The party has the ability to kick them out, which they’d rather do as far as possible from a general election so that the new leader can be in a position to carry out a successful campaign.
When they resign between elections, it’s usually a matter of leaving before they’re kicked out, to minimise the damage of a public power struggle
Can you explain it like I’m Canadian, why Starmer in particular is leaving? I know one of his appointees had some scandal I can’t remember, but why is Starmer in so much shit these days?
So basically, theres a whole party of insane people who make the Alberta Separatists seem reasonable that have a preceved chance of becoming the next party in power.
Starmer is in deep because he isn’t popular with the opposition for obvious reasons, and he lost support among his base because he hasn’t really stood up to the pro Israel crowd.
The whole Peter Mandelson, UK ambassador to the US who also was a big friend of Epstein, being appointed without proper vetting, is just a Cherry on top.
He kicked all the remaining left wing out of the Labour Party at a time when left-wing policies were very popular with the members. He has overseen some pretty regressive social policy. He’s a liar and has no charisma. He put Peter Mandelson back in a powerful position though he was known to be a bad guy and an Epstein associate. He has taken Labour to the right, abandoning its base while offering nothing but more of the vaguely Thatchery stuff the UK has suffered from for decades. He committed the government to more austerity than even the Tories had dared to implement, at a time when poverty is a massive problem in the UK. He handed chunks of the NHS to Palantir. Conservatives don’t like him and left-wingers don’t like him and no one trusts him. He’s been so uninspiring that the electorate is sleepwalking towards fascism. Plus there’s the Israel thing and the crackdown on anyone who expresses sympathy with Palestinians. It’d be quicker to list what he has done right.
The guy has 0 charisma. He doesn’t have an opinion on anything or is scared to voice it. He promised to change things for the better (that was his entire campaign, no actual plans on how to get it done) and so far he failed catastrophically. You have to understand that after 14 years of Tory leadership ANYTHING else was better and that’s the entire reason Labour won. The guy is an actual clown. He isn’t right wing enough for the right wingers and he’s not left wing enough for the left wingers. That combined with the fact he’s just killing time in office made him extremely unpopular. Every terror attack on minorities had zero reaction from his party outside of the usual “we condemn this behavior, this is not what the UK is about” and then proceed to do nothing.
It’s crazy that all you have to do is be perceived to be more charismatic and competent than Liz Truss and Rishi fucking Sunak, and Starmer only just cleared that low, low bar. This might be hell.
I do remember reading a bit about arrests for Pro-palestinian protestors. The line between protest and hate can be crossed and I’m not well enough informed to say which is which in any given event. I take you at your word that peaceful protest was stomped on.
I thought this is a function of police and courts isn’t it? What was the PM’s role in this?
His problem is appearing as if he does nothing. He isnt popular with anyone at all, and as i say a lot of labour members have hated him since he was made leader.
In basic terms: too left for the right, too right for the left. He appears to have pulled the Labour party more centre-right and abandoned a lot of the socialist and soc-dem positions for more neoliberal policies (though people have varying opinions if it’s actually true.) That has made a lot of people unhappy, leading to a surge of Reform UK (the ultra-right party) and the Green Party (the left, environmental focused party). You can see the current trends in this Wikipedia article as well as the other parties in play.
It’s symbolic more than anything. Just like rearranging chairs on a sinking ship isn’t going to save the ship.
Just a new face on the same policies so the party can pretend they changed. The current leader knows they have no chance to win a vote so it is better to save a little face and resign.
I’m familiar with the analogy. It means it’s a futile effort. But it didn’t explain anything about the UK in particular like the second sentence of this comment did.
The PM is the most prominent representative in the public eye. They are the figurehead of the government.
When the government is failing (by any definition) that figurehead is the one who ‘takes one for the team’. Occasionally another Minister might be the one to take the fall for a particularly egregious failure in their department.
The party in government nor the officials in the public service change. Just the figurehead… Do nothing actually changes, nothing is done to address the actual problems causing the government to ‘fail’.
This is more or less true in all Westminster style parliaments. In the US, for example, having the king president fire their Secretary of whatever department tends to be the M.O.
I don’t closely follow British politics, but what’s up with all of their more recent Prime Ministers resigning before their term is up?
The party has the ability to kick them out, which they’d rather do as far as possible from a general election so that the new leader can be in a position to carry out a successful campaign.
When they resign between elections, it’s usually a matter of leaving before they’re kicked out, to minimise the damage of a public power struggle
Can you explain it like I’m Canadian, why Starmer in particular is leaving? I know one of his appointees had some scandal I can’t remember, but why is Starmer in so much shit these days?
Like a Canadian, I’ll give it a shot.
