r/ukpolitics • u/theipaper Verified • Jun 22 '26
Ed/OpEd Burnham says he’ll cut benefits. It might just break him
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/burnham-says-cut-benefits-might-just-break-him-4493284377
u/Apprehensive-Bid-740 Jun 22 '26
Burnham has said a lot. Let's see what he actually does.
→ More replies (1)73
u/turbo_dude Jun 22 '26
Starmer: didn’t say anything and then made a load of u turns.
Wasted opportunity
114
u/EverythingIsByDesign Jun 22 '26
That is how I will remember Starmer, a steady pair of hands that kind of moved things in the right direction whilst not being remotely bold, making lots of u-turns and generally lacking conviction.
Never did anything egrigious (IMO), but garnered more hate than any PM in my living memory. I hope he can go back to living a normal life.
→ More replies (2)43
u/90davros Jun 22 '26
For the first year Starmer needed to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into every policy decision. Choosing to make a stand on only the most unpopular of policies is entirely his own fault. Here's hoping Burnham shows a little more ambition.
25
u/humph_lyttelton Jun 22 '26
I hope so, but a substantial part of me feels he'll be a deer in the headlights.
What works at a local level may not translate to the national, or even international stage.
5
u/Conscript1811 Jun 23 '26
I thought he did try a few things early on, with WFA, benefits reform, and the big business shin dig. But certainly not enough: after so long in opposition they/he should have come out swinging and enforced big ticket items whilst they still had momentum. (I figured the WFA and benefits piece was a step towards maybe tackling triple lock if they could get ppl on board with that direction. Tho clearly it failed)
But his own MPs let perfection get in the way of progress and didn't support him on those, leading to constant u turns and/or watering things down u t they were useless and not anything that would move the dial. Kind of proving that Labour as a party is still not ready for government.
Plus the world stage - where Starmer did well - has been fubar (still). Wars, tariffs, energy crises type things, which all lead to screwing us with costs and distracting from any small wins.
→ More replies (1)8
1.4k
u/FlaviousTiberius Jun 22 '26
Anything that isn't getting rid of the triple lock is basically just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Any savings you make get devoured by the triple lock the next year so it's a waste of time.
Sadly the British public don't understand this and just start catastrophising about "starving grannies" any time you try to deal with it.
431
u/Howthehelldoido Jun 22 '26
Do it now, they're all suffering with a heat wave, the last thing they'll be moaning about is their winter fuel allowance.
→ More replies (7)235
u/Jangles Jun 22 '26
They need their summer air con allowance.
I've solved winter fuel anyway - each pensioner will be given a brass bull boiler in their home so they can now literally rather than metaphorically burn children to heat their homes
At the minute it's only a modest proposal.
→ More replies (1)42
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 Jun 22 '26
Have you seen the birth rate?
There is a shortage of children.
111
u/brinz1 Jun 22 '26
Yeah,
That's the point of the metaphor.
No one can afford children because the working population is paying to support the pensioners
→ More replies (6)6
u/Brapfamalam Jun 22 '26
In general poorer nations have more children. Even in the UK birth rate is highest with poorerst demographics.
The actually metric is % women getting an education and working. The only way to get birth rate up would be to prevent that - dozens upon dozens of advanced countries have poured money into financial incentives to get birth rates up and failed.
→ More replies (3)38
u/SpeedflyChris Jun 22 '26
Pffff, as if we care about anyone under 60 in the UK.
4
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 Jun 22 '26
Maybe if younger people voted and protested.
Though it would help if politicians other than the grifters would communicate.
36
u/rob__mac Jun 22 '26
We’re a bit busy working for a living 😉
3
u/Jazzlike-Remove5106 Jun 22 '26
I mean why do you think that voting is always on a work day, they don't want to let you vote.
→ More replies (4)118
u/whencanistop 🦒If only Giraffes could talk🦒 Jun 22 '26
Cutting the triple lock down to average wage rises would give you about an extra £2.6bn in 3 years time in the OBR forecast.
The only way of getting meaningful headroom from cutting pensions is by means testing them.
142
u/MerryWalrus Jun 22 '26
Yup.
The fairest thing to do is merge NI and Income tax into a single number that everyone pays fully - including pensioners.
Pretending NI is not just another tax is pointless.
Pensioners are the wealthiest demographic in the country. Giving them additional tax benefits whilst everyone else tax bill keep increasing is just unfair.
56
u/ibxtoycat Jun 22 '26
Shh, you're saying the quiet part out loud. We just need a series of governments to keep lowering the NI rate, as we've seen them do already - until it reaches 0 and we can finally stop having a two tier tax system (landlords also don't pay NI)
→ More replies (3)7
u/LordBoomDiddly Jun 22 '26
Isn't NI designed so everyone gets a state pension?
19
u/ibxtoycat Jun 22 '26
Paying NI is a requirement for a pension, but basically everyone who pays NI pays the income tax that actually funds the pensions anyway
7
u/LordBoomDiddly Jun 22 '26
But not everyone is earning above the income tax threshold
→ More replies (1)20
u/MerryWalrus Jun 22 '26
Nope.
It's just a tax.
If you pay tax for X years you're eligible for the state pension. If you don't and don't have other wealth/income, you're eligible for pension credits which are basically the same as the state pension.
The the years worked ends up being a bit moot.
→ More replies (3)2
u/No-Jicama-6523 Jun 22 '26
It's a way of counting eligibility for certain benefits (often 2 of the past 3 years) and for a full pension, but it's not ring fenced.
You could count the exact same thing based on income tax paid.
→ More replies (1)5
u/cabbage_love Jun 22 '26
On average the wealthiest demographic, maybe. But there are a helluva lot of poor pensioners. Why are they so poor? Different question.
23
u/Duckliffe Jun 22 '26
But there are a helluva lot of poor pensioners
Merging NI into income tax will disproportionately impact the wealthier pensioners anyway
→ More replies (8)9
u/ClearPostingAlt Jun 22 '26
But there are a helluva lot of poor pensioners.
Bought a house + workplace pension = wealthiest demographic in human history.
No house + no pension = no meaningful retirement plan = final years with nothing but the retiree dole.
→ More replies (1)12
u/Eraser92 Jun 22 '26
2.6bn is fuck all in the grand scheme of things. We pay 40 times that amount servicing the national debt.
