So Andy Burnham is going to be PM

[emigre]

Went to Makersfield and smashed it. Let's be frank, he's going to become PM now. Starmer has no political capital or credibility left. The question is, will there a leadership election or coronation?

 

[Exnor]

What will change if he wins ?

 

[emigre]

What will change if he wins ?

Ideologically, I wouldn't say he's too different from Starmer but there are some differences so I would say him being a continuity is a real possibility.

He's spoken a lot about the economic imbalance of the North and control of utilities. These sound pretty vague to me tbh, he's commited to Rachel Reeves' economic rules which doesn't indicate a change in economic policy and he hasn't committed to re nationalisation. However, decent numbers of actual left wing MPs are backing him.

On the other hand, he does support greater devolution (not that surprising for a Metro Mayor) and PR. He does at least possess better communication skills than Starmer and hopefully better judgement skill.

 

[Exnor]

And what are his stances on the dystopian idea of ID requirement on every online interaction there in the UK ?

 

[emigre]

No one knows!

 

[Taleweaver]

... Who?

And an observation: could it be that UK prime minister posts are more about popularity than anything else? Compared to other countries, that is.

 

[emigre]

... Who?

And an observation: could it be that UK prime minister posts are more about popularity than anything else? Compared to other countries, that is

Here's the guy in the middle.

 

[Taleweaver]

Here's the guy in the middle.
View attachment 578831

Great. British humour (i should've said "whom... Right?) . Lemme just ditch US pleb language here...

It's all very well, luv. But i couldn't but notice you've embedded a photograph featuring four people, hitherto ensuring no single person occupies the center spot. Given your wit regarding mr Burham, i will hereby assume it's mister trashcan head there, but out of politeness not mention it so that comedic misrepresentation can take place.

 

[emigre]

Great. British humour (i should've said "whom... Right?) . Lemme just ditch US pleb language here...

It's all very well, luv. But i couldn't but notice you've embedded a photograph featuring four people, hitherto ensuring no single person occupies the center spot. Given your wit regarding mr Burham, i will hereby assume it's mister trashcan head there, but out of politeness not mention it so that comedic misrepresentation can take place.

BO'OH'O'WA'ER!

 

[emigre]

So Starmer is gone. New PM in July if there's no leadership election. August if there is one.

Would be incredible if Burnham doesn't get it.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

First vaguely competent PM in a decade and the infighting is already starting. We are so fucked.

 

[emigre]

First vaguely competent PM in a decade and the infighting is already starting. We are so fucked.

I know I'm a Starmer 8er but he made a number of failings which ended his premiership.

Firstly, he was never able to eastablish an electoral base which would support him. He spent much of his premiership chasing ring win Reform leaning votes and isolating (or outright insulting) the progressive left. The issue with this is, based on data, Reform supporters were never going to switch to him and the old Labour right policy of telling left wing voters they had no where else to do has provied void. The Greens under Polankski has grabbed that vote. This is seen is literally every election since Starmer became PM, the only exception being the Makerfield byelection because Burnham was campaigning on replacing him. The Ming vase strategy is in pieces now.

His inability to be a coherent politician, what does he stand for? Before being leader, he was supportive of Gaza, Trans Rights and taxing the super wealthy. Everything he has u-turned on.

Unavoidable errors, such as the handling of the Winter Fuel Allowence, Benefits bill and Mandelson has damaged his authority and I would argue a more political savvy person would have avoided those fuck ups which pissed off people and I would argue was not good policy. WFA, in its initial rollout affected people who were not too well off and now after the U turn is too generous in who qualifies for it. The benefits bill was just shitshow, it was very hot summer day and there were a tonne of clearly disabled people protesting against it. It was an awful look and quite frankly not something the Labour party should be doing and it the U-turn meant no money was saved. Than Mandelson. The man is a proven liability and appointing him to the ambassador post raises serious questions on his judgement.

He's an atrocious communicator. I have a level of personal symptathy for him here but sadly we now live in a world where being an effective communicator is an essential rather a desirable. Especially with how vibes based everything seems to be. The actually achievements of his government have not been communicated well to the wider public (Renters rights, workers rights, Taxing VAT on private schools, recognition of Palestine as a state).

The general chaos of his office. In his backroom, there have been multiple personnel changes and multiple rebrands. I think there's been 4 or 5 Comms directors, 4 chief of staffs and multiple changes in advisors. The common denominator in all of this him. I don't think he was ever suited to the role of PM.

To put this into context, I voted for Starmer to be Labour Leader in 2020 and have felt continually let down by him as someone who is very much on the left. I ended up resgining my Labour membership after 12 or 13 years to tput this into contect. I think he put his faith in the wrong people (i.e. the idiot known as Morgan McSweeney) and was lacked basic political nous.

sorry for any grammer issues, am writing this in my lunch break!

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I know I'm a Starmer 8er but he made a number of failings which ended his premiership.

Firstly, he was never able to eastablish an electoral base which would support him. He spent much of his premiership chasing ring win Reform leaning votes and isolating (or outright insulting) the progressive left. The issue with this is, based on data, Reform supporters were never going to switch to him and the old Labour right policy of telling left wing voters they had no where else to do has provied void. The Greens under Polankski has grabbed that vote. This is seen is literally every election since Starmer became PM, the only exception being the Makerfield byelection because Burnham was campaigning on replacing him. The Ming vase strategy is in pieces now.

