Discussion
So uh, Limeys - does Andy Burnham intend to do anything in particular over the next 1-3 years? Cause I read that speech and what I heard was a lot of "after the election" but within a couple hours I was hearing that the election won't be for uh, years? So what I'm wondering is does Andy just intend to let the UK burn to the ground because he's waiting for an election - the man is aware he has a full majority, right?
Dude reminds me of Starmer already.
@AnarchoNinaWrites "After the next election" is the event horizon in British politics—because by then it'll be some other politician's problem. It's why we got the Brexit referendum (Cameron pegged it to "after the election" then accidentally won). It's why we're so spectacularly shit at long-term projects. And why Burnham's promises aren't worth the waste paper they're written on.
@cstross @AnarchoNinaWrites
General elections are not so good.
I like the idea of 2-3 by-elections per week, each (once it settles down) for a 5 year* term.
So 3-4 electoral teams rotate around the country, and the balance of parties in the commons changes gradually.
At some point a coalition or a prime Minister changes.
* adding up to 635 constituencies in 5 years, or perhaps a cycle of 257 weeks to move things around a bit.
@cstross @AnarchoNinaWrites but that's not a particularly British thing; if anything, it's better than most other places as it's usually five years instead of four
@AnarchoNinaWrites There’s a lot of talk about what he has a formal mandate to do because of Starmer’s manifesto being a piss-weak centre right nonsense.
Assuming Labour MPs are whipped properly, this is usually only a real problem with the House of Lords, because of the convention of generally allowing manifesto-promised legislation to be passed.
@AnarchoNinaWrites Having a election is a severe risk though, because:
1. People were really just voting against the Tories in 2024.
2. Labour are now the incumbents.
3. The press in this country is fascist as fuck in a horrifically toxic way.
4. Burnham is much better than Starmer at playing a human being, but that’s not saying much.
5. Reform are on the ropes right now, but see 3 and the possibility of a Tory-Reform pact.
@Nickiquote Politely - if he does nothing and runs out the clock till he is LEGALLY required to call an election, the result you fear most will be the only result possible.
Full stop.
@AnarchoNinaWrites yep. burnham's job description is personable placeholder: starmer without starmer.
he's a pleasant fellow who's ever met a human in his life, so well above starmer on that score. but he got the job by reassuring his backers that nothing would change.
polanski no longer has a wide open goal running against a cured ham, burnham can be charming too. but polanski's still ahead on offering hope instead of more of the same shit. i expect the greens to keep performing remarkably well in local councils and byelections.
@davidgerard @AnarchoNinaWrites Comment from a (former?) colony: national polling is not endorsing that position. My understanding is that historically there is a lot of leakage from national positions to local results. So: is that true? Or: is something different now (this needs good evidence to assert)?
@jrootham @AnarchoNinaWrites it's not clear what your question is.
@davidgerard Sounded a bit like "nuh-uh" to me. But I suspect he's one of yours. I don't know that I've interacted with the account before and it's a lot of weirdly terse replies to Doctorow and Stross. I would advise not investing the time in looking up elections maps from the last two local elections and then drawing big circles around the newly-Green seats. Seems like it's low payoff.
@davidgerard Add onto that a terrible name for an economic ideology and blatant transphobia and not standing by anything @AnarchoNinaWrites
@davidgerard @AnarchoNinaWrites I've actually never seen Starmer and Burnham in the same room. I'm fairly sure it's just starmer in a wig doing a manc accent
@davidgerard @AnarchoNinaWrites As a GPEW member, I do not have a good feeling going into next week's byelection.
I have a bad feeling that Burnham's zero-cal Feelgood Inc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyHNuVaZJ-k) is going to be enough to bring too many progressives back to Labour in exchange for fuck-all.
Like, you know how this story ends don't you? Because there are numerous examples around you of what happens when a neoliberal government full of shitstains everyone hates gets handed a majority for the entire purpose of "stopping fascism" and takes that as a mandate to do nothing except keep their rich donors happy. It means you get wiped out the next time and the fascists take over.
That the plan, Andy?
@AnarchoNinaWrites@jorts.horse The good news is the fash seem to be imploding on their own. Reform UK are currently embroiled in a bribery scandal which has tanked their ratings.
There are also parties to Burnham's left who are increasing in popularity as Labour shits the bed.
Hopefully Burnham will only screw himself, and not the whole country.
@ClaireH I very much hope that last bit is correct - the fascists are not inevitable. They do fuck up and implode all the time. You just can't bet on it. But Farage himself looks cooked.
@AnarchoNinaWrites Giving the fash a few quiet years to organize isn’t a great idea. Ask Joe.
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
![[object Object]](https://files.mastodon.online/accounts/avatars/109/272/751/369/810/266/original/5e5b4bd27b40070e.png "[object Object]")
@AnarchoNinaWrites It seems not which just gives more credence to him being a coward with no mandate, a favourite jeer of Labours when the Tories were playing musical PM.
If anything I'd rank Burnham as being worse than Starmer; at least Starmer had the good grace to tell us to go fuck ourselves rather than just outright lying.