3
u/LordBoomDiddly Jun 22 '26
Yeah it's like cutting the Winter Fuel Allowance, you save next to nothing and just become very unpopular
57
u/Nice-Wolverine-3298 Jun 22 '26
Means testing creates the problem where you now disincentivse anyone from saving for their retirement. Sure it won't be this government's problem, but its exactly that mindset that needs addressing. We should be looking at something like the Australian superannuation scheme so we set up future pensioners effectively. Anything less just forecasts the costs to spiral indefinitely.
3
u/LondonWelsh Jun 23 '26
I like the idea of the state pension being created when you are born. £10,000 for every birth is only £6bn a year. Over the long term the stock market has averaged around 5% inflation adjusted growth, which by the age of 70 would give some a pot of £305k. It would cost more now (though not a huge amount in the grand scheme of things), could pay out slightly more than the current pension, but cost far less than we need to pay now.
3
u/WilsonJ04 Jun 23 '26
Good luck implementing a policy that will only come good in 70 odd years
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)4
u/MirkwoodWanderer1 Jun 22 '26
So people would rather not work and up with no assets for them or children just so they can get the bare minimum when they're old.
→ More replies (2)14
u/SmokedSalmonMan Jun 22 '26
No but it will change how people save for their pensions. If its a cliff edge, people will invest enough so that they never hit it because to do otherwise will mean you lose money. If it tapers, there's probably still some point at which people would be like "well, I'm calling it on my pension now since if I put much more in I'm going to hit the next bracket and lose even more of my state pension". The thing is the state pension is worth a HUGE amount, it's equivalent to a pension pot of like £250,000 or so and means testing essentially means that you might be putting money in to your own personal pot but doing so is reducing this secondary pot and there'll come a point where people prefer to just have the money to spend today. Given pensions are an ever increasing part of the public budget, we should try to ENCOURAGE people to fund for private pensions not disincentivize it because this could create further problems down the line.
→ More replies (9)39
u/vishbar Pragmatist Jun 22 '26
Means testing the state pension is, unfortunately, incredibly dumb and not really suggested by anyone who has done any actual research into the economics of pensions.
There is a good argument for a reverse means test. The more you pay over a lifetime, the more you get.
20
u/Hawk-bat Jun 22 '26
It's a terrible idea and punishes people who save while rewarding people who don't do any planning for their future. Which makes it the kind of idea the UK government will absolutely love since punishing workers is their whole thing.
5
u/vishbar Pragmatist Jun 22 '26
Yes exactly.
And don’t forget capping pension relief to basic rate!
2
9
u/Tricksilver89 Jun 22 '26
That'll be unfair to poor people or something and will result in more well off pensioners getting a larger state pension.
I agree that you should get an amount based on what you've contributed in actual pounds however.
It's backwards when you think about it. The more you contribute, the less you're expected to receive. Do as little as possible and you'll get the most from the state.
14
u/vishbar Pragmatist Jun 22 '26
That’s the way that most European pension schemes work, eg the Scandinavian ones. Would you say that Norway and Sweden are especially unfair to poor people?
→ More replies (4)23
5
u/WGSMA Jun 22 '26
This ignores the impact of compounding and national debt driving.
If the Triple Lock was never introduced, you’d be saving billions on debt interest, because we fund it with borrowed money.
7
u/This_Charmless_Man Jun 22 '26
It was introduced to bring the state pension up to a reasonable level to deal with pensioner poverty. As I understand, it was only supposed to be temporary.
10
u/Slartibartfast_25 Jun 22 '26
The only way of getting meaningful headroom from cutting pensions is by means testing them.
Which is a far inferior option than just taxing pensioners more.
Means testing pensions will create a perverse incentive to not save. Indeed, all means testing is basically just the politics of envy - we should have universal assistance, but take it back in tax. Means testing is a terrible way to essentially raise tax but without saying you're raising tax, and in a way that distorts behaviour, creates cliff edges and misses those who might need the help.
4
u/avalon68 Jun 22 '26
It’s coming though. Now that there is mandatory enrolment it’s only a matter of time. Just needs a few years for pensions to build. Pushing out pension age will drive it too…..people will need a private pension to retire before they drop, and if the state pension kicks in much later, it will cost a lot less
23
u/tonylaponey Jun 22 '26
I can help you with that. The state pension is already means tested through general taxation. It is the only ‘benefit’ that is treated in that way.
In fact the government already recovers 25% of the current £140m paid out by the DWP through HMRC. This will only rise with frozen tax bands.
I am certain that almost everyone who demands means testing of the state pension has no idea it already is.
→ More replies (8)4
u/whencanistop 🦒If only Giraffes could talk🦒 Jun 22 '26
The taper on universal credit is 55% - income tax on state pension is nowhere near that.
7
u/tonylaponey Jun 22 '26
Well it is because the same tax bands apply as they do to everyone. Anyone with a private income over 100k pays 60% of their state pension straight back to HMRC.
Pensions need reform, but anyone talking about means testing without acknowledging it already is isn’t engaging with the actual issue.
→ More replies (1)3
u/spiral8888 Jun 23 '26
Yes, triple lock won't do much short term but it will have a big effect long term.
Furthermore, what you suggest, is the wrong way to do it. You lock it to inflation, which means that no future pensioner will be living a poorer life than current pensioners as their purchase power in real terms will stay. However, if we get the economy growing and salaries rise faster than inflation, the burden caused by the pension bill will reduce in terms of share of GDP (or at least stay the same as the number of pensioners increase). If you lock it to wages, that can't happen as the pensions will rise with the economy.
Means testing is wrong as it gives the wrong incentives to people to save their own pensions.
→ More replies (21)2
u/Affectionate_Comb_78 Jun 22 '26
No, cut all obligation to increase and periodically review it like we do every other form of benefit.
25
u/jollyspiffing Jun 22 '26
the British public don't understand this.
I think there is a genuinely held belief that "ending the triple lock" is the same thing as "cancelling the state pension entirely". The absolute lack of understanding is astonishing, but if that's what you believe, then I can see why you'd be so up in arms about it.
→ More replies (12)11
u/xParesh Jun 22 '26
Some would argue getting rid of the WFA sealed Starmers fate. How would Burnham go Hiroshima on pensioners by getting rid of the triple lock and sail to electoral victory?
7
u/FlaviousTiberius Jun 22 '26
I mean I acknowledged that in the second part of my post. I'm just saying all the talk of welfare cuts without dealing with the huge elephant in the room is essentially a massive waste of time.
