[davidjay]

It's an anti-money laundering policy rather than a regeneration policy.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But even if successful, it's not going to 'fix' the high streets.

It's about perception. People think dodgy shops are havens for crime.

[Youngian]

The largely empty local pub that shows the match or the independent petrol station which is slightly cheaper than Tesco, not a lot of pressure to investigate their cash revenue.

[The Weeping Angel]

Oh god.

[Boiler]

This WASPI nonsense really gets on my nerves.

Burnham is turning into another fucking populist that'll say anything to get elected; he really needs to be held to account, otherwise he's going to be the path to a future Tory/RefUK coalition - NOT Starmer.

From that BS:

Screenshot 2026-06-10 at 22-42-38 Post by @did plc ntf5icwjnsosjz3jv7sy4q23 — Bluesky.png (55.8 KiB) Viewed 292 times

[Tubby Isaacs]

Anything he can fund is going to be regarded as a betrayal. There’s a case for some compensation for the change George Osborne made, accelerating changes with too little notice. But beyond that? Nope. And that compo should be targeted.

[Dalem Lake]

God's honest truth but I will never vote Labour again if they give that WASPI lot a single penny.

[Youngian]

And the price tag is..

[Youngian]

Killjoy Dan Neidle puts a dampner on Funtime Andy's tax giveaways.

[Killer Whale]

The problem, of course, is the regressive nature of VAT itself. Since Thatcher's day UK governments have cut income tax during boom times, and raised VAT when belts needed to be tightened. This has distorted the tax landscape and led to people like me on slightly above average incomes basically not paying our way.
But Burnham is not going to say "let's cut VAT and raise income tax to make things fairer" because it would be political suicide, clearly. So he'll issue a friendly soundbite and we'll all carry on as if tinkering around the edges is going to change anything at all.

[Tubby Isaacs]

VAT isn’t straightforwardly regressive. The example of the Ritz is a good one in that respect. And some countries more progressive than us have higher rates with very few exemptions. You just have to adjust incomes appropriately, via the benefits system.

[Youngian]

VAT breaks are to encourage policies the government want to succeed. Environmentally friendly building materials for example. Was watching a documentary on the growth of micropubs which can be traced to some tax break for small breweries and outlets in the noughties. Landlords owners appear to be making these places viable.

[Killer Whale]

Dan Neidle is wrong about Denmark having a lower flat rate if VAT, by the way. It's 25%.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Burnham is giving the impression of someone high on his own supply. This is very bad. This is going to be like Tony Benn challenging Jim Callaghan at this rate. And for what? Someone who does 3 points better than Starmer v Farage.

[Boiler]

Fucking swaggering Mancs again.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Andy Burnham’s campaign has released a statement saying that when he spoke about “some recompense” for the Waspi women (see 11.50am), he was not talking about financial compensation. As the Times reports, a Burnham spokesperson issued a statement this morning saying:

Andy has always recognised the unfair way in which state pension equalisation was introduced.
As mayor of Greater Manchester, he supported Waspi women in the city-region with early access to concessionary travel, providing some recompense to them within affordability limits.
He accepts the final decision has been made in relation to financial compensation but has indicated an openness to considering similar schemes on the Greater Manchester model.

Well, I suppose he got this out of the way early.

For a supposed to good communicator he could have communicated this better before.

[mattomac]

Problem is Waspi compensation opens a can of worms that won't be able to be closed.

Plus I don't really buy the argument.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Because he's pulling the argument out of his arse. He had no idea how much compensation would cost until someone pointed it out to him afterwards.

[The Weeping Angel]

I think Giles makes a good point here.

[mattomac]

Let’s be honest on a day when you have people resigning for lack of spending on something it’s best not commit to something no one wants to spend it on.

[The Weeping Angel]

Burnham's lost bluesky.

In an exclusive interview with The i Paper ahead of Thursday’s Makerfield by-election, Burnham was unequivocal that the pensions guarantee was not up for negotiation – despite pledging to cut welfare to fund defence spending.
“The manifesto commitment holds” on the triple lock, he said, warning that to “tear up the manifesto commitments on the triple lock” would be “a very damaging thing to do.”
However, Burnham did not spell out whether he would look to maintain the policy beyond the current parliament, which is due to end by 2029 at the latest. This is consistent with the current government position on the future of the policy.
His victory in Makerfield would be seen as a potential mandate for a tilt at No 10. Burnham told the BBC’s Question Time audience last week that he would seek to enter any leadership contest and his interventions on national policy are widely interpreted as part of his pitch to become prime minister.

https://archive.ph/2026.06.14-113547/ht ... 0-6713.301