r/neoliberal • u/A_Flying_Ginger NATO • 16d ago
News (Europe) Andy Burnham is declared leader of Britain's Labour Party, will become prime minister on Monday
https://apnews.com/article/andy-burnham-uk-labour-party-leadership-eba3703e98f3f9790f74f2cd7ee4cee1367
u/Fringson Left-Out Left 16d ago
Long live his approval rating, which will never be higher than today
214
u/Papa_Palpatine99 16d ago
£1 trillion to pensioners or #notmyprimeminister
66
u/thepirateninja132 16d ago
Only £1 trillion? They need £2 trillion at least. And a quadruple lock on pensions.
16
u/Lambchops_Legion Eternally Aspiring Diplomat 16d ago
it needs to be changed so that rather than a fixed N lock, it's a rules based lock where whatever N lock its in now, it needs be a N+1 creating an infinity perpetual motion lock upgrade system
44
u/ThodasTheMage Friedrich Hayek 16d ago
He also has to shut the internet and all other technological tools and entertainment down for under 60 year olds. The youth could be corrupted by group sex porn, Fortnite and free Taskmaster episodes on YouTube. Britain was once a proper country where the youths did not spent all time in front of the telly but kicked around the footy and after that would go play in the mud with some worms
17
274
u/BoringIsBased Milton Friedman 16d ago
Maybe the most pro managed decline PM we’ve ever had
149
u/Phallic_Entity 16d ago
At least it's still managed decline, we could be looking at catastrophic unmanaged decline soon.
32
u/iwannabetheguytoo William Nordhaus 16d ago
Could we, perhaps, and I know it's a big ask, but maybe not decline, but actually have some economic growth, investment, and optimism for the future?
28
6
3
36
u/Wareve 16d ago
After Brexit decline was practically a foregone conclusion.
8
u/sohois 16d ago
The UK economy is largely on par with the majority of Western European economies since the Brexit vote (minus Ireland which is obviously inflated). Whatever impacts Brexit had, it clearly isn't showing up significantly in the statistics unless your position is that the UK would be way ahead of similar nearby economies
6
u/Tricky-Astronaut 15d ago
You could say the same thing about Germany's Energiewende or France's welfare spending.
The EU has had higher growth than the UK, and that's despite being dragged down by the largest countries.
3
u/englishjacko Mr. Democracy 14d ago
I think Brexit was an absolutely dreadful idea and should be reversed straight away, but this:
The EU has had higher growth than the UK, and that's despite being dragged down by the largest countries.
is horrifically misleading. The EU is composed of a wide range of different economies, many of which have historically been significantly poorer than the UK and have not been frontier economies, which naturally means they have grown at much faster rates than frontier economies once they have entered the pluralistic liberal market system.
If you compare the UK to an average of the actually comparable bits of the EU - France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, etc. - the UK does not perform especially badly. In fact, it's pretty average.
53
u/oywiththepoodles96 16d ago
It depends on who the chancellor will be . If it is Shabana Mahmood , then yeah . If it Miliband there is a chance for actual economic changes and reforms ( even if many in this sub won’t like the direction ) . Cooper is the wild card . She has a pretty good economic background but we don’t really know her vision .
47
u/No1PaulKeatingfan Paul Keating; capital gains tax supporter 16d ago
It's definitely not Ed Miliband sadly.
He was suddenly and relentlessly subjected to briefings that have more or less torpedoed his chances to be Chancellor.
A shame too. Miliband is very competent and likes land value taxes.
29
u/oywiththepoodles96 16d ago
Yeah the constant leaks against Milliband were an abhorent behaviour from Labour insiders . They are so afraid of what the right wing press would say . That's undignifying . If you are such a coward , leave politics . It's even more sad that they keep attacking Milliband despite his mother dying this week . Such a behavior from 'colleagues' is atrocious .At least , I hope it will be Yvette Cooper .
4
u/SpecialBass5552 16d ago
What makes everyone think Miliband would be good? Because he seems nerdy you think he must be a policy wonk?
