The Whehthefkawe tribe.
1 Like
I’d say the no right to complain tribe.
If one can’t be bothered to make the most trivial effort to participate in democracy then I’m not sure that one can complain about it.
5 Likes
Is that Autunoise patois?
Possibly.
I think the problem with Starmer was not just the number of times, but the fact that it wasn’t something that said what he thought it said to the public. I recall in some debate or interview the audience laughing after he said it and he got frustrated, seemingly not understanding that people weren’t laughing at his dad or his dad’s job, but because he said it yet again, which, for me at least, was another sign he didn’t really ‘get it’. Sidiq Khan has, if I’m remembering the correct person, made a lot over the years of his dad being a London bus driver, and that worked perfectly because people don’t need an explanation of what that involves, they understand, ditto, your grocer example. Everyone’s been driven by someone when they’ve got a bus, everyone’s bought apples from a greengrocer or whatever it was, but a toolmaker just didn’t resonate in the way he seemed to believe it did, which is perhaps why so many of these faux intellectual talking heads pointed it to it perhaps being more of a personal insecurity of his rather than a national one like had he said his dad was a binman or a toilet cleaner at Victoria Station.
…Which is a long way of saying you’re absolutely right, the personal story and connection is vital, but you have to be careful not to overplay your hand as you’ll end up being ridiculed. I still say some of the musical remixes of Theresa May’s infamous ‘fields of wheat’ comment would’ve gone down a treat on a Friday night at Ministry of Sound…
1 Like
Why would I want to vote for any of the parties if I don’t believe in anything they say?
I pay my taxes, contribute to society and live my life.
Democracy - a system of government where the power to rule belongs to the citizens.
Really?
Well, delegated to politicians, anyway.
cf. Tony Benn’s five tests
Your comment of ‘Really?’ infers to me that you will be welcoming Burham’s intention to try & change the current & very undemocratic UK voting system, so that must be one part of his speech that you approved of…?
For me there was lot more to like in his speech. In all the years I’ve been politically active (i.e. actually voting rather than moaning) I don’t recall any other party leader or PM saying anything approaching the hope of his honest delivery.
Given his very recent bereavement I had no issue with him mentioning the influence of his father several times. I suspect he won’t keep on repeating it, unlike his predecessor.
5 Likes
Thanks for the link which enabled me to read this man’s speech.
Fingers crossed he is one of the good guys, certainly presented himself and his ideas very well! 
1 Like
I for one would be happy to pay a ‘little’ more in my taxes if it helps the purse! I also like his ideas on being more together with other parties on certain pressing issues.
On another note has anyone seen The Wargame? Dramatised 4 parter of some very chilling scenarios affecting the UK. Acted by Nicola Sturgeon, Penny Mordant, Michael Gove as prime minister but to name a few. Very good if you can get it! I’m in the uk and watched on NOW. Recommend the watch!
Whilst I believe that Burnham is probably not a bad bloke, he does seem rather keen that everyone should like him. His performance thus far has been pretty big on optics, whilst largely ignoring the giant welfare elephant in the room. Most people do not mind paying taxes for distribution to worthy causes, but funding generations of people with no wish to work, is not one of them. Sadly Mr Burnham is unlikely to tackle this particular problem, as many of these people are within his parties voter base.
He is certainly a far preferable option than Clacton’s own resident snake oil salesman, but I fear that he will find himself out of power at the next General Election. Such policies as potentially declaring a mansion tax on properties of £1.5 million is unlikely to sit well with most residents in London and The South, particularly when some small apartments will fall foul of this stealth tax.
As Winston Churchill so astutely said “ Trying to tax a nation into prosperity is like a man standing inside a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle “ History has shown that if a government makes taxation too punitive, many of it’s entrepreneurs and wealthy people, who are already carrying a high tax burden, will simply leave.
Whilst I sincerely hope that Andy Burnham does prove to be a good Prime Minister, I fear that the trade unions and the extreme left of his party will ultimately bring about his demise.
1 Like
Well then there won’t be many wealthy people left in France. Where will they all go? Thankfully there are a number of wealthy people who are happy to be taxed for the general good. I think that large numbers of Reform voters will be in the position you describe as “not wanting to work”.
1 Like
That seems a bit harsh on pensioners, by far the largest group of benefits recipients in the UK. Do you expect them to go out to work?
3 Likes
Only so many can go to B&Q, you’d have to find a lot of jobs for a lot of older people. I don’t think @Jamesdaintith has really thought his plan through.
Dear Plod, I am most certainly not including old age pensioners, of which I am one myself, within the problem area within the benefits welfare system. I imagine that you, like myself, have made the appropriate National Insurance contributions during your working career, such that your State Pension largely represent the repayment of the contributions you have made.
The fact remains that there are extremely large numbers of people who have never worked in their lives, without any valid reason not to do so. I personally have no issue with taxes supporting people who are unable to work, but I find it abhorrent to be paying benefits for people who simply cannot be bothered to engage in honest toil.
2 Likes
If they want to reduce the state pension bill, they could start with taking it away from anyone with a public pension above a certain threshold.
It’s asking a lot of the tax payer to cover both for them…
I’m curious what sort of number that would be, do you have a link?
I come from a fairly deprived area and it looks to me that it’s quite difficult to spend your life on benefits unless you have a serious medical condition. Clearly that’s just anecdotal on my part but perhaps you have some statistics?
1 Like
Fixed that for you and I don’t have a problem with it.
1 Like
Perhaps you fixed it for yourself but that is not what I am suggesting. 
The tax payer isn’t paying twice for people with private pensions.
It will ultimately become means tested for everyone, but public sectors workers getting both is crazy!
I think you need to be careful in your use of “extremely large numbers”. It’s an absolutely unknown statistic I should think.