So basically, theres a whole party of insane people who make the Alberta Separatists seem reasonable that have a preceved chance of becoming the next party in power.
Starmer is in deep because he isn’t popular with the opposition for obvious reasons, and he lost support among his base because he hasn’t really stood up to the pro Israel crowd.
The whole Peter Mandelson, UK ambassador to the US who also was a big friend of Epstein, being appointed without proper vetting, is just a Cherry on top.
Does this make enough sense ?
The Mandelson thing I knew, but is it really just his Isreal stance that killed a PM?
He kicked all the remaining left wing out of the Labour Party at a time when left-wing policies were very popular with the members. He has overseen some pretty regressive social policy. He’s a liar and has no charisma. He put Peter Mandelson back in a powerful position though he was known to be a bad guy and an Epstein associate. He has taken Labour to the right, abandoning its base while offering nothing but more of the vaguely Thatchery stuff the UK has suffered from for decades. He committed the government to more austerity than even the Tories had dared to implement, at a time when poverty is a massive problem in the UK. He handed chunks of the NHS to Palantir. Conservatives don’t like him and left-wingers don’t like him and no one trusts him. He’s been so uninspiring that the electorate is sleepwalking towards fascism. Plus there’s the Israel thing and the crackdown on anyone who expresses sympathy with Palestinians. It’d be quicker to list what he has done right.
Great answer. Thanks.
Palantir’s contract with the NHS started under the Tories. Not booting Palantir out is on Labour.
The guy has 0 charisma. He doesn’t have an opinion on anything or is scared to voice it. He promised to change things for the better (that was his entire campaign, no actual plans on how to get it done) and so far he failed catastrophically. You have to understand that after 14 years of Tory leadership ANYTHING else was better and that’s the entire reason Labour won. The guy is an actual clown. He isn’t right wing enough for the right wingers and he’s not left wing enough for the left wingers. That combined with the fact he’s just killing time in office made him extremely unpopular. Every terror attack on minorities had zero reaction from his party outside of the usual “we condemn this behavior, this is not what the UK is about” and then proceed to do nothing.
There’s probably more to rant about
It’s crazy that all you have to do is be perceived to be more charismatic and competent than Liz Truss and Rishi fucking Sunak, and Starmer only just cleared that low, low bar. This might be hell.
You’ve seen what they’ve been doing with Palestine Action.
It’s a bit more than just a “stance” when they’re arresting people for what should be free speech.
I do remember reading a bit about arrests for Pro-palestinian protestors. The line between protest and hate can be crossed and I’m not well enough informed to say which is which in any given event. I take you at your word that peaceful protest was stomped on.
I thought this is a function of police and courts isn’t it? What was the PM’s role in this?
How would you categorize holding a sign that says “I support Palestine Action”?
I get that, and I’ll take you at your word without knowing anything about who Palestinian Action is, or the UK context. But what did the PM do here?
Isn’t stepping on rights for police and courts to settle. Sorry, I don’t understand the connection.
Well, the UK government declared a pro Palestinian protest group a terrorist organization.
For more context, there’s a Last Week tonight on it
Thanks! I appreciate this.
Edit: can’t see it without a vpn, and then it asks to sign in. Alas I have no account.
No, the left has hated him long before this.
His problem is appearing as if he does nothing. He isnt popular with anyone at all, and as i say a lot of labour members have hated him since he was made leader.
Why?
In basic terms: too left for the right, too right for the left. He appears to have pulled the Labour party more centre-right and abandoned a lot of the socialist and soc-dem positions for more neoliberal policies (though people have varying opinions if it’s actually true.) That has made a lot of people unhappy, leading to a surge of Reform UK (the ultra-right party) and the Green Party (the left, environmental focused party). You can see the current trends in this Wikipedia article as well as the other parties in play.
In short: Rearranging chairs on the Titanic.
That’s not really helpful or informative.
No, you’re a towel.
It’s symbolic more than anything. Just like rearranging chairs on a sinking ship isn’t going to save the ship.
Just a new face on the same policies so the party can pretend they changed. The current leader knows they have no chance to win a vote so it is better to save a little face and resign.
I’m familiar with the analogy. It means it’s a futile effort. But it didn’t explain anything about the UK in particular like the second sentence of this comment did.
The PM is the most prominent representative in the public eye. They are the figurehead of the government.
When the government is failing (by any definition) that figurehead is the one who ‘takes one for the team’. Occasionally another Minister might be the one to take the fall for a particularly egregious failure in their department.
The party in government nor the officials in the public service change. Just the figurehead… Do nothing actually changes, nothing is done to address the actual problems causing the government to ‘fail’.
This is more or less true in all Westminster style parliaments. In the US, for example, having the
kingpresident fire their Secretary of whatever department tends to be the M.O.