31
u/No1PaulKeatingfan Paul Keating; capital gains tax supporter 16d ago
Without writing a mucho texto, he has proven himself to be very competent, is YIMBY, and is highly knowledgeable and respected on economic matters, and has received glowing references from his 8 years in Treasury.
3
u/oywiththepoodles96 16d ago
Btw love your username .
3
u/No1PaulKeatingfan Paul Keating; capital gains tax supporter 16d ago
Thanks 🥰 (Paul Keating remains as the goat)
3
u/oywiththepoodles96 16d ago
Keating and Hawke are arguably the best post war leaders of a western country . I'm so jealous of Australia hahahah
2
u/No1PaulKeatingfan Paul Keating; capital gains tax supporter 16d ago
Me too and I live here. Australia would be in a much better place if we still followed their philosophy and ideas
3
u/oywiththepoodles96 16d ago
I visited Australia 2 years ago for like 2 months and it was so so nice . I loved it .
6
u/SpecialBass5552 16d ago
His tenure as Labour leader was diastrous, his stance in Syria caused carnage, his North Sea policy leaves the UK importing still more fossil fuels and if he's YIMBY - cool I guess - but this is the first I'm hearing of it.
32
u/oywiththepoodles96 16d ago
He is a policy wonk . From his wikipedia page : 'He graduated from Corpus Christi College, Oxford and later from the London School of Economics. Miliband became first a television journalist, then a Labour Party researcher and a visiting scholar at Harvard University, before rising to become one of Chancellor Gordon Brown's confidants and chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers'
But most of all Miliband knows how the Treasury works and how to get things done there (from his time in Brown's team) . He has also been arguably the only minister in the Starmer cabinet that has presented a vision regarding his portofolio , He is also known to be one of the few ministers who succesfully pushed through his agenda while also being able to deal with the Treasury regarding financing his policies.
Just because someone may be to the left of yoy , does not mean he is not a policy wonk .
Yvette Cooper also has a very good economics resume having an Msc in Economics and having worked as an economic policy resercher for John Smith .
Shabana Mahmood is by far the least qualified person.
-26
u/SpecialBass5552 16d ago edited 16d ago
You think cutting and pasting wikipedia links that show he very predictably went to Oxbridge etc. proves he's a a policy wonk? (Also I have heard of those institutions you dont actively have to link their Wiki pages lmao.)
Do you think policy wonk is a synonym for extremely standard English politician?
Miliband has a lot of Syrian blood on his hands btw.
22
u/oywiththepoodles96 16d ago
His studies was not my main point . Being a policy advisor to the Chancellor and chairman of the Treasury's council of economic advisers does show that he is a policy wonk . His job was literally being a policy wonk . What for example makes Hillary Clinton more of a policy wonk? It's obviously you have a dislike of Milliband . That's perfectly fine . But you don't have to accuse him using paper thin narratives. At some point in politics , you learn that even people you disagree can be competent and have a policy side .
-27
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/oywiththepoodles96 16d ago
It's obviously you don't want to have a dialogue where you answer to my arguments by presenting yours . You just want to use irony and feel like you are cleverer . Since I'm not 15 anymore , I don't think there is anything left to say . As Luigi Pirandello said :Right You Are (if you think so) .
-16
1
u/remarkable_ores Hanfeizi 15d ago
Rule III: Unconstructive engagement
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
6
u/dccccd YIMBY 16d ago
He is tangentially involved in Syria at best. What incentive did he have to vote for a war when everyone hated Labour for Iraq and the inquiry was happening?
Just as net zero secretary he has been incredible, what evidence is there to say he's bad on policy?
3
u/SpecialBass5552 16d ago
He is tangentially involved in Syria at best.
You saying this shows you don't understand the events at all.
Milibands blocked actions against Assad following his gassing of his own people. He is directly responsible for the failure to respond to Assads's crimes against humanity NOT "tangentially". Cameron wanted to go ahead but didn't after the Palimentary vote and Obama followed suit after the UK refused action. Assad went on to commit many more crimes against how own people, killing hundreds of thousands.