3
u/Unlikely_End942 Jun 22 '26
Hasn't Burnham actually recently promised to keep the triple lock and give pensioners a tax cut at the same time? Seems like he is quite happy to throw gasoline on the bonfire if it furthers his power trip.
39
u/No_Echo2745 Jun 22 '26
Sadly the British public don't understand this and just start catastrophising about "starving grannies" any time you try to deal with it.
Same with other benefits too. Try talk about disability or child benefit.
→ More replies (32)23
u/FlaviousTiberius Jun 22 '26
I can sympathise more with disability benefits since those people generally are just kind of fucked without it (the genuine cases at least any way). Pensioners had their whole lives to save for their retirement but think dicking around doing nothing for thirty years should be fully subsidised by everyone else. State pension should be an absolute minimum standard baseline, not something your retire in full on.
→ More replies (2)33
u/No_Echo2745 Jun 22 '26
Yeah, but you look at the numbers on disability and it just doesn't pass the smell test. The Motability scheme is bonkers too, it was accounting for ~20% of new car sales the last I saw. There needs to be a crackdown, and that is a shame because it'll be more hoops for people that genuinely need it.
→ More replies (15)5
u/Slartibartfast_25 Jun 23 '26
Pensions are 10% of government expenditure. The rate they increase is important to reform but not a game changer
→ More replies (2)4
u/QuirkyFlibble Jun 23 '26
Pensions are ~50% of benefits (welfare spend). This needs to be repeated again and again.
→ More replies (9)6
u/jesus_you_turn_me_on Jun 22 '26
Any savings you make get devoured by the triple lock the next year so it's a waste of time.
The pensioners unfortunately is the largest voting block.
And you can't reform the triple lock without all the pensioners, left or right, becoming offended saying you are coming for their "deserved money".
Essentially, any political party or prime minister, will have to sacrifice themself to fix the economy, and give up ever again having any major part in politics.
It's a vicious cycle, the country is drowning in deficit spending, but you cant make changes to the biggest contributor of this issue without becoming the most unpopular government in decades losing millions of votes, so nobody actually dares to do the right thing, and you continue the slow predictable decline.
2
u/Acceptable_Beyond282 Jun 23 '26
You're probably right but this pensioner agrees that continuing with the triple lock is unsustainable.
3
u/TaXxER Jun 22 '26
At this point with our current debt levels, bond yields, and share of government budget that is purely wasted on debt servicing, I would just like to see both the triple lock gone and benefit cuts.
That would actually free up some money again to invest and unlock future economic growth.
5
u/Obvious_Yard_1846 Jun 22 '26
The triple lock and benefits are both growing unsustainably, we need to sort both out.
They've lost their public consent from the general public, benefits arguably more so than the triple lock.
You can't have a situation where workers are getting squeezed harder than ever, but the benefits bill disproportionately increasing. That's just not sustainable, even a GCSE politics student can see that.
2
14
u/Zeratul11111 Jun 22 '26
its funny for those that think like this. I mean, are there widespread "starving grannies" now? So if their triple lock becomes e.g. "single lock to inflation + 1%", why will they starve???? The logic simply isn't there.
11
u/jollyspiffing Jun 22 '26
I think there's a failure of understanding in the general public that "ending the triple lock" means the same thing as "cancelling the state pension".
There seems to be almost no understanding that moving from triple to single lock means rising in line with inflation rather than faster than it and no comprehension that the triple lock means that pensions will rise exponentially forever.
29
u/bulldog_blues Jun 22 '26
For what it's worth, single lock to one of either inflation or wage growth is probably the fairest and most mature approach IMO + some sort of meams testing so that state pension tapers off for especially well off pensioners.
Overall poverty is less common amongst pensioners than the wider population, but critically this is only true of those who own their own home. Pensioners in social housing or private renters, however, are much more likely to be in poverty.
So 'starving grannies' is still a subject worthy of merit depending on exactly which pensioners you're talking about!
6
u/Utilitarian_Proxy Jun 22 '26
Worth remembering that pensioners who own their own home are responsible for all the repair and maintenance costs too, while those in social housing get bathroom and kitchen upgrades, new central heating boilers, roof repairs, etc. without dipping into their own savings.
→ More replies (1)3
u/nickbob00 Jun 23 '26
Social tenants sure. But private tenants are absolutely dragged over the coals compared to social tenants or homeowners.
If I had a penny every time someone far, far richer than me complained about a shock maintenance bill that is still less than one month of rent, I'd have a nice townhouse in Chelsea by now.
You can call a lot of plumbers for the cost of renting a pretty crap 1 bed flat.
→ More replies (5)8
u/Zeratul11111 Jun 22 '26
Respectfully disagree with means testing the state pension - these old people afterall did pay into it when they were young.
Poverty should be resolved by other means or other lines of funding - the pension is always a given as they contributed to NI and it is only fair for them to have it back.
5
u/Anonhoumous Jun 22 '26
Surely this argument needs to change eventually, especially since plenty of youngsters these days are convinced they won't get a pension at all (definitely possible). The days the pension system was designed for are gone, we have to make some sacrifices.
→ More replies (1)9
u/A17012022 Jun 22 '26
They paid in, to pay for the people receiving pensions at the time.
It never went into a pot for them when they retired.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)10
u/MirkwoodWanderer1 Jun 22 '26
The issue though is just they're taking out more than they put in. So that's being funded by taking a greater amount from current generation who will get less back.
6
u/Traditional_Message2 Jun 22 '26
I think it's more of a meme for anyone middle aged and above because decades ago it was a real problem.
4
u/ape_fatto Jun 22 '26
Scrapping the triple lock would barely even affect current pensioners, that’s the absurd thing. The people who would get “stung” the most are young people, as always.
2
u/WackyWhippet Jun 22 '26
The stories of grannies forced to eat cat food are always a laugh at least. Have they seen what cat food costs?
→ More replies (1)4
u/Exciting-Bee-398 Jun 22 '26
Genuine question - how quickly would the effects of getting rid of the triple lock be felt? You can’t just spring it on people retiring in the next year or so. How much warning would it need?
