If you were someone who was genuinely unhappy with how centrist and boring and Starmer was you may have come to this sub

If you were someone who will complain about anything and never be happy with anything, you also may have come to this sub

Every policy Burnham comes out with exposes which camp you were in

New Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said he will put the country on an ‘accelerated path’ to integrated public transport in the mould of his Greater Manchester Bee Network.

It would see local buses, trams and trains link together under a single system for ticketing and scheduling – meaning a daily or weekly cap can be placed on how much people pay.

Travellers in London can use an Oyster or contactless bank card to tap on and off various modes of transport, while major bus stations are often conveniently placed outside stops on the Underground.

As Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham introduced the publicly controlled Bee Network with a similar goal in mind. He told Metro: ‘I’d love to see this across all of England, integrating buses and trains and trams where they exist into a single system.

‘So when you tap in, it’s like London, you’re all under the cap, and people can take as many buses and trains as they like and they only pay up to a certain level. That’s what we need.

‘I think most other countries have it. I’m going to put Britain on an accelerated path to lower cost, integrated public transport.’

Speaking in Bath to launch the new £2 bus fare cap for England, Burnham said the same cap on Manchester buses was ‘probably the most popular thing I ever introduced’.

He said: ‘It’s just simple, it helps people every day, it encourages people out of their cars, it connects people to jobs and training.

‘It’s one of those policies that works on every single level, and it works for the public most of all because it deals with their main concern, the cost of living pressures they’re under.’

Beyond Manchester and the capital, other areas with integrated transport networks are Tyne & Wear and Nottingham.

Which Labour MP, dead or alive, would you have picked? And for which job? I'm going for Nye Bevan as health secretary, beat that!

The government says the policy, which is expected to cost more than £500m, will "help with the cost of living and give people the breathing space they need".

At the start of last year, the England-wide bus fare cap rose to £3 under Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government, although in Liverpool and Manchester fares were held at £2.

Burnham said affordable transport links were an essential, adding: "Lower fares will help people get to where they need to."

The measure gives people "a little bit of hope" in a time when many are grappling with higher living costs - especially after fuel costs spiked as a result of the US-Iran war, transport secretary Heidi Alexander told the BBC's Today programme.
However, she admitted the measure was "not the whole solution".

The new cap will take effect from January next year for fares on participating buses outside of London. The cost of a non-discounted single bus journey in London is £1.75.

The Burnham government said going back to a £2 cap should particularly help passengers in rural and coastal areas, where single fares can be higher.

The Campaign for Better Transport said rural areas were still suffering from fewer bus routes and services, adding that such areas had been more affected by council cut backs in the last decade than urban zones.

Services in those areas - as measured by vehicle miles - decreased by 18% between 2019 and 2024, according to the County Councils Network, which represents 39 unitary and county councils across England.

"What we need to see is the replacing of those lost services which have particularly affected those in rural areas," Campaign for Better Transport's Michael Solomon Williams said.

VAT will be cut from household electricity bills, the government has announced, as part of new Prime Minister Andy Burnham's pledge to help with the cost of living.

The reduction from 5% VAT to zero will come into effect on 1 October, saving a typical household about £45 a year.

Andy Burnham has used his first speech as prime minister to launch a national drive to end rough sleeping.

The announcement, delivered as Burnham addressed the nation outside 10 Downing Street, will be backed “from day one” by an extra £340 million in funding – pushing total investment in tackling rough sleeping to record levels.

Burnham argued the policy was central to his broader promise to build a “more preventative state” and invest “in people’s success, rather than paying for people’s failure.”

The new prime minister blamed successive governments for “turning a blind eye” to the issue of rough sleeping. Downing Street pointed to the “Everyone In” scheme launched during the Covid pandemic as proof that action is possible when there is political will.

Before delivering his speech on Monday afternoon, Burnham met people with experience of sleeping rough and heard first hand how “it can trap people in a cycle of crisis, poor health and insecurity.”

As a first step, the government will begin acquiring homes suitable for rough sleepers, identifying those most in need, and moving people into housing and support.

The £340 million is said to represent the opening phase of a five-year programme, with further details expected before the autumn.

Officials say the initial funding alone will provide 1,200 homes and intensive support for at least 3,000 people.

Burnham stated: “For too long, we’ve been told that ending rough sleeping will take decades or even that it’s impossible. I’m not having that.
“This is something a government can fix if it chooses to. Today, I’m choosing to.

“On my first day as prime minister, I’m announcing this government’s commitment to finally end long-term rough sleeping across the UK at the earliest opportunity.

“We’ll get to work immediately, bringing together national and local government with the investment needed to get it done.

“This is the kind of Britain I want us to be – a country where everyone has the security of a roof over their head, and where no one is left behind or written off. Let’s bring back hope.”