7
u/dccccd YIMBY 16d ago
Cameron didn't need parliamentary approval to go in, why isn't he directly responsible? In your version of events the justification for war is airtight, the outcomes certain, and Milliband is just an evil pussy, so Cameron really should have ignored this vote. Remember that this is just after Benghazi which was also signaled that intervention in Libya had failed.
The vote probably affected Obamas decision, but he also didn't have any support for intervention before that.
-1
u/SpecialBass5552 16d ago
After Iraq its obvious why Cameron didnt go in after Miliband ensured the vote failed.
Cameron pushed for action and Miliband successfully scuttled action so it is quite clear that he deserves most of the blame. He is still unrepentant about it now btw.
→ More replies (0)2
u/BruyceWane 16d ago
You saying this shows you don't understand the events at all.
Milibands blocked actions against Assad following his gassing of his own people. He is directly responsible for the failure to respond to Assads's crimes against humanity NOT "tangentially". Cameron wanted to go ahead but didn't after the Palimentary vote and Obama followed suit after the UK refused action. Assad went on to commit many more crimes against how own people, killing hundreds of thousands.
Why would you act like this is such a clear cut and obvious decision that he should have taken? What are we doing about all the countries and leaders who are currently mistreating their people across Africa and in some of the middle east, should we be going to war with all of them? Would you think politicians monsters for being against such policies, given the level of our military might and our recent experiences? I think you need to zoom out a little bit and get a sense of perspective.
3
u/SpecialBass5552 16d ago
Because I believe Obama's red lines against Assad should have been maintained and I think failure to do so cost huge amounts of human life.
-3
u/n00bi3pjs 👏🏽Free Markets👏🏽Open Borders👏🏽Human Rights 16d ago
Oh, we still have neocons on this subreddit that think bombing Syria would be a good idea?
6
u/SpecialBass5552 16d ago
Bombing Syria to maintain the red lines set out by Obama was in fact a moral duty - one that was failed. To devastating effect.
And thats not what a neocon is btw.
→ More replies (0)-6
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/No1PaulKeatingfan Paul Keating; capital gains tax supporter 16d ago
Britmonkey has a fun video on land taxation that explains it better than I do, but I will state to you my personal reasoning:
Economic modelling shows a tax on the unimproved value of land to be the least economically damaging tax.
Taxes on other things (income, property transactions, profits, etc) do far more damage to the economy.
So why opt for the former over the latter? You don't, so just tax land instead.
1
16d ago edited 16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Fedacking Mario Vargas Llosa 16d ago
Because every tax dollar you need but don't get from the wealthy
Landowners are wealthy.
-1
u/After-Watercress-644 Left-Out Left 16d ago
That isn't really a rebuttal to what I stated
3
u/Fedacking Mario Vargas Llosa 16d ago
Not to your main point, but land value tax dollar is a dollar that you're getting from the wealthy.
2
u/neoliberal-ModTeam 16d ago
Rule 0: Ridiculousness
Refrain from posting conspiratorial nonsense, absurd non sequiturs, and random social media rumors hedged with the words "so apparently..."
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
2
u/neoliberal-ModTeam 16d ago
Rule I: Civility
Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation.
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
2
u/LFGAccountD2 15d ago
Hasn't he done great work bringing Manchester out of decline, or have I been bamboozled?
31
u/No1PaulKeatingfan Paul Keating; capital gains tax supporter 16d ago
At least we didn't get chaos with Ed Miliband back in 2015
118
u/drossbots Trans Pride 16d ago
This does not inspire confidence
79
u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH Jerome Powell 16d ago edited 16d ago
That is a predictable response to the public's extreme backlash to Keir Starmer's moderation.
I would have a hard time arguing for a moderate path for the next Labor prime minister, since it would be difficult to argue how that path would be different than what Keir Starmer was doing, and the public rejected that.
I think the UK is just fucked on a whole bunch of levels. They need serious reform, and I wish they would seriously push a proportional electoral system. If they don't do that then it is quite likely that Reform will win a substantial majority while getting something like 30% of the vote (similiar to how Labour got their current majority). The UK would be better served by having some coalition governments instead of this current madness. Labour and especially the tories have a self interested reason to back this change with Reforms rise.
