- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
You must log in or register to comment.
Good riddance.
Let’s hope something worse doesn’t show up.
Narrator: “something worse showed up.”
Don’t be hating on Andy Burnham, he’s solid
Lol people said that about Nick Clegg.
Is he? I don’t understand how being mayor of the city at the same time as their bus network improves necessarily means he’s a good politician.
That’s not how the game goes.
just like the british press you give away the depth of your analysis and forget how good he’s been
Starmer, good. Lmao.
Transphobic technofascist future in mind?
Fookin hell mate, I leave for a few days and all hell gets loose?
Let’s hope the next PM is less of an undercooked potato than Starmer was.
When was the last time there was a good one? In my lifetime there’s been Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and Starmer. Name one good one amongst that rogues gallery. I will not hold my breath.
Truss, She was fantastic. For a week or two. Crashed the pound and made it cheaper to send my UK daughter some birthday money.
Truss, She was fantastic. For a week or two
No, you are thinking of the cabbage!
God, choosing a least bad one is even hard.
David Cameron orGordon Brown? I don’t know if I was just less informed about British politics during their tenures or if they were actually better.Edit: oof, I forgot about how Cameron handled brexit, not him.
Probably Gordon Brown or John Major.
Brown sold off the gold reserve when gold was at a record low. He tried to increase pre-charge detention to 42 days and to introduce lie detectors into benefits claims.
Never claimed he was perfect. You can find fault with literally every PM that has ever existed. But him and Major seemed to be relatively scandal free compared to many who have come before and after them.
Gold had been underperforming for decades before Brown sold it off though, you cant really fault him for not predicting the future.
That’s fair. Major was before my time, so I just did a quick wiki glance, and did automatically dismiss him because he was a conservative in thatcher’s cabinet, but that doesn’t make him inherently worse than the rest on this list.
Plus, we just saw what you get from a former civil rights lawyer in the Labour Party
Cameron brought us get the unemployed to work unpaid for private corporations to keep their unemployment benefits.
If you want to argue that is technically paid work you can buy then it was paid at £1.60/hour, far below minimum wage and the tax payer was paying it rather than the corporation benefiting from it.
Slavery runs strong in British history
I realized after I commented that he was also the one who brought the brexit referendum forward
I actually kind of think Cameron introducing austerity may have been worse, overall, over time. Brexit was a fumble, but austerity was malicious.
deleted by creator
Brown probably, but he didn’t have much time to screw anything up.
Brown is frequently cited by economists as the person who did most to repair the world economy after 2008 and prevent the collapse from being catastrophic.
I was in Finance in Britain at the time.
He was the one who saved banks with unconditionally given public money, then turned around and put them in a special “hands-off” management structure where basically the bankers managed themselves.
Royal Bank Of Scotland did not restructure their Investment Banking operations for almost a decade and kept losing billions of pounds every year. I actually worked there for a bit during that period and they were spectacularly inefficient and chaotic compared to other Investment Banks I worked in and under no pressure at all to improve.
Oh and Zero Interest Rate Policy in the UK - that started under Gordon Brown too.
The 2008 Crash recovery was one of the slowest recoveries from a Financial Crash in History.
All this crap then led to Austerity (by then under the Tories), which in turn fed the mix of discontent and scapegoating of the EU that led to Brexit, which in turn put the UK in the sorry state it is today.
Gordon Brown did not repair even the British Economy, much less the World’s.
I remember those claims back then already and they were complete total bollocks fed by a handful of opinion makers in British newspapers and New Labour politicians - as far as I know, not a single international Economist endorsed that idea that Gordon Brown saved the World’s Economy: the whole thing was just one big circle jerk of New Labour politicians and supporters.
I think you’ve been watching too much BBC and reading too much The Guarding - they’re the ones who invariably spin “Briton saves the world” stories out of British politicians swiping British problems under the carpet and leaving them for others to solve later.
Blimey! Didn’t you notice that I wrote that Brown is cited by economists? That I didn’t say anything about agreeing with that. If anything I agree with pretty much all you say. (Worth checking what someone actually writes before getting a bit accusative.)
Did you notice that they said no reputable international economists actually say that?
But you’re right to call out the accusatory tone of @Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com’s comment, that did kind of spoil an otherwise very informative post.
Please point out a renowned international Economist who actually said that Gordon Brown saved the World’s Economy.
I keenly remember that claim back then because it was part of Gordon Brown’s campaign strategy against the Tories to keep Labour in power (which, by the way, failed) and there was literally no Economist or even Financier outside Britain claiming that Gordon Brown saved the World’s Economy.