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/confusion-in-whitehall-over-burnham-plan-to-scrap-digital-id?utm_source=pushly

Labour together and adjacent already counter briefing and sabotaging Burnham before he has even settled in it seems. So much for their 'get behind the leader' schtick

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgrkv8e8l9qt

Looks like my instincts about the weirdly persistent stories about Shabana Mahmood being the "favourite" to be named Chancellor were right; the Mandelson lot trying to brief themselves into position as usual. But she is staying as Home Secretary. Also, Louise Haigh is Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

What are we thinking? Are these picks good signs or not?

If you live in the United Kingdom what do you think are the best things that could be done at the different levels of government to help the working class and most vulnerable?

In particular what are things you think will do the best job to promote the Labour Movement, Environmentalism, and Peace Movement. There is a lot of warmongers right now. There is a lot of Oligarchs, Multinational Business Lobbies, Powerful & Predatory Industries/Tycoons, and the general Corporatocracy that are involved in 3D chess against Organized Labour. There is a lot of death cult groups like the Fossil Fuel Industry that don't care at all about the climate or the environment.

I want to know solid policy ideas for different levels of government that can start making things better and brighter!

Ethnic minority communities in Northern Ireland are still “living in fear” one month on from race riots which saw children having to be rescued from their homes, a senior police officer has said.

Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) Assistant Chief Constable Davy Beck also told MPs that a man charged over a stabbing which preceded the violence may be from Chad, and not Sudan as previously believed.

Violence flared in several areas in Northern Ireland in June after a graphic video clip emerged of a man being stabbed in north Belfast.

The victim, Stephen Ogilvie, who is aged in his 40s, lost his left eye in the attack and also sustained deep wounds to his head, face and back.

Following the attack, Hadi Alodid, 30, appeared at Belfast Magistrates’ Court charged with attempted murder.

The disorder following the stabbing saw masked mobs set fire to homes, cars and a bus, with people targeted based on their race.

Foreign national healthcare workers were also subjected to threats and intimidation.
Mr Beck appeared before a joint sitting of the Home Affairs and Northern Ireland Affairs Committees to provide an update.

Earlier this year, Reform UK’s MP Suella Braverman stated that the UK is “being ripped apart” by diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) policies. She announced that, if Reform were to win the next general election, the party would repeal the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”) on its first day in office.

Acts of race and sex discrimination have been unlawful since 1965 and 1975 respectively. Discrimination on other grounds i.e. of disability, age, religion, marriage, pregnancy and sexual orientation have been gradually introduced at various points throughout the 1990s into the 2000s. The protection is well established.

Therefore, this proposal to repeal the Act may be seen as surprising and indeed shocking for some. It is likely to be seen by many as a regressive step.

This is likely to be particularly the case for those in vulnerable communities who have widely criticised this notion with their fear of significant repercussions for their legal rights and protections. Human rights organisations and trade unions have strongly criticised the proposal.

It is notable that over the last 12 months or so, the USA has already changed its approach to diversity and equality eliminating diversity and inclusion programs in federal government and discouraging their use in the private sector. 

Reform is suggesting that the protection of individuals in the workplace would be put in place but without the current statutory protection that emphasises protected characteristics. There is no detailed replacement provisions published as yet or clarity on how exactly this might work in practice. 

What is the Equality Act? 

The Equality Act 2010 is designed to protect individuals from discrimination in the workplace and society. The Act sets out what amounts to discrimination because of key characteristics, including race, sex, disability, age, religion or belief, and sexual orientation.

In addition to establishing the concept of ‘protected characteristics’ the Act provides a comprehensive range of protections, including: 

• Prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination 
• Safeguarding against harassment and victimisation
• Requiring reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals.

What would repeal mean for employers? 

Repealing the Act would fundamentally alter the legal and social landscape for employers. Without the Act, a plethora of consequences may occur:

• Reduce legal clarity: Repeal may result in a return to fragmented and inconsistent rules, increasing uncertainty
• Increased risk of litigation uncertainty: Disputes may rely more heavily on older case law for guidance, increasing unpredictability and risk. Employers may also face a greater administrative burden
• Reputational pressure: Even in the absence of statutory duties, employers may continue to face pressure from employees, clients, and the public to uphold inclusive standards.

What would repeal mean for employees? 

Employees are likely to be disproportionately affected by the repeal of the Act, as the removal of statutory protections would significantly weaken their legal position: 

• Loss of comprehensive protections: Without legally enforced protected characteristics, safeguards against discriminatory treatment may be significantly reduced or removed altogether. Some employers may feel emboldened to act in ways that would currently give rise to legal claims
• Greater inequality risks: Vulnerable groups, including individuals with disabilities and ethnic minorities, may face increased exposure to less or unfavourable favourable treatment without robust legislative backing.
• Barriers to legal recourse: The Act currently provides a clear and accessible route for employees to challenge employers’ actions. its repeal could make it harder for individuals to assert their rights
• Workplace culture shifts: While many employers may continue to promote inclusive environments as a matter of best practice, the absence of legal obligations could lead too inconsistent standards across workplaces.

The true impact of such a repealing the Act would heavily depend on what, if anything, replaces the Act – and whether those alternatives maintain the same level of clarity, enforcement and protection. A Workplace Fairness Act has been referenced but without any level of detail.