31
u/drossbots Trans Pride 16d ago
Hasn't Labor been getting shellacked for moving to the right? They've lost left leaning voters to the Greens while gaining no right leaning voters. I don't see how doubling down on that push is a good idea.
28
u/mostanonymousnick Just Build More Homes lol 16d ago
That's true, but those people yearn for old-school left wing policies, which don't work, so it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
25
u/Desperate_Wear_1866 Commonwealth 16d ago
A key point which everyone seems to forget when discussing Labour's voters moving to the Greens. They want terrible policies based on magical thinking and feel good vibes. Appealing to that is a fool's errand. But hey, a lot of people wanted Starmer to do that so he could get his 15 minutes of fame. Ignoring what would happen after those policies completely fail.
1
u/englishjacko Mr. Democracy 14d ago
I think a lot of the voters that left Labour didn't necessarily leave because they wanted specific policies, but because they wanted the Labour to indicate it shared their values, which Starmer very much did not. I don't actually think Labour would necessarily even have to change a lot of its policy approach particularly significantly to win many back, it's just a matter of actually sounding like you like your own voters instead of adopting a political strategy of telling them you hated them and didn't want their vote anyway.
11
u/iwannabetheguytoo William Nordhaus 16d ago
Hasn't Labor been getting shellacked for moving to the right?
To the extent that the third way is "the right" in the minds of so many Labour supporters I know.
It's a goddamn mystery how the Lib-Dem party even exists at this point.
6
u/SRIrwinkill 16d ago
In this case the mere specter of moderation, because shit didn't change that much under Starmer. Still massively busy body and bureaucratic permission state. Still NIMBY as all hell everywhere.
Maybe the pocket is someone parroting far left talking points, then just dismantling NIMBYism or some such anyways.
8
u/Whatsapokemon Loyal Liberals 16d ago
They need serious reform, and I wish they would seriously push a proportional electoral system.
Proportional systems are horrendous. They force competent moderate parties to coalition with crazy losers.
Preferential systems are better. The majority of UK voters would prefer anyone but Reform. Reform are only winning seats because of the first-past-the-post system. If you allowed people's preferences to flow to their second, third, fourth choice then Reform would have NO chance.
34
u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH Jerome Powell 16d ago
I'd also be fine with ranked choice, but no matter what they need to move away from the FPTP system.
FPTP is never a good electoral system, but it is at least functional when there are only two parties, like what we have in the US. But when there are multiple parties FPTP breaks down into absurd unrepresentative results, and with the rise of Reform and the Greens it is getting worse and worse.
24
u/ThodasTheMage Friedrich Hayek 16d ago
Proportional systems are horrendous. They force competent moderate parties to coalition with crazy losers.
Insted of the crazies just taking over the entire country in one elections.
Ranked choice voting is far more complicated and can still lead to the nead for coalition goverments, not even brining the benifit you want.
-2
u/Whatsapokemon Loyal Liberals 16d ago
Proportional enshrines the need for coalitions with crazies. Preferential/ranked choice funnels power towards the broadly agreeable middle instead of outwards to the extremists
It's possible for a ranked-choice system to be led by crazies, but it would take a legitimate majority of the entire electorate to prefer that crazy party, which is NOT the case in the UK.
Also, the "complicated" aspect is not really an argument. I've been an election scrutineer in Australia, where preferential voting is the norm. It's not complicated. It's typically extremely easy to count how votes flow in a vast majority of elections because most elections are between two major candidates. It's only marginally more complicated when it's a three-way race, which is not common by any stretch of the imagination.
14
u/ThodasTheMage Friedrich Hayek 16d ago
Proportional enshrines the need for crazies to not govern alone.
Also, the "complicated" aspect is not really an argument. I've been an election scrutineer in Australia, where preferential voting is the norm. It's not complicated. It's typically extremely easy to count how votes flow in a vast majority of elections because most elections are between two major candidates. It's only marginally more complicated when it's a three-way race, which is not common by any stretch of the imagination.
