucky. No exams needed, just being born. All I had to do is have my father come back demobbed from a few months in the postwar occupation of Germany, and return to my mother who had not seen him for at least 3 years, as I understand it.

David Ainsworth ● 14d

Mr Brigo'It's already perfectly clear John, just seemingly not to you. You come across as quite paranoid and addled occasionally.Perhaps it explains a lot'.And as your post below shows you come across as rude and prone to posting very personal insults, that you alone seem to find amusing.What it does not explain is how someone like you can advertise your company 'BrigoPT in the following faux 'sensitive' terms - https://www.brigopt.com/about/"I started BrigoPT in 2015 with a simple belief: every woman deserves to feel strong, confident, and at home in her own body"."What began as one-to-one training has grown into something much bigger — a community of women who want to feel good in their bodies, without fad diets or unrealistic fitness rules".You describe yourself as a "Body Transformation Coach".Does one need training to perform this role ?Do you need to be registered in some way or do people have to take you and what you say at your word and as they find you ?Any way, are you willing to answer the questions and points I raised earlier (see below) or is perhaps your intellect less toned than your biceps ?!----------------------------------------------------------Posted by: John HawkesDate/Time: 07/06/26 12:40:00Mr Brigo'perhaps you need to ease off on the weed a little, can't be too good for your 'condition' either.tinkle, tinkle'Obviously another example of your biting and sarcastic wit.I have never taken 'weed' or any form of illicit drug in my life ?Have you ?And would you do me the consideration of explaining what you  understand my 'condition' to be ?And what is meant by the postscript 'tinkle, tinkle' ?I am sure you would like to make your comment perfectly clear.

John Hawkes ● 15d

Mr AinsworthYou answer Mr Rose's opinion - "It is just that he (Starmer) has no aptitude for the job and no coherent plan for the country, and neither have any of his colleagues' with a valid comment - 'Possibly so, and who do you think may have aptitude for the job and a coherent plan for the country?'In my view the electorate have three main concerns.1) Immigration and policy bias (eg in policing) in favour of non-white minorities.2) A faltering economy for which Labour and its Chancellor Reeves are introducing policies that penalise the only group s that will make it grow - namely businesses large and small.3) The ever increasing number of people not working but claiming welfare benefits, often on spurious 'mental health issue' grounds. Most concerning is the group of young people  involved - the Neets. Personally I think Reform might tackle the first issue as its policies on such seem most in tune with majority public opinion.Regarding the other two, certainly Labour will not address them with the current cohort of MPs.Chancellor Reeves modest proposals to cut the benefit bills were dropped as Labour MPs revolted against them.'Chancellor Rachel Reeves proposed several significant changes to benefits, which are expected to have a substantial impact on millions of claimants. Here are the key proposals:Scrapping the two-child benefit limit: This change will allow families to claim universal credit and tax credits for their third, fourth, and other children, potentially increasing their average benefits by £5,310 by 2029-30. Cuts to personal independence payment (PIP): The eligibility for PIP will be tightened, resulting in fewer claimants being eligible. Halving of universal credit health benefits: New claimants will see their health benefits halved in 2026 and then frozen until 2030. Crackdown on benefits fraud: The government plans to save £1.2bn by cracking down on benefits fraud and overpayments across universal credit and pensions. National insurance on salary-sacrificed pension contributions: From April 2029, national insurance will be charged on salary-sacrificed pension contributions above an annual £2,000 threshold. These changes are part of the government's broader fiscal strategy and aim to address the challenges of welfare spending while ensuring that benefits are directed to those who need them most'.And what a revealing comment from the Mandelson Papers -"McFadden to Mandelson: 'Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits'.What hope !  😟

John Hawkes ● 19d