As I said, I was in Finance at the time and the rest of the World wasn’t looking at Britain for guidance on how to react to the Crash, they were looking at the ECB and the Americans, which are far larger Economies - the only way Britain stood out back then was that it was the worst hit Economy of all after the US, and later it stood out because as the web was untangled on the whole thing, it turned out that many cases of market manipulation and other shenanigans leading to the Crash actually happened in London (most of which, by the way, having happened during the time Gordon Brown was Chancellor, and please don’t get me started how both Tories and New Labour seriously defunded the Serious Fraud Office and turned the FSA into a joke)
That old claim you repeated in your post is a perfect example of British Exceptionalism.
It does seem like even the less offensive ones tend to have a major cock-up that results in them being denied entry into the “least bad PM” club, doesn’t it?
Name a good one. In the non-gaslit version of history even Churchill (“our greatest PM”) was despised. Seems to me each PM is used to get the Establishment over a bump and then dispensed with in favour of another “jam tomorrow” character who’ll take the country’s ire over the next crisis. It’s systemic.
Depends what you mean by good?
Both Thatcher and Blair - whatever your opinion of them - led governments that made lasting changes to how the country worked. Even the coalition managed to achieve some significant things while navigating multi-party government in a very resource restrained environment. I think the current malaise started with Brexit where the population watched parliament struggle to enact the will of the people and have come to the conclusion that politicians are a self serving class with no concrete ideology to form a program for government. Starmer sweept into a loveless majority with little more of than a plan of “be less shit than the Tories” I’m not surprised they want to dump that for anyone who seems like they have a plan.
Who said anything about a good one?
I just want someone who’s less unflavoured cold porridge and a bit more present.
BoJo the clown might’ve been a terrible PM but at least he had some presence. Sure it was mostly because the majority media was backing him, but at least you heard about what he was doing.
Meanwhile, Starmer actually got shit going in some aspects: and the media was playing crickets noises throughout. Because our Prime Milquetoast was afraid of actually hammering home the achievements, while letting the media get away with their usual bullshittery crap.
Pretty much all I want is a PM who gets shit done and makes sure people know about the positive changes coming.
I disagree about Starmer getting things done, but you’re right about Boris.
If someone told you they were a massive fan of Boris, you might think they are wrong, but you wouldn’t be surprised.
If someone told you they are a massive fan of Starmer you’d think they are a bit weird.
Eh, Starmer did get some stuff done.
The Renter’s Rights bill as well as the leasehold system reform in itself is a major achievement.
Workers rights also saw some improvements (SSP from day one, no zero-hour contracts, no fire-and-rehire). Not as much as I’d like to see but it’s much more than what the Tories achieved in 14 years…
Then there’s the whole plan of bringing railways back into public ownership, and plans to do so for utility services too. Sure, this won’t have a visible effect for a few more years but once properly in effect, and Starmer could’ve gone for a handful of low hanging fruit - things that need immediate change that do have immediate visibility.
Not to mention that the economy IS improving, wages are getting better, inflation is down, so overall the UK is doing better than it was doing two years ago. The main issue is, that there is no media visibility of this at all. You too are saying there’s not much Starmer has gotten done yet even a cursory overview of what actually happened in the past two years shows that there is, actually, a lot going on. And then I haven’t even touched down on the improving NHS wait times, crime dropping considerably (homicides alone are the lowest since 1970), or how illegal immigration dropped nearly half in just the past year.
But don’t get me wrong, I’m not praising him - he could have and should have done more. No argument there. But let’s not minimise what he’s actually gotten done when compared to any PM of the past 16 years, he’s light-years ahead of any other for actually improving Britain for the average citizen.
A lettuce?
I would like to believe that this is causal not correlative. You leaving caused this to happen. You are too powerful.
I’ve got an idea!
I will start a holiday fund. Whenever y’all want a new PM, just donate enough so I can head off for a week or two. With a country of 60 million people… If just half of you want a new PM, a single one penny donation will make it happen.
I’m just trying to imagine what kind of holiday £300k might buy
that would buy you a day-trip in Monaco, depending on how lucky you’re feeling
A spenny one!
Can’t wait for the media to work their magic on Burnham until he too is universally reviled. It already seems to have started.
It wasn’t the media’s fault that Burnham basically up and said “I agree with everything Labour has done under Starmer”.
That’s not what I’m referring to.
He’s doing a good job of that himself.
Is he?
The previous MP for Makerfield was Josh Simons. Simons ran the Labour Together think-tank which purged the Labour Party of lefties and installed Starmer as leader.
When several investigative journalists began looking into potential campaign violations for Starmer’s successful General Election, Simons hired a PR firm to have private investigators probe the journalists’ private lives. He also directed MI5 to investigate them on false accusations of Kremlin ties.
When this came to light in February, Simons was forced to resign the ministerial positions Starmer had rewarded him with.
As buy-in for his comeback, he resigned his constituency to enable Burnham to stand. Burnham is widely expected by party sources to reward Simons with a senior position at No 10.
With respect, while that doesn’t sound good, I don’t think it’s the kind of issue that leads to anything like “universal revulsion”. It’s the kind of thing that incenses politics nerds like us.