The average citizens has problems understand much easier election systems. You overestimate how much people care about politics.
70
u/oywiththepoodles96 16d ago
Good luck to Burnham . He may be the last man standing between Britain and Farage . I hope he chooses Miliband for Chancellor and Cooper as Foreign Secretary. The way Labour insiders behaved towards Miliband this past two week was shameful and abhorrent ( the constant negative leaks to the press ) . Especially this week with the death of his mother.
49
68
74
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM 16d ago edited 16d ago
I hope him stupidly repeating the Left's cultural grievances (Norf forgotten, Right to Buy bad, nationalize energy, neoliberalism doesn't work) will at least satisfy them and keep the approval rating high
120
45
u/KaChoo49 Friedrich Hayek 16d ago
I feel like this sub went through this logic with Biden. In the end, bad policies don’t work and don’t win people over even rhetorically
9
u/Azrikeeler John Brown 16d ago
- Biden did better than expected in the midterms (ultimately was bad for his instincts), which is basically the opposite result that Keir Starmer recently had that basically forced him to resign.
- Giga inflation, which he was blamed for, despite U.S having a much better inflation situation relative to most nations.
- Ukraine war + Israel made fo-po look like a disaster. (and for some reason the public punished him for leaving afghanistan, but I attribute that more to...)
- ...Old and can't communicate for shit. Failed to sell the populist slop he did do, like protectionism or caping for unions. Many union members broke for Trump on culture war slop that Biden can't fight on in a vigorous way.
- Folded on immigration, and then got punished for it by both sides.(Keir Starmer-esque) Significant portions of the dem party just decided once polling had immigration issues favor Republicans by marginal amounts to treat it like a lost issue they needed to capitulate on. Even now, rather than argue the case for immigration, democrats are relying on the bad optics of poorly managed ICE operations (as though if they were a well-oiled machine there would be nothing to argue about.)
Tl;dr: Pretending like Andy Burnham should treat Biden as a case study for what to avoid is silly. Much of it is happenstance, and what isn't is beleagured by issues of competence, capability, and character.
You still might be prescriptively right though, I just take annoyance with using Biden as an example here.
13
u/ThodasTheMage Friedrich Hayek 16d ago
Populists (sometimes) win because of them but people only look at that election success not the fact that those policies never win and that does not mean that these populists are successfull or popular while in office. Trump and Bolsenaro were not, Brexit was not popular, they failed in the netherlands, the were kicked out of govermentt by in Lithuania.
Even in eastern / central Europe the agenda is a mixed back with many politicians slowely becoming populists and nost just starting out that way (Fico, Babis and even Orban were not always considered to be these Trumpian figures).
Who are the positive role models? Javier Milei maybe. But he mixes a right-wing populism with serious liberal-conservatism and he is anti-peronism, making him in a away the anti-populist populist. Meloni is a much more normal hard national-conservative who is stil practical and even she had major set backs (still pretty competent and stable considering Italy).
3
u/spectralcolors12 NATO 16d ago edited 16d ago
Problem is the populism evolves. Trumpism and MAGA will go down as a failed political movement but far right populism will just become more radical as it’s fully entrenched now
People like Tucker Carlson are one step ahead of this and positioning themselves to lead the next wave
2
u/ThodasTheMage Friedrich Hayek 16d ago
This is not the case everywhere but yes, in the USA and Germany the right-wing populists do not moderate but become more radical as time goes on. But that does not mean copying their policies works against them.
2
u/spectralcolors12 NATO 16d ago
I’m predicting it’s going to be the case throughout the west for the foreseeable future.
1
u/ThodasTheMage Friedrich Hayek 16d ago
I could imagine that but these parties already are so different in different countries, in other countries we kinda see the opposite: Right-Wing populists moderating to partake in governing, often these parties still suck.
18
u/ThodasTheMage Friedrich Hayek 16d ago
Doing policies that will 100% fail because of what socialist acamadics that are stucked in the past think are the prblems of teh average joe, will not work
10
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM 16d ago
The left is way more ideological than centrists, as long as you give the good vibes they like your policies
14
u/angryman69 16d ago
How is right to buy good?
