16 minutes ago, JAG said:

That's less than turned up in a couple of rubber dinghies the other day!

A bit a false equivalence there.

People smugglers and people who are smuggled are not the same thing.

10 hours ago, RayC said:

But but but, it rather blows a hole in your whole argument implying that Burnham's government has no legitimacy.

If this government doesn't have legitimacy, then neither did any other previous one.

We've already discussed the obvious differences. I wont repeat them.

However even if you were correct its meaningless. Would you defend Labour repeating every mistake by previous governments going back 300 years on the basis it happened before?

Its an inane position and shows your desperation.

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

We've already discussed the obvious differences. I wont repeat them.

However even if you were correct its meaningless. Would you defend Labour repeating every mistake by previous governments going back 300 years on the basis it happened before?

Its an inane position and shows your desperation.

You perhaps need to come terms with the realities of Realpolitik that have been demonstrated repeatedly going back 300 years.

18 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Smash the gangs is working. Illegal crossings down 40%. And even your chums at GB News begrudgingly admit the policy is bearing fruit - that must hurt.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/small-boat-crossings-uk-data-2026-gb-news-407791/

And cue BarraMarra saying some boats landed this week like that has any bearing on the overall trend.

Governments lie so much about everything. Why wouldn't they lie about a contentious issue like illegal migration figures?

4 minutes ago, nexus7 said:

Governments lie so much about everything. Why wouldn't they lie about a contentious issue like illegal migration figures?

Because they are verifiable.And they didn't start reporting when the numbers fell, they have reported them since 2018 no matter what.

Do you think GB News would admit that "smash the gangs" is having an effect if the numbers were in any way sketchy?

6 hours ago, JAG said:

Well, apart from umh, Blair's, Cameron's, Johnson's and Starmer's.

You see they all stood as party leaders in General Elections, and won majorities from the electorate. Admittedly others didn't, Brown, Truss, Sunack, for example. But at least they stood, and were prominent leading figures, in the General Elections which previously put their parties into power.

Burnham was slipped in under the radar!

As a pub sign reportedly said the other week:"Our beer garden is shadier than Andy Burnham!"

I agree that it can be argued that those who won GEs as leaders of their respective parties such as Blair, Cameron, etc have more legitimacy as PMs than those who inherit the role such as Brown, Truss, Sunak and Burnham. However, I don't agree that Brown, Truss and Sunak have any more legitimacy than Burnham. Burnham was hardly an unknown. He was a former prominent cabinet minister who was in situ as Mayor of the UK's third biggest city, a role for which he had received national attention. Moreover, and most importantly, he stood on a Labour platform to get elected as a MP. His views could have been gauged from that.

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

We've already discussed the obvious differences. I wont repeat them.

However even if you were correct its meaningless. Would you defend Labour repeating every mistake by previous governments going back 300 years on the basis it happened before?

Its an inane position and shows your desperation.

Yes, the 'obvious differences' have been discussed and as I pointed out they do not prove that Burnham lacks legitimacy as PM.

Yes, "attempting to defend Labour repeating every mistake by previous governments going back 300 years on the basis it happened before would be an anane argument", which is why I haven't and wouldn't use it. It is no less anane for you to raise it in this exchange.

As I have said previously, Burnham (Labour) could find a cure for cancer and some people would criticise him/ them for not finding one for dementia.

That is how deep your anti- Burnham/ anti-Labour bias runs.

On 7/31/2026 at 11:58 AM, josephbloggs said:

Here you go Jonny, you obviously forgot to read it.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Change-Labour-Party-Manifesto-2024-large-print.pdf

I just had a look at that. What a joke. Complete failure to even address any main objectives over 2 years of bluster and backtrack.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

I just had a look at that. What a joke. Complete failure to even address any main objectives over 2 years of bluster and backtrack.

Talking of bluster you fail to point out which long term policies in the 143 page long term manifesto you have read that you feel haven't been implemented immediately.

And here's an independent analysis of how they are tracking against their manifesto, updated on a rolling basis. Seems to be a bit more in depth than yours if I may say so.

https://fullfact.org/politics/keir-starmer-resignation-manifesto-pledges-government-tracker/

Edited August 1Aug 1 by josephbloggs

39 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Talking of bluster you fail to point out which long term policies in the 143 page long term manifesto you have read that you feel haven't been implemented immediately.

And here's an independent analysis of how they are tracking against their manifesto, updated on a rolling basis. Seems to be a bit more in depth than yours if I may say so.

https://fullfact.org/politics/keir-starmer-resignation-manifesto-pledges-government-tracker/

You can say what you want. I was referring to the main objectives which mostly mentioned (some repeated) from pages 13-21, in what is a very poorly presented document. To me the most important of these objectives are:

Secure borders - - getting worse, not better.

National security - ditto, especially w.r.t. our armed forces.

Economic stability - oops (debt still rising and most still becoming poorer in real terms due to higher NI, taxes and inflation).

Kickstart economic growth - nothing really yet and how and when will that happen?

Starmer and now Burnham can fairly blame the Conservatives but the truth of it is there's been no new significant action by Labour in the last 2 years to solve the major problems.

I see your full fact piece reports similar lack of progress on some of the four points (above) but security issues are largely ignored. Some (ff reported) success with other topics are fair but mainly not the highest priority and not all due to Labour (e.g. NHS waiting times were already improving pre 2024). Migration was also already decreasing pre 2024, when so many started to leave the UK, with the latter a big new problem in itself.

Edited August 1Aug 1 by nauseus