I also think “widely expected” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your last claim.
I get Nick Clegg vibes from Burnham tbh (similar to Zack Polanski of the Green Party), it feels like it’s only a matter of time before he betrays everyone who buys into his words.
The fact that Wes Streeting has put his hat in with Burnham all but confirms it.
Fucking finally.
Now lets see how much worse the next one is…
If he can at least read the room it would be an improvement. Starmer spent most of his time trying to appease reform voters.
I will never again assume that someone is progressive just because he’s gay, or in a party called Labour.
You okay Britain? You’ve been going through PMs like DiCaprio goes through 20 year olds.
Murdoch says we need a new PM so…
If only more countries did the same
After burning down the UK, he gets to enjoy his golden parachute how lovely!
“Burning down the UK” like introducing a massive renter’s rights bill?
He’s a politician so on Lemmy we burn them all apparently?
I mean I’m on board with that - figuratively, not literally. Sack them all, let us vote directly on anything MP’s vote on.
But if we’re not doing that Kier staying where he was would be much better than this.
I genuinely don’t understand why he’s left. Nothing has happened. The only people pushing for this are the media, and it makes me wonder if someone in that group has made a serious threat against him and/or his family.
Or someone is using the group as a threat
To be fair, Conservatives started the fire more than a decade earlier. Starmer just failed to meet expectations, sometimes in egregious ways.
Was he saying he’s a leftist but acting like a rightist, or a rightist who was always going to be so?
There’s only really those two types left in Labour globally.
He presented himself as a moderate, which in reality means he wanted to pull the labor party back to the right again. The very first thing he did was purge the left wing of the party
What’s this Labor Party of which you type? Are letters falling off a la Tory Conference?
Honestly, good riddance to some of the labour left, I hope they are happy in the new “Your Party” they set up.
That’s fair. I’m much happier voting for Greens, less hand wringing, more sleep, that sort of thing. I couldn’t imaging having the support of genocide on my conscience, I support it via taxes… But voting for it? Then theres the anti-privacy, the anti-LGBT, the Mandleson thing…
I can’t remember the moment I chose not to vote labour, it could have been when he told people to leave. I do remember, very specifically, not wanting to support Starmer though, a good call I think. There’s a reason Starmer got fewer votes than Corbyn: we knew.
Comes in, shits on table, leaves
Well I respect that he’s had the grace to not make it messy
What are you talking about? It’s been messy for ages by now.
To not make more of a mess of it, then
Fair enough, agreed.
He’s trying to make it messy. By the time the next leader sees a day in Parliament, the media will have had a month to anticipate worst cases. If he’d stepped down immediately, an interim leader would have kept things for a week or two until Burnham was inevitably coronated.
What would not making it messy look like in your view? He can’t run a contest for his successor in secret
He has set the nomination process to end coinciding with the summer break. Do we really need to wait two and a half weeks before nominations open? With Streeting captured by Burnham it looks like there could be only one candidate anyway.
If he’d opened nominations tomorrow, thats two weeks of parliament the new PM would have had to make an impression before silly season.
If you want to have a meaningful contest, you have to allow a bit of time for contestants to get themselves arranged, don’t you? And if you don’t do that then it harms Burnham’s legitimacy as a successor
They’ve had time. Half the cabinet registered domain names for possible campaigns months ago. They’ve been gauging support for a long time and will know if they are viable. Streeting certainly knew he wasn’t.
The nomination period is 1 week. I’d argue that’s plenty of time. Remember the maximum number of candidates is 5, but Burnham will have more than 81 signatures so it will be at most 4.
Waiting until 9th July to open nominations means it’s likely that the others will drop out beforehand and it will be a coronation in slow motion, which isn’t great either.
If the others have an honest chance to compete and choose not to, that’s totally fine.
I don’t think that rushing to get the successor in before the summer break is a good idea either. That means that the new guy basically just assembles a cabinet, gets in, and then is not seen to do anything for a month and a half
How many Truss’s did Starmer last?
At least 4 or 5 lettuces! Pretty good!
Cannot wait for trump to take credit for this.
Epstein pedophile handing contracts to pedo Peter Thiel’s palantir
The long-running London production of “The Government” is about to announce its new lead. Don’t worry, everything about the show is the same and you’ll still be able to buy refreshments during the interval - though the Cost of Living Crisis means prices for beers, wine and choc-ices have to be increased by 50%. “The Government” became a hit when it promised change to the usual Westminster shows but, over the last 50 years has declined in popularity.
“Pure knockabout theatre,” is how one critic has described the show while Muddy Wokenfield of The Guardian called it “Vaudeville and Pantomime at it’s British best!”
Wait, I had this on my… Last years bingo dammit!
Let’s hope Wesley doesn’t end up replacing him
He says he’s backing Burnham. Coronation time for the King in the North.