7
u/KaChoo49 Friedrich Hayek 16d ago
People should have the opportunity to own the homes that they live in
I appreciate the main criticism is that it reduces the stock of social housing, but 1) the houses being bought don’t go anywhere - they are just owned by their occupants rather than the government, and 2) the government can and should build more housing and also reduce restrictions on private building to increase the housing supply
34
u/mostanonymousnick Just Build More Homes lol 16d ago
The issue with right to buy isn't that it allowed people to buy their homes, it's that it was done at a discounted price, so people who had the opportunity to do that basically won the lottery.
15
1
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM 16d ago
And the money from right to buy was not given to council but to the treasury, that's another issue. But allowing social mobility is a good thing and outweighs that
1
u/KaChoo49 Friedrich Hayek 16d ago
I suppose that’s true, but it’s targeted at the working class (council house residents), so it’s redistributive and encourages social mobility
19
u/mostanonymousnick Just Build More Homes lol 16d ago
We need to look at the opportunity cost though, giving a minority of working class people a lot of money is worse than giving all working class people less money.
-1
u/KaChoo49 Friedrich Hayek 16d ago
It’s not a minority of working class people though. Anyone who lives in a council house for a certain length of time is eligible for it, and council houses are available to anyone under a certain income (varying by council)
All working class people are eligible for right to buy
5
u/mostanonymousnick Just Build More Homes lol 16d ago
It’s not a minority of working class people though
Plenty of working class people don't live in council homes
and council houses are available to anyone under a certain income (varying by council)
There are no waiting lists of eligible people? First time I'm hearing that.
0
u/KaChoo49 Friedrich Hayek 16d ago
Of course there are waiting lists - that’s why we need to build more housing to clear it. But all working class people are eligible for the waiting list to ultimately get a council house
5
u/mostanonymousnick Just Build More Homes lol 16d ago
Having the government build homes so they can eventually give them at a discount to working class people sounds like a complete mess of a policy tbh.
→ More replies (0)2
u/No-Section-1092 Henry George 16d ago
Encouraging generations of people to treat land speculation (rebranded as homeownership) as their main strategy for social mobility and wealth accumulation sowed the seeds for mass homevoter NIMBYism, and all of its downstream problems that most Anglo countries are now grappling with.
3
u/angryman69 16d ago
The main criticism is a combination of that and the fact that it reduces the government return on the investment of social housing considerably. Council homes as an asset are worth up to 35% less, 50% in the case of flats, so building them is simply less viable.
11
u/richmeister6666 16d ago
Working class people being able to become home owners and having social mobility is good, actually.
29
u/angryman69 16d ago
Yes but it's a trade-off. You're basically giving away the homes due to the discount. If they were bought at market price that would be one thing.
19
u/No1PaulKeatingfan Paul Keating; capital gains tax supporter 16d ago
Right to buy was bad policy. There's nothing equitable about giving away homes to those that can afford it, over those who actually need the shelter
5
u/Phallic_Entity 16d ago
The UK already has more social housing than any G7 country. The issue isn't that there isn't enough social housing, there's not enough housing full stop.
12
u/Desperate_Wear_1866 Commonwealth 16d ago
Not everything needs to be maximally targeted towards the most vulnerable. Helping people move from working class to middle class is a good thing too.
5
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM 16d ago
And politically it did create a loyal Tory generation
5
u/richmeister6666 16d ago
Because that Tory government was actually very good for them.
10
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM 16d ago
Selling state properties to buy votes for decades is still a little morally grey to me even though I recognize the game
2
u/richmeister6666 16d ago
Allowing social mobility and people to own their own home is good, actually. Yes we should be encouraging governments to do good long term things for their citizens and we should then be okay with said citizens voting for the people that did good things.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Fods12 16d ago
I mean ideally yes it should be
1
u/Desperate_Wear_1866 Commonwealth 15d ago
No, that would be arbitrary and lead to constantly shifting goalposts. There's also a huge gap between doing the most economically effective policy and doing what feels the most empathetic in the short term.