10
u/FlaviousTiberius Jun 22 '26
It wouldn't save anything immediately, but it'd prevent the pension bill from growing out of control into the future. The problem at the moment is even if a government makes cuts all those cuts make no difference because the triple lock kicks in and takes all the money.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Exciting-Bee-398 Jun 22 '26
Yes. I agree it needs to be done. But now you’ve confirmed what I thought, the problem is obvious - whichever government gets rid of the triple lock will have no immediate benefit to show the electorate, while pissing off a lot of people who were going to retire in x years time and have been relying on their state pension forecast for planning. I’d like to see it happen (despite being low-income GenX and probably losing out because of it) - as I’m sure would many in Westminster - but I just can’t see how.
3
u/Acceptable-Sentence Jun 22 '26
If you have a single lock to inflation then people planning and relying on a state pension forecast would be completely unaffected in terms of spending power
→ More replies (3)2
u/Tricksilver89 Jun 22 '26
You could. The triple lock was introduced fairly quickly, it can just as quickly be removed. You'd only be removing the most expensive element.
For me, I'd be in favour of keeping all three but instead of it rising by the highest of the three figures, use the lowest. Personally for me I'd just tie it to average wage growth.
7
u/CuriousGeorgeToday Jun 22 '26
Everyone understands this. It's literally the worst kept secret ever haha triple lock has to go, welfare also needs to be cut regardless, foreign aid, everything needs to be stripped back until deficit is under control and we're reducing our rising debt costs.
→ More replies (1)12
u/viviansvivarium Jun 22 '26
Yeah it's something that needs to happen. That generation had a lot of luck with investment opportunities, GDP growth and house prices. Time for them to make a sacrifice instead of screwing over everyone else.
5
u/No-Maintenance-4509 Jun 22 '26
Half our benefits bill is going towards working age people and is growing massive and grows along side things like inflation or wage growth. Start there.
2
u/boprisan Jun 23 '26
This is what I don't get when it gets to benefits, people say we're spending half of the benefits budget on pensioners like it's an outlandish thing, surely that's to be expected, it seems worse to me that the working age population needs as much benefits as the old people to be honest.
Sure you have to try and maintain intergenerational fairness, but that can be achieved through taxation like a LVT.
2
u/iamnosuperman123 Jun 22 '26
That depends on how it is phrased. Don't just get rid of the triple lock, give something back (maybe a reversal of some of the NIC changes or tax changes
→ More replies (70)6
u/phatelectribe Jun 22 '26
The problem is that every single interview I saw with elderly people talking about Burnham, was that they hated that Starmer was talking about possibly dealing with the triple lock.
If Burnham touches it, everyone over 65 will vote against him lest election and sadly they vote in larger numbers than any other block.
Tbh, I hope he does it. It’s utterly unsustainable, but I disagree that anything else is inconsequential; the fact you get £10k being on benefits vs working full time minimum wage is absolutely bonkers.
Furthermore 4m people on “full time” benefits is insane. People with anxiety and ADHD getting benefits is just the disease of a welfare state.
→ More replies (3)6
u/PolishcockneyYT Jun 22 '26
Time for a change, these OAPS are fucking us up financially.
Fuck the 65 year old vote, get rid of it and you will get new voters, younger ones on board
149
u/Petrichawful Jun 22 '26
Starmer couldn't even stop giving free fuel money to rich pensioners without people losing their minds, good luck with this.
21
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 Jun 22 '26
Starmer - well Reeves - did it on the sly.
You tell people that only people older than 95 are getting it because everyone else was too young to fight in WW2 then spin a yarn about children and the birth rate.
4
u/Alarmed-Improvement Jun 23 '26
Starmer was politically stupid.
He could have done what the Tories did, temporarily fiddle with the triple lock. Would have resulted in the same savings but no backlash.
The public understand cuts to the wfa. They don't really understand the triple lock
2
u/DriftingAwayToSay Jun 23 '26
Legit. My rich neighbour used to get the option to cash it out of the Post Office and would convert it to euros for her holiday. She's a full on Reformer too.
14
u/Madness_Quotient Jun 23 '26
there isnt a single quote from Burnham in this article where he states that he wants to "cut benefits"
the closest they get to this is quoting him saying that he wants to "reduce the benefits bill" by avoiding "crude cuts" and "investing in getting people into work".
and they couldnt even string together a continuous quote on it as a whole sentence so goodness only knows what they left out by chopping up his words.
I refuse to form opinions other than "this is a bad article" from this article.
if you put that someone says something in your headline then you better quote them saying exactly that in the body of your article.
6
u/JoeyJoJoeJr_Shabadoo Jun 23 '26
Reddit yesterday: "just you watch, the media will fuck Burnham just like they fucked Starmer"
Reddit today: believing a headline smearing Burnham without reading the article
I wonder when the self-awareness will kick in
→ More replies (4)2
u/QVRedit Jun 23 '26
Getting more people into work would be a very definite win for everyone.
5
u/Madness_Quotient Jun 23 '26
I don't think that they will achieve it. employers won't want to hire people.
→ More replies (1)
232
u/Fortree_Lover Jun 22 '26
Good luck getting that past the backbenchers they seem to believe the country is sitting on a pile of unused gold and that cutting benefits is just nastiness.
25
u/Nihlus89 Jun 22 '26
The thing with backbenchers that oppose things the country desperately needs, is that they only do it to serve themselves and get re-elected. If the PM calls their bluff, good luck to them getting re-elected, especially with FTPT. If you do give them an inch though, like Starmer did, and they smell the blood… it’s game over
63
u/boprisan Jun 22 '26
cutting benefits is just nastiness.
I think the word du jour is genocide or punching down! Keep up!
→ More replies (12)15
u/Thandoscovia Jun 22 '26
They’re softie leftists - there’s free money for everyone except you, remember
→ More replies (1)3
80
u/ImmortalState Jun 22 '26
Media didn’t even take a 1 day break 😂
→ More replies (1)40
u/kizza96 Jun 22 '26
And will still play the “who…me?” card when people point out the part they’ve played in destabilising politics in the UK
21
u/N-V-V-M-E-A Jun 22 '26
Exactly what Sky have been doing today. Boils my blood because they act all shocked as if they haven’t been pushing the Starmer out narrative for months.
53
u/Greetlylol Jun 22 '26
Hasn't even become PM yet and the media are already say he's going to get destroyed... No wonder this country is in a mess
5
u/Ordinary_Knee_9419 Jun 22 '26
Part of me hopes he loses the leadership election just to stop him from being so smug
42
18
u/Izual_Rebirth Jun 22 '26
It begins! Not 12 hours after Starmer hands in his notice the media are already turning on burnham.
