Bye Bye Burnham

User avatar
ZedLeg
Posts: 8243
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:19 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by ZedLeg »

Jobbo wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 6:30 pm That was the point in time at which the gap between richest and poorest was the smallest. And I infer you think that is a good thing since you bothered to mention it and criticised the policies introduced by Reagan and Thatcher. Therefore you think the pre-Thatcher 1970s was the best time. If you didn’t mean that, correct your own post.
Don’t be an arse, it’s objectively true that wealth disparity was at its lowest in the 70s and immediately started climbing after Thatcher and Reagan were elected.

Any inference on the wider social and political environment at the time is coming from you.
An absolute unit
User avatar
duncs500
Posts: 5913
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by duncs500 »

Jobbo wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 6:36 pm Getting the richest to pay tax at the same rate as the squeezed middle classes should be the aim.
I think if we could get them to pay even half that we'd be doing well! :lol:
User avatar
Mito Man
Posts: 13131
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:27 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by Mito Man »

Inequality would still further increase though, just at a slower rate. Say someone with an income of £1 million a year pays a 90% tax rate. They still take home more 4x the amount of someone on minimum wage.

Putting aside Thatcher I thought inequality generally drops following a major war because you end up in a wartime economy - maximum taxation (wasn’t it at 99% for high rate earners after ww2?), low unemployment, government spending goes crazy, loads of assets destroyed. Pretty unsustainable, although it draws parallels with a welfare state. But it’s easier to get people to pay tax when the alternative is becoming a prisoner of war.

So the solution is pretty simple. It’s clearly why we have John Healey as chancellor now ;)
How about not having a sig at all?
User avatar
Rich B
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:22 pm
Currently Driving: T6.1 VW Transporter combi
S1 Lotus Elise

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by Rich B »

Mito Man wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 7:20 pm Inequality would still further increase though, just at a slower rate. Say someone with an income of £1 million a year pays a 90% tax rate. They still take home more 4x the amount of someone on minimum wage.
i can’t believe they didn’t consider you for the job with this insight… 😂
User avatar
Marv
Posts: 1868
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by Marv »

Mito turned it down, too busy enjoying his life with the birds and the bees.
Oui, je suis un motard.
User avatar
Mito Man
Posts: 13131
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:27 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by Mito Man »

Damn right I did.
How about not having a sig at all?
User avatar
dinny_g
Posts: 7257
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:31 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by dinny_g »

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 6:41 pm
Jobbo wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 6:30 pm That was the point in time at which the gap between richest and poorest was the smallest. And I infer you think that is a good thing since you bothered to mention it and criticised the policies introduced by Reagan and Thatcher. Therefore you think the pre-Thatcher 1970s was the best time. If you didn’t mean that, correct your own post.
Don’t be an arse, it’s objectively true that wealth disparity was at its lowest in the 70s and immediately started climbing after Thatcher and Reagan were elected.

Any inference on the wider social and political environment at the time is coming from you.
What’s that got to do with politicians always working to ensure they and their mates leave office richer than they entered???
JLv3.0 wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:26 pm I say this rarely Dave, but listen to Dinny because he's right.
Rich B wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 1:57 pm but Dinny was right…
User avatar
Mito Man
Posts: 13131
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:27 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by Mito Man »

This is hilarious
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce970y1n7plo
After 1 day FFS.
How about not having a sig at all?
User avatar
Mito Man
Posts: 13131
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:27 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by Mito Man »

And £45 a year saved on electricity. I imagine the usual council tax rise will wipe that out and then some by a margin.
How about not having a sig at all?
User avatar
ZedLeg
Posts: 8243
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:19 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by ZedLeg »

dinny_g wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 10:06 pm
ZedLeg wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 6:41 pm
Jobbo wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 6:30 pm That was the point in time at which the gap between richest and poorest was the smallest. And I infer you think that is a good thing since you bothered to mention it and criticised the policies introduced by Reagan and Thatcher. Therefore you think the pre-Thatcher 1970s was the best time. If you didn’t mean that, correct your own post.
Don’t be an arse, it’s objectively true that wealth disparity was at its lowest in the 70s and immediately started climbing after Thatcher and Reagan were elected.

Any inference on the wider social and political environment at the time is coming from you.
What’s that got to do with politicians always working to ensure they and their mates leave office richer than they entered???
My point was that there was a brief period in the mid 20th century when making sure the rich got richer wasn’t a primary focus of governments.

Not sure why Jobbo got so cross about it.
An absolute unit
User avatar
Jobbo
Posts: 13331
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:20 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by Jobbo »

I’m not cross. You’re banging on about it then denying you hanker for that. If it was so good, why don’t you want to take us back to the 1970s?
User avatar
dinny_g
Posts: 7257
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:31 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by dinny_g »

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 10:23 pm My point was that there was a brief period in the mid 20th century when making sure the rich got richer wasn’t a primary focus of governments.
Not ‘the rich’ - just the government politicians and their friends.. ;)
JLv3.0 wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:26 pm I say this rarely Dave, but listen to Dinny because he's right.
Rich B wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 1:57 pm but Dinny was right…
V8Granite
Posts: 5954
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:57 am

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by V8Granite »

dinny_g wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 11:21 pm
ZedLeg wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 10:23 pm My point was that there was a brief period in the mid 20th century when making sure the rich got richer wasn’t a primary focus of governments.
Not ‘the rich’ - just the government politicians and their friends.. ;)
It was also trying to stop the unions destroying the country, which they did a cracking job of doing.

Dave!
User avatar
jamcg
Posts: 5919
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:41 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by jamcg »

User avatar
Jobbo
Posts: 13331
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:20 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by Jobbo »

So he quickly worked out that it was dodgy without giving anything away. Is there a better way he could have done it? As Prime Minister it's not like the Nigerian prince or pretend HMRC texts you get - the chief of staff at the White House is someone who would plausibly contact you.
User avatar
jamcg
Posts: 5919
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:41 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by jamcg »

I know this isn’t his idea but posting here as it is a labour idea:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14dlm5e22ko

Who could have predicted that?
User avatar
Rich B
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:22 pm
Currently Driving: T6.1 VW Transporter combi
S1 Lotus Elise

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by Rich B »

jamcg wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2026 8:17 am I know this isn’t his idea but posting here as it is a labour idea:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14dlm5e22ko

Who could have predicted that?
Anyone. But what are the alternatives? the prisons we have are overcrowded and falling apart because they haven’t been building new ones at the appropriate rate for the last 15 years. You need to make space as a short term solution so what else can you do?
User avatar
Gavster
Posts: 4462
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:31 am
Currently Driving: A washing machine with heated seats

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by Gavster »

Community rehab is supposed to be quite effective when done well, however I guess this wasn't, so the early releases simply acted like they'd been let off school early so went on a bender instead.
V8Granite
Posts: 5954
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:57 am

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by V8Granite »

Rich B wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2026 8:55 am
jamcg wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2026 8:17 am I know this isn’t his idea but posting here as it is a labour idea:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14dlm5e22ko

Who could have predicted that?
Anyone. But what are the alternatives? the prisons we have are overcrowded and falling apart because they haven’t been building new ones at the appropriate rate for the last 15 years. You need to make space as a short term solution so what else can you do?
They're prisoners, hot bunk it or pick who gets to be the big spoon.

Dave!
User avatar
jamcg
Posts: 5919
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:41 pm

Re: Bye Bye Burnham

Post by jamcg »

Stack bunk beds 3-4 high if needed. Use old military barracks as minimum security prisons, leave cells for more hardened criminals, or any building with a guard and a fence for that matter
Post Reply