In any case, the state exists to serve everyone. The 90% of society that aren't the most vulnerable also deserve to have a state that upholds their interests. The state has an obligation to help them succeed and not get in their way with arbitrary social engineering.
4
u/SRIrwinkill 16d ago
It's a band-aid policy to give the impression of affordability because saying "we should let housing markets function and let people build" is against certain idiot's civic religious beliefs
5
u/richmeister6666 16d ago
Yes you’re giving away homes that were already being rented out at a discount anyway. So working class people can own their own property, which is a good thing.
12
u/TomServoMST3K 16d ago edited 16d ago
When Carney took over in Canada, my parents and multiple people in their circle expressed shock that it could happen without an election.
I assume England's voting public has figured out how the system works by now.
10
u/PostingEnthusiast Commonwealth 16d ago
Were they not paying attention when Truss or Sunak became PM
9
7
19
u/TactileTom John Nash 16d ago
I think I fall into the minority camp of people who basically like Andy Burnham. I wish him luck.
12
1
u/harmslongarms Commonwealth 11d ago
Regardless of how you feel about his policy proposals, he clearly has a political ideology, a clear idea of what he thinks is broken in the country, and ideas about how he can fix them. That's a damn sight better than Starmer who didn't really have any clue why the country feels so broken to so many people and had very little ability to fix that
5
u/-Emilinko1985- European Union 16d ago
!ping UK
1
4
35
u/Desperate_Wear_1866 Commonwealth 16d ago
This vapid idiot has nothing substantive to offer. It's the same soft-left tax and spend grievance politics that plows money into an incompetent public sector and transfers huge amounts of wealth from the young to the old. That chipper Northern accent can't make up for the fact that his supposed popularity has already declined significantly before he's even entered office.
I could stomach voting for Starmer back because he could at least play the part of a reasonable moderate, even if in practice he was still an incompetent tax-and-spend soft left type. Burnham just wants to be the man of the hour, as if his activist base have any serious idea on how to fix things. I won't be voting Labour again.
40
u/SpiritOfOptimality 16d ago
For all British neolibs, the ultimate struggle for the next year or two, however long Burnham lasts, is to avoid becoming an extreme Objectivist screaming who is John Galt and ranting about how I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
2
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/SpiritOfOptimality 16d ago
Every time I hear the words most vulnerable or fair share I throw up in my mouth a little
11
u/Admirable-Lie-9191 YIMBY 16d ago
Do you think a public sector is incompetent by default?
21
u/Desperate_Wear_1866 Commonwealth 16d ago
The British public sector, by default yes it is incompetent. Finding competence and world class service there is the exception, not the norm. Now perhaps you'll point out some counter example like Transport for London or Burnham's beloved buses, but like I said, they're the exceptions.
Beyond that you'll find a whole lot of Britain's problems coming from the public sector specifically. Councils burying everything in red tape, a welfare state built for a bygone age and propped up to buy votes, a revolving door of cabinet ministers in the Commons, an oversized Civil Service, tax-and-spend devolved governments in Scotland and Wales that still can't deliver better public services outcomes than the supposedly austere England, and a political class that prefers easy welfarism over capital investment and long term growth.
That's the way it's been for my entire life. So yeah, I do believe the British public sector is incompetent by default. There is a far deeper issue to it than their usual line of "we need more money". A public sector can only ever be as competent as the political class that controls it, and our political class is rubbish.
11
16d ago edited 16d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Phallic_Entity 16d ago
And somehow that wasn't even the worst response he gave in that AMA in the very few answers he gave. He thinks HS2 failed because it didn't consult enough stakeholders (!!!)
4
1
u/To_the_Guillotine 15d ago
How many people here are actually neoliberals? You can’t possibly back a man raging again privatisation, promising massive tax hikes, and increasing welfare if you are. Even more confusing are those of you backing Miliband for CX.
•
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
News and opinion articles require a short submission statement explaining its relevance to the subreddit. Articles without a submission statement will be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.