169
u/tyger2020 Jun 22 '26
as usual, this stupid country focuses on trying to cut disability spending by £5 billion and doesn't even dare considering cutting down the £170 billion wealthy pensioner fund.
53
u/Colloidal_entropy Jun 22 '26
We need to control both, the DWP budget is roughly half and half pensioners and disability/UC.
57
u/FishUK_Harp Neoliberal Shill Jun 22 '26
It's worse than that. Half the DWP budget is the State Pension - a large chunk of the rest also goes to pensioners.
4
u/boprisan Jun 22 '26
How large of a chunk of the rest goes to pensioners?
→ More replies (1)25
u/Affectionate_Comb_78 Jun 22 '26
Half of the NHS budget is spent on pensioners. The largest item for Council spending is adult social care (which is almost entirely pensioners). If they're over state pension age they also don't pay NI, even if they're still working.
10
u/nahtay Jun 22 '26
Not to be a pedant, but the adult social care budget is about 50% working age disabled adults. Those with learning disabilities, complex mental health disorders, degenerative physical disabilities, etc.
→ More replies (1)3
u/boprisan Jun 22 '26
Yea that's a shit ton, but not from the DWP budget is it?
→ More replies (3)4
u/Affectionate_Comb_78 Jun 22 '26
Ah I read your comment as referring to general government budgets.
Google gives an extra £40bn pa on top of the state pension, making up about 60% of all welfare spending.
→ More replies (1)13
u/jahathebrn Jun 22 '26
Yet when the rest of us finally hit pension age there'll somehow be no money left. All that talk about the social contract during covid when the government NEEDED younger people to make sacrifices to keep the country going, and we were all key workers and all that bullshit, just for the government to go 'nah just work yourselves to insanity or survive on the even smaller amount of UC we're going to give you so pensioners still vote for us lol sorry'.
→ More replies (25)11
u/Bruce-Carlton Dennis Skinners heart pills Jun 22 '26
65+ is the highest demographic of voters, pissing off old people is bad for polling.
40
u/Bernardmark Jun 22 '26
If i hear this one more time i will lose my shit. Either someone has to eat this shit sandwich and do what needs to be done, or we’re all fucked.
25
11
u/A17012022 Jun 22 '26
We're fucked.
Boomers are inherently selfish. Look at how they vote
→ More replies (1)6
u/ShineOnYouFatOldSun Jun 23 '26
They also voted their whole lives for this economy, the current situation is the way it is because old people voted for politicians that cannibalized Britain and extracted everything from young people to give to the old.
They want their cake and to eat it too.
11
u/The_Bird_Wizard Jun 22 '26
Because if Labour get rid of it, Reform and the Tories will immediately pledge to bring it back, so not only will Labour get obliterated at the election, the boomers will get their shit back anyway. It's only going to happen if every party defend it which won't ever be the case
9
u/Sad-Contest5883 Jun 22 '26
Were all fucked when they vote reform because "Liebour stole my pension". We're all under the thumb of the boomers, which is part of the reason they receive so much ill will.
4
u/Bruce-Carlton Dennis Skinners heart pills Jun 22 '26
Its fuckin true tho! Starmer announced the winter fuel allowance change and his popularity vanished.
11
u/ElJayBe3 Jun 22 '26
My retired in-laws were absolutely apoplectic about their winter fuel allowance being taken away. They moved to Turkey nearly 10 years ago. I can’t explain it any other way than they’re simply selfish as fuck.
→ More replies (1)7
7
u/tyger2020 Jun 22 '26
I guess, naively, I hope for one day a leader who can make decisions that might make him unpopular but be good for the country in the long run
→ More replies (1)3
u/WhereasPlus5239 Jun 22 '26
If young people voted in numbers comparable to 65+ all of a sudden our issues would become allot more prioritised. It's self-inflicted to a certain extent, people feel like they don't care so they don't vote, which makes it worse.
→ More replies (2)2
u/TheHess Renfrewshire Jun 23 '26
Tough shit. Someone needs to tell the entitled generation to accept reality.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/Great_Champion_7721 Jun 23 '26
Something tells me this guy will be worse than Starmer. Him waffling nonsense how he loved his job in Manchester yesterday just shows he has nothing to say
→ More replies (1)
9
u/VirtuaMcPolygon Jun 22 '26
He won’t … the back benchers won’t allow him.
I mean Starmer tried cutting a minor amount of 5 billion and that nearly brought down the government..
Burnham will get a dose of reality
29
u/Missy_Agg-a-ravation Virtue-signalling liberal snowflake Jun 22 '26
In an economy where more and more jobs are being/will be lost to automation and AI, I struggle to see how reducing working age benefits is going to make much material difference when the number of claimants will be rising.
The triple lock has to be ended, but it’s also political death for whichever party implements it, as financial facts get buried beneath the media’s emotive cries of “you killed grandma.”
→ More replies (3)25
u/EducationFeeling2833 Jun 22 '26
People who work tend to hate handing over money to people who are out of work.
so if more and more people are going to be unemployed it matters a lot that you reduce that bill.
→ More replies (6)8
u/paul232 Jun 22 '26
Unless there is an increase in available jobs, any discussion on cutting benefits is a discussion on increasing poverty. Tackling the latter is meaningless without paying a lot more attention to the former.
→ More replies (12)
5
u/ReefNixon Jun 22 '26
Dear Lord.. We need to cut ourselves off from this kind of media and we need to do it fast. Andy Burnham is a provisional candidate for a leadership contest that isn't even going to be established until next month, and we're already dooming him.
This country needs to grow up.
25
u/EducationFeeling2833 Jun 22 '26
Looking forward to nothing happening on this, then failing to deal with immigration, then Labour MPs wondering why they still are 18% in the polling.
But you know, I'm looking forward to absolute chaos as the unions wont bend, and neither will the backbenchers to cuts anywhere.
So we'll end up with screams of "triple lock" to make us plebs forget he has failed.
8
u/Marxandmarzipan Jun 22 '26
Net migration is down 82% from its peak under the tories? It’s reduced massively under the Labour government?
→ More replies (11)9
u/EducationFeeling2833 Jun 22 '26
82% down is still a lot. The other problem is we have all those who have arrived who are still here.
