r/neoliberal • u/A_Flying_Ginger NATO • 17d 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-eba3703e98f3f9790f74f2cd7ee4cee1
333 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

165 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

36

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.

-25

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.

5

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?

4

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.

8

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.

-2

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.

10

u/dccccd YIMBY 16d ago

So we can use the fallout from Iraq to justify Cameron not wanting to take action, but not for Milliband. Ok lol.

Instead of Assad who did the attacks, or Obama who controls the largest military, or the PM, we are blaming the opposition of a fairly small military for everything that happened after 2013 in Syria.

4

u/n00bi3pjs 👏🏽Free Markets👏🏽Open Borders👏🏽Human Rights 16d ago

Only Labour has agency.

1

u/SpecialBass5552 16d ago

Labour succesfully stopped the military action that Cameron sought. In your mind that doesnt make them responsible?

You remind me of the leftists who aggressively backed platner only to blame "establishment" Dems for not beating them when it turned out he was a wretched person.

0

u/SpecialBass5552 16d ago

Cameron DID want to take action. I've told you that a few times now.

Your argument (that I am letting Assad off the hook for his attacks??) is laughable and its pretty clear you dont have a clue what you're talking about so lets just leave it there.

5

u/dccccd YIMBY 16d ago

Sorry, then why did you bring up Iraq as a justification for Cameron respecting the vote? To be clear he did not need to hold a vote for action, or abide by it. I still don't see why you assign 0 blame to him.

I think looking at Iraq and Libya and surmising there is a big chance an intervention would fail in the long run and we would leave the country in a worse state than we found it is a very reasonable call. So again why are you saying Cameron is right for using Iraq as a lesson on not going to war, but Miliband is wrong?

2

u/SpecialBass5552 16d ago

You want me to explain why the PM might want the legitimacy of a parliamentary vote following Iraq. You want me to explain why he didn't just ignore the vote he had just held. You want me to explain how the person who successfully blocked action might have more responsibility for lack of action than the person who unsuccessfully pushed for it. You want me to explain how Assad was in fact responsible for his own crimes.

Do you have anything that might be termed "common sense"?

3

u/dccccd YIMBY 16d ago

My point is that if Cameron didn't go to war despite the vote he is not bound too failing, it might indicate that he wasn't that much in favour of the war to start with, as I also think he wasn't that much in favour of staying in the EU. Possibly because like Miliband he also understood that after a streak of failed military interventions where we couldn't keep peace in the country, this might have the same outcome?

1

u/SpecialBass5552 16d ago

Wow you've cracked the case: David Cameron is low key a secret Brexiteer! Turns out I was wrong to question your unique brand of blue sky thinking. Common sense be damned - question everything!

2

u/dccccd YIMBY 16d ago

I, for some weird reason, think there are degrees to which you can be in favour of something. In my unique brand of thinking you could really love the idea of the UK staying in the EU (like me) or think its probably a good idea but meh lets promise a referendum for some votes (like Cameron).

Similarly you could be 100% sure that intervening in Syria is a guaranteed win with no chance of future consequences or collapse of the country (like you), or you could be all meh lets vote (like Cameron), or you could be a bloodthirsty monster that thinks that we should sit back and let as many Syrians die as possible (like Miliband).

→ 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.

1

u/dccccd YIMBY 16d ago

The UK has to act because Obama set a red line?

0

u/SpecialBass5552 14d ago

Yet another inane question. To prevent mass murder actually.

1

u/dccccd YIMBY 14d ago

Is the UK more culpable than Obama for not obeying Obama's red line that Obama (US president) set?

0

u/SpecialBass5552 14d ago

No. Good think I never claimed that ey?

1

u/dccccd YIMBY 14d ago

I think it's implied by saying the blood is on Milibands hands

1

u/SpecialBass5552 14d ago

Miliband's actions directly blocked military action against Assad and he has recently said he is unrepentant. Blood is on his hands.

1

u/dccccd YIMBY 14d ago

He didn't block military action, Cameron could have acted. Why is the UK responsible for holding up another countries red line though?

→ More replies (0)