His inability to be a coherent politician, what does he stand for? Before being leader, he was supportive of Gaza, Trans Rights and taxing the super wealthy. Everything he has u-turned on.

Unavoidable errors, such as the handling of the Winter Fuel Allowence, Benefits bill and Mandelson has damaged his authority and I would argue a more political savvy person would have avoided those fuck ups which pissed off people and I would argue was not good policy. WFA, in its initial rollout affected people who were not too well off and now after the U turn is too generous in who qualifies for it. The benefits bill was just shitshow, it was very hot summer day and there were a tonne of clearly disabled people protesting against it. It was an awful look and quite frankly not something the Labour party should be doing and it the U-turn meant no money was saved. Than Mandelson. The man is a proven liability and appointing him to the ambassador post raises serious questions on his judgement.

He's an atrocious communicator. I have a level of personal symptathy for him here but sadly we now live in a world where being an effective communicator is an essential rather a desirable. Especially with how vibes based everything seems to be. The actually achievements of his government have not been communicated well to the wider public (Renters rights, workers rights, Taxing VAT on private schools, recognition of Palestine as a state).

The general chaos of his office. In his backroom, there have been multiple personnel changes and multiple rebrands. I think there's been 4 or 5 Comms directors, 4 chief of staffs and multiple changes in advisors. The common denominator in all of this him. I don't think he was ever suited to the role of PM.

To put this into context, I voted for Starmer to be Labour Leader in 2020 and have felt continually let down by him as someone who is very much on the left. I ended up resgining my Labour membership after 12 or 13 years to tput this into contect. I think he put his faith in the wrong people (i.e. the idiot known as Morgan McSweeney) and was lacked basic political nous.

sorry for any grammer issues, am writing this in my lunch break!

Literally still a better pm than liz truss, Theresa may or Boris johnson

 

[Exnor]

Literally still a better pm than liz truss, Theresa may or Boris johnson

Even a potato is better than Boris. That was really a very low bar

 

[AndorfRequissa]

im not british so it doesnt really make any difference to me whose the next PM but I saw that this guy just gets installed as the next PM and the citizens dont have a say. Is that true? Why wouldnt they have a general election if the PM resigns because there is no confidence in his government?

just seems like a wierd way to run a government where they arent fixing the problem at all by installing in someone like they are.

 

[Armadillo]

im not british so it doesnt really make any difference to me whose the next PM but I saw that this guy just gets installed as the next PM and the citizens dont have a say. Is that true?

It's true ,and no say, because that's how our system works.

We don't vote for a specific leader to run the country, we vote for our local mp, who belongs to X party and represents a seat in parliament. Whichever party gets enough seats to form a majority, gets to run the country. Leader of the party and who is Prime Minister, is whoever can command the confidence of their party and get their parties mps to fall in line and go along with whatever the plan is.

There are some small, less important details (different parties have different ways of selecting a leader), but that's the gist of it.

Why wouldnt they have a general election if the PM resigns because there is no confidence in his government?

Pretty much because they don't have to. It's not how it works here.

They get 5 years, unless the Prime minister calls for an election. Other parties may put pressure, might have a vote of no confidence to try to force the issue (unlikely to pass with Labour having such a large majority), might just try to put pressure (you have no mandate from the public, blah blah), but at the end of the day, unless the prime minister calls for an election, then the party gets 5 years. It's just the way it works here.

 

[AndorfRequissa]

It's true ,and no say, because that's how our system works.

We don't vote for a specific leader to run the country, we vote for our local mp, who belongs to X party and represents a seat in parliament. Whichever party gets enough seats to form a majority, gets to run the country. Leader of the party and who is Prime Minister, is whoever can command the confidence of their party and get their parties mps to fall in line and go along with whatever the plan is.

There are some small, less important details (different parties have different ways of selecting a leader), but that's the gist of it.



Pretty much because they don't have to. It's not how it works here.

They get 5 years, unless the Prime minister calls for an election. Other parties may put pressure, might have a vote of no confidence to try to force the issue (unlikely to pass with Labour having such a large majority), might just try to put pressure (you have no mandate from the public, blah blah), but at the end of the day, unless the prime minister calls for an election, then the party gets 5 years. It's just the way it works here.

thanks for the explanation. thats crazy that a guy that wasnt even in political power and not even and elected MP can become prime minister without a single vote by the people. people can just get voted in and sell their spots to the highest bidder it seems. crazy levels of corruption. i didnt realize that the european system had that many loopholes in it to be corrupt. i learned something today. thanks for the lesson.

 

[emigre]

Literally still a better pm than liz truss, Theresa may or Boris johnson

Bruv, I would rather eat dogshit than have any of those fuckers back.

thanks for the explanation. thats crazy that a guy that wasnt even in political power and not even and elected MP can become prime minister without a single vote by the people.

Not true. Andy Burnham did have political power but as the Mayor of Greater Manchester. And he did get votes, votes from the people of Makersfield.

In terms of corruption, not really happened. Don't know what you mean by selling their spots.

If you want hilarious, go read about Alex Douglas-Home. He became PM despite not being in the House of Commons back in the 60s.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Even a potato is better than Boris. That was really a very low bar

And yet brits have forgotten that!

 

[Sir Tortoise]

Even a potato is better than Boris. That was really a very low bar

We had a lettuce for Liz Truss, but damn, a potato could have been amazing with his hairdo. Historic missed opportunity