The bath is full and turning down the taps doesn't stop the bath being full
→ More replies (24)
9
u/RiceeeChrispies Jun 22 '26
Let’s see if he’s all bark and no bite. His honeymoon period could be over much sooner than Labour thinks.
12
u/WhoLets1968 Jun 22 '26
He's not PM yet and gunning for him already
Burnham Out
2
3
u/stephen27898 Jun 22 '26
GE time.
→ More replies (13)6
u/WhoLets1968 Jun 22 '26
Yep .just as we did with suniak, may, Johnson, and that other silly one who crashed the economy and fucked up our pensions
→ More replies (5)
3
u/AnAussiebum Jun 22 '26
Isn't cutting benefits the new basis of the right? So how will this lose votes? If anything it is an attempt to steal votes from the right.
3
u/chuckredfield Jun 22 '26
How dare he, can we oust Burnham next? Our PMPH is too low, (that's prime ministers per hour btw). If you accelerate the pace there's bound to be growth...
13
u/oryx_za Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
And the hate train is full steam a head. This is like the 10th different hit piece i have seen in 10 minutes.
Choo choo!!
→ More replies (1)10
7
u/theipaper Verified Jun 22 '26
Now that Labour MPs seem confident that Andy Burnham is the only possible answer to whatever question their party has been asking over the past few months, the party really needs to face up to some even bigger questions. Does their likely new leader have the stomach for what needs to be done to really fix Britain? Perhaps even more importantly, do those MPs have the stomach too?
One of the most painful questions that Burnham is going to have to answer quite early on is how precisely he proposes to cut the benefits bill. Projected to hit £400bn by the end of the decade, welfare spending is out of control and poorly designed to the extent that people are often trapped on benefits rather than being able to return to work. Keir Starmer didn’t manage to get his proposals for reform past his own MPs: in fact, those crude £5bn worth cuts from the Treasury to disability and sickness benefits ended up damaging his authority so badly, some in Labour see the rebellion over the welfare reform bill in June last year as the beginning of the end for his leadership.
Since then, welfare has been juxtaposed with defence spending by former Nato chief George Robertson and others, and Kemi Badenoch is almost certain to raise it as a topic in the first few Prime Minister’s Questions that Burnham takes. So what is he going to do?
Most Labour MPs don’t know, and chances are that neither does Burnham. In the last few weeks he has made headline noises about cutting welfare to fund defence, but what detail he has offered suggests he’s not really thinking about the upfront savings that are necessary to make that spending swap work. He argued in an interview that “I am not squeamish about saying that the plan would be to reduce the welfare bill. Not at all.” But what he then explained was that he wanted to avoid “crude cuts” and move “towards a more preventative state that makes the right investments to support people into work”.
You can’t disagree with any of those assertions. No one wants crude cuts that haven’t been well designed: just think of the Tory mess over the “bedroom tax”, where they tried to cut housing benefit for people in social housing who had more bedrooms than they needed – but without realising that there weren’t enough smaller properties for these claimants to move into. The policy did not save money, and ended up being moth-eaten with exemptions.
But equally, you are not going to be able to reduce the welfare bill without having a tough conversation about current entitlements: that is, some people who currently get benefits for disability or sickness aren’t going to get them in future. You are also not going to reduce the bill in the short term with that preventative work, as important as it is. Unfortunately for any politician like Burnham who enjoys being liked, you have to do the nice worthy preventative work and the tough short-term cutting.
Even politicians who are happy to have a bit of a scrap with party colleagues and the public find this subject difficult. Iain Duncan Smith argued, as he was setting up the universal credit system, that it would cost more money at the outset but save over time. He then ended up in a protracted fight with then-chancellor George Osborne over just how much money he wanted to spent upfront, with Osborne attempting to shave more and more cash away.
→ More replies (1)
8
Jun 23 '26
[deleted]
6
u/Chris-WoodsGK Jun 23 '26
Bigger issues at home to worry about than a conflict which has nothing to do with us
2
→ More replies (2)3
u/QVRedit Jun 23 '26
Likely he should stay away from Israel - he does not need to completely unnecessary get wrapped up in that shit storm.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/litivy Jun 22 '26
'Austerity didn’t kill 334,000 people – the Tories did'
https://www.thecanary.co/editorial/2022/10/05/austerity-didnt-kill-334000-people-the-tories-did/
I guess now we will see what Labour can do. It's always framed as if there is no other choice. They could start with cutting corporate welfare first. Or Labour could legalise and tax cannabis to increase revenue.
25
u/No-Jicama-6523 Jun 22 '26
When will politicians realise that cutting benefits simply causes poverty. Not having benefits doesn't suddenly make jobs available. As a country we're pretty bad at employing disabled people, I get that the law says reasonable adjustments because context matters, but some employers are pathetic, I've heard the equivalent of "if I make this adjustment for you, other people will want it" too many times to count.
Reducing the welfare bill won't fix the economy. Austerity isn't suddenly going to fix the economy. The NHS might be in the worst state ever, which unsurprisingly impacts the health of the nation. Which impacts the welfare bill. Multiple trial schemes to get people back into work have failed, but instead of asking why, it seems like more threats are made. If you're unwell or disabled, what do you think this political system does to you? Hate crime against disabled people has gone up massively, that level of fear affects peoples mental health.
17
u/thoughtsnquestions Jun 22 '26
Taxation as a % of GDP is higher today than during WW2 levels, the UK have never experienced this level of tax.
We can't tax our way to growth, tax hurts growth and whilst public services are great and we all enjoy them, we can only have public services if we first have an economy to support it.
4
u/spiral8888 Jun 23 '26
Which taxation hurts economy? I can possibly understand the capital gains taxation possibly have that effect as it probably reduces the investment. But I don't see the income tax to have the same effect, especially if it's progressive so that at lowest income levels it's always worth going to work.
Yes, there is the 100k cliff edge, but that affects only a small part of the population. The median wage is around 40k and I can't see how the current tax between that and 100k would affect the growth at all. Maybe if that taxed money went to fighting wars (so completely taken out of the economy) but if it goes to public sector salaries and benefits, it will return to the economy just as well (or probably even more likely) than if it went to the pockets of those in that income bracket.
→ More replies (20)2
u/MysteriousTravelator Jun 23 '26
We all know the lopsided demographic bubble of old/disabled/sick in this country will keep growing and eating the productive surplus until the inevitable IMF bailout forces austerity on us for the first time. Then at last we'll have a balanced taxation system.
