What a mental take.
Obviously a pub openly supporting any political party is going to lead to some being unhappy and as a result negative reviews and encouraging others who don't support such politics to not attend.
That's inevitable and it's entirely people's right to do so.

The difference that Burnham makes here is genuinely staggering.
I'd like to see the specific wording, because it certainly seems like the left one is GE, and the right is mayor?
So, maybe slight differences in terms of tactical voting too.
Either way, it's still a very large difference.

In other words, you're proposing completely unfunded tax cuts.
How can he promise he's going to cut something without knowing what he's actually cutting to fund it and the impacts of it.
If you don't know what you're cutting, how do you know it'll produce the long-term savings?

This is very interesting.
It appears that Reform are much more open to independence than I'd have expected them to be.
They're leaning towards Unionists, but there sort of neutral in a way.
They must believe they've got a lot of Scottish nationalists tempted by them then I guess.

Marchong is right that this would make little difference.
It's also incredibly simplistic and suggests growth is the only thing that matters.
There are heaps of other things that are very important too, but for each, it remains true linking MPs pay to it, would make little difference.

I think our electoral system and how we fund our politics have a far greater impact on trust in politics, than the fact MPs pay is decided by an independent body.
I don't really see how this would improve trust in politics at all really.
If that's the motive, there are many betters ways to go.

Very much agree.
It would make very little difference.
It's a complete gimmick.
Also, I think we can assume MPs already want growth, and perhaps challenges are greater than any impact this change would make.

Ofc growth should always be considered, but it shouldn't necessarily be the number one mission for every department. Something may be good for short-term growth, but be terrible for the future of our economy or our planet.
Most departments have things equally or more important than growth.

This is already a very decent salary.
Are we really suggesting that this minor change would make any major difference in the decisions MPs make?
I doubt it.
If they're that desperate for more money, many could work in higher paying industries, or do a Farage, and work 17 jobs alongside an MP.

Love the optimism about 5%.
Secondly, is Peter Kyle suggesting that this change should incentivise MPs to effectively ignore local concerns about projects in order to see a slightly larger increase(tiny, if at all), in their salaries?
Seems unlikely to work, nor should our system work like that.

There are reasonable arguments against Burnham, but this is such a terrible argument.
It's just not true.
There wouldn't need to be another general election.
Sometimes a new leader will because they want a renewed mandate or a larger majority, but it's by no means necessary.

Got a lot of time for Thornberry and Moran, so that should be interesting.
Andrew is fairly irrelevant to me tbh.
Republicans Overseas, the only people to make some UK right wingers look sane.

I actually think this is a very good way to respond and in reality she's correct.
She's better off without Jenrick.

Green to Reform detection.
I wonder what principles guided that move.

I've seen a few Reformers posting this.
It's very simple.
What's the goal of the NEU?

So, given this, why would NEU members support parties that want LESS funding, WORSE pay, and to take away workers' rights.
They're obviously not going to vote for parties completely contrary to their interests.

I mean why would NEU members vote for parties actively against their own interests?
Like, why would teachers who are NEU members vote for cuts to education, worse workers' rights, and very likely pay cuts?
It would be worse for them and their pupils, so ofc they don't.

Yep.
I guess it's explained by the huge coverage of small boats compared to other migration, which has made the British public think we have more migrants here illegally than legally, which couldn't be further from the actual story.