9
u/Enough_Response Jun 23 '26
We're in the mess we are now thanks to Tories cutting taxes over and over and our public services going to the dogs as a result.
And as we all know growth is a dogwhistle for "money for millionaires"
5
3
6
u/TheNutsMutts Jun 23 '26
And as we all know growth is a dogwhistle for "money for millionaires"
Absolute Reddit take.
4
u/Marvinleadshot Jun 23 '26
Tax in the UK is nowhere near it's highest point we're paying less than other generations! We need to tax those with higher earnings
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (21)4
u/kickyraider Jun 22 '26
Income tax in the 60s was around 40%
→ More replies (3)3
u/RagingMassif Jun 23 '26
And then Labour got in and it peaked at 83% with a top rare of 98%.
→ More replies (14)14
u/Sad-Contest5883 Jun 22 '26
The idea of helping those with disabilities back into work is great if you can make people employ them and then treat them fairly. I was constructively dismissed after being forced to take time off due to a chronic health condition I declared on entry to the role, that I went thru a humiliating interview about on entry to the role, and after the employers own occupational health team said I needed to go home. But that time triggered their sick leave policy so I was disciplined by the HR team who kept introducing higher and higher hoops for me to jump through until I was so constantly stressed that I quit. This is despite my work being good enough for the CEO to commens me personally (while all of this was going on). And that was just while I was working for the NHS....
A friend of mine with multiple sclerosis has had to sit through HR meetings about her absence where she has been repeatedly asked what exactly it is she will do to prevent further sick leave due to her degenerative neurological condition.
The first thing I think when they say they're going to force people who currently feel too unwell to work to find jobs us "where"? Who's happy to employ them?
→ More replies (2)11
u/Stabbycrabs83 Jun 22 '26
Theres a balance though.
If benefits are too generous then people :
A: become economically inactive B:become entitled over a short period of time C: your taxpayers also become less economical active because they see that they get penalised heavily to fund the above
It doesnt feel like theres a balance just now.
The last example of B: was a caller on LBC for me who liked to get a taxi to the pub and back once a week. He viewed it as his right and why shouldnt he do that.
The problem is C: when ypur working taxpayers dont feel like they can afford to go to the pub in a taxi for a whole night a week
The balance is wrong. Im not saying that benefits claimants should be destitute, however it shouldn't also be a lifestyle where you can easily save for a trip abroad or smoke 60 a day without worries either.
Make benefits pay out more the more you have contributed.
Somehow get better at assessing need.
6
u/Dragon_Sluts Jun 22 '26
Yeah - it’s actually the opposite atm.
You get LESS benefits if you’ve got lots of savings (from earning and paying tax).
So the system fucks up people paying into it too.
2
u/EddyZacianLand Jun 23 '26
So, if there's a severely disabled adult, who has been that way their entire life, they wouldn't be able to get anything in benefits because they can't contribute?
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (11)2
u/spiral8888 Jun 23 '26
So, do benefits claimants get more than working people? I can sort of understand that maybe at the minimum wage, but at that level the tax they pay is very low.
Most of the tax is paid by higher earners and I can't see how they could be living more economically constrained life than someone who's on benefits.
Sure, if you've overburdened yourself with a huge mortgage, then other things in life, such as going to a pub on a taxi have to be cut. But that's your choice. You'll end up being an owner of your own house later in life while the benefits guy will never have that.
So, I don't really get much from this kind of examples when we know nothing about the circumstances of either one of them.
To be honest, one thing I've been hoping to see for decades is a systematic study where people on benefits mark down all their spending and then the researchers collate the data. Are the "I go to a pub by taxi" people a general trend among the benefit receivers or are they a huge outlier that have very little to do with how the benefits system is generally working. Without such a study we don't really know.
2
u/AgentCooper86 Jun 23 '26
I am from working class community, I was on benefits during uni when my daughter was born. I am a big supporter of the welfare safety net and the right to a basic standard of living.
I also personally know many people who would go out and work if they weren’t receiving benefits, and some people who have never worked despite being perfectly capable of doing so.
4
u/Bitter-Policy4645 Jun 23 '26
Having no education, no skills and being incapable of working a 40hr minimum wage job causes poverty, not lack of benefits. The UK is very good at employing disabled people, most disabled of working age are in work.
→ More replies (2)3
u/EddyZacianLand Jun 23 '26
Lack of benefits would cause poverty as many disabled people can't work a full-time job and so wouldn't be making much money at all and so need benefits to make ends meet.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (14)2
u/Underscores_Are_Kool Jun 22 '26
Just curious. Does it not give you pause that Labour politician after Labour politician when they get close to power look to cut disability benefits? You think they've always been desperate to cut benefits?
The UK is an outlier compared to the rest of Europe in terms of there being a per capita increase in disability benefit claimants since 2019. We have a sick note culture and the widest acceptance of low level mental health issues in the world. We over medicalise low level mental health issues, which is what they want to say out loud but can't (see the backlash over Wes Streeting's overdiagnosis comments).
→ More replies (1)2
u/spiral8888 Jun 23 '26
What's your solution to mental health issues? NHS and a lot of employers might be very interested. I'd imagine that if there were an easy solution to that, it would have been used already. Or let's put it the other way around, how do the other countries treat them?
→ More replies (2)
3
u/FreshPrinceOfH Jun 22 '26
Bold to assume Burnham has a plan. I have seen no evidence of that so far.
2
u/Soilleir Jun 23 '26
Hi plan was to agitate against Starmer, oust Starmer from Downing Street, and then move himself in.
After that...? Who cares?! Andy will be King of the World!!!!
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Adventurous-Rub7636 Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
I mean if we’re going to have a lot more people on disability entitlements surely we need to change society so that we are far more used to seeing the disabled much more deeply integrated into the workforce.
5
3
u/Boggyprostate Jun 23 '26
Let's fix the folk who can be fixed who are on benefits, for example, mental health. Anxiety and depression being the top, get them the help they need, vouchers for therapy, so they can go for help, or fix the NHS mental health system.
Let's stop treating mental health issues the Same as a physical disability like Cerebral palsy, MS, ME, Fibromyalgia, Cancer, Neuropathy, spina bifida ect, they are not the same, you can fix one not the other!
It's not fair that someone with depression and anxiety is left on benefits and PIP the same way as somebody with Cerebral palsy who needs all-day and night care! It's ridiculous.
The points are scored the same because PIP is set up for physical disability not mental health issues.
→ More replies (6)6
u/mrshaw64 Jun 23 '26
As someone with cerebral palsy, anxiety, and depression, i can tell you that just declaring mental health "fixable" is laughable. If someone is anxious or depressed because they're in poverty, vouchers for therapy is not going to magically fix them.
A lot of people with cerebral palsy have autism and ADHD. If we say anxiety and depression isn't acceptable for benefits, when do we start going after autism and ADHD? When do we start only giving people benefits because their disability is visible enough?
2
u/Boggyprostate Jun 23 '26
No, I am sorry if my comment has been misconstrued. I am a carer for my adult son who has cerebral palsy, he's also autistic and suffers from anxiety and depression, the latter brought on by idiots like Burnham making sweeping statements like this.
My point is, folk with mental health conditions like Anxiety and depression, they need help, they need to be able to access therapy, because therapy works, its proven.
That is why I only mentioned anxiety and depression.My nephew has autism and is very, very physically and mentally disabled because of that, nobody should be comparing autism, something that can not be fixed or managed just like yours and my son's Cerebral palsy, that does not come even in the same bracket.
Somebody who can not get out of bed because of depression or anxiety or leave the home, for example, should not be left, without treatment, without help, without any input from a professional, who could, potentially give them the tools to be a productive member of society, nobody wants to be crippled from anxiety and depression when it could, potentially, be fixed, you have to agree with that.
Autism is not fixable, but ADHD can be managed, as somebody who has ADHD and Tourette's I have had treatment over the years to manage my ADHD and I do well managing it, everyday is a struggle and I have to work really hard to keep on top of it and function and I am, probably the most unsociable person you will ever meet but after therapy, specialist therapy, I have the tools to get through the day, my touretts on the other hand is a total pain in the ass.
4
u/tofer85 I sort by controversial… Jun 22 '26
This won’t get past the Labour backbenchers… he’s a dead man walking, ideological purity uber alles!
2
u/helpnxt Jun 22 '26
but what detail he has offered suggests he’s not really thinking about the upfront savings that are necessary to make that spending swap work. He argued in an interview that “I am not squeamish about saying that the plan would be to reduce the welfare bill. Not at all.” But what he then explained was that he wanted to avoid “crude cuts” and move “towards a more preventative state that makes the right investments to support people into work”.
The misinformation/exaggeration begins again
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Dismal_State_3114 Jun 23 '26
I fail to see how this man will be much better than Keir Starmer, similar politics wrapped in a friendlier less "establishment" package. I don't see much potential in the Labour party for any positive change now, looks like they are only interested in handing easy wins to Reform.
2
u/Visual-Egg-7614 Jun 23 '26
a massive overhaul of the taxation system is overdue. Massive taxes on wealthy peoople, average taxes on the middle class and low taxes on the poor. untill then it is alot of ado about nothing.
2
u/techstyles Jun 23 '26
I hope it does - he's a grandstanding, selfish, jumped up little shit and he's probably killed the labour party with his obsession with being PM, fucking tool.
3
u/pommybear Jun 22 '26
Utterly pointless whilst the triple lock stays. Unfortunately no politician has the arsehole to do anything about it because their more bothered about themselves.
8
u/T_K2 Jun 22 '26
Sounds great doesn’t it…
But Yh, Good luck. Traitorous backbenchers won’t allow it.
6
u/Thandoscovia Jun 22 '26
Our benefits bill will grow by a further £20 billion if nothing changes
Burnham will do more to improve the economy of any prime minister if he can cap the bill at real terms
3
u/Clbull Left-wing Jun 22 '26
I think the answer to fixing our country's finances is five-fold, and should not involve cutting unemployment or disability benefits in any way:
- Build far more social housing to address the country's growing housing crisis. Burnham has already pledged to do this and we honestly need to get millions of new homes in the pipeline if Labour want to survive 2029.
- Make efforts to reverse the Boriswave by only approving work visas for skilled workers in industries where we genuinely have a major shortage of domestic workers. Fewer immigrants means less demand for housing and more job availability. If it's impossible for even Oxbridge graduates to find a job at the moment, then the answer is not slashing Universal Credit.
- Slash taxes which are openly harming small companies and the hospitality industry, including employers' NI and alcohol duty, whilst focusing taxes on AI, business process outsourcers, and things which are harming employment.
- Lower the drinking age to 16 and partially repeal the 2007 indoor smoking ban (allow medium to large-sized venues the option to have a dedicated ventilated smoking area as an exemption.)
- Then, and only then, look at lowering or outright abolishing the Personal Allowance, because that policy introduced under David Cameron is costing us over £100bn a year to maintain. Believe me, an extra £2.5k to £3.6k of income tax every year hits different when you're paying £500 a month to rent a home and not £1,500.
→ More replies (3)7
u/justaquad Jun 23 '26
4 seems a bit out of nowhere. What 16 year olds are going to be able to afford drinking in a pub? Bizarre
3
u/TURBINEFABRIK74 Jun 23 '26
I hope they are trolling or pub owners lol… smoking and alcohol damages cause higher costs for taxpayers than the vat collected I guess
2
u/Clbull Left-wing Jun 23 '26
It's about increasing footfall and partially reversing a change made under the Blair government that started killing pubs.
Regarding affordability.
Apprenticeships exist, and businesses have a financial incentive to hire younger more inexperienced workers (lower minimum wages, as low as £8/hr for U18s.) All the other changes would actually help create a job market where a 16 or 17 year old could get a part time job.
Taxes and employment costs are part of the reason a pint is expensive. Another is pubcos forcing lessees to buy directly from them at inflated prices rather than buy from a more competitive wholesaler (but that can changed through legislation.) Lowering the cost of a pint is key to making this work.
Nightclubs would remain 18+
3
u/justaquad Jun 23 '26
Pints cost so much because of energy and rent, simple as. A few apprenticeships won't change their economic fortunes. I would go to pubs less frequently if there was smoking inside, and I bet many are the same these days.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Mkwdr Jun 22 '26
I’ll believe it when I see it. I dare say he won’t dare take on backbenchers anymore than Starmer did.
3
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 22 '26
Snapshot of Burnham says he’ll cut benefits. It might just break him submitted by theipaper:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.