Posted by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
I don't expect huge improvements under Burnham but I hope for at least some police manpower numbers to recover. There have been intermittent stories of planning, FSA and trading standards personnel being threatened by armed gangs in the last few years which is an indicator of some new severe gaps in state capacity.
Meanwhile ignoring the actually violent far right to the point that we had arson attacks in Belfast and a stabbing spree killer in Edinburgh.
Not to argue against the point you're making but these aren't good examples. Policing in both Northern Ireland and Scotland are fully devolved and operate independently of the government in Westminster.
This is orthogonal with how police should tackle the violence you mention.
Edit in response to @pjc50's replay below:
The signs are a serious criminal offence. Supporting a proscribed terror organisation is a serious criminal offence according to the law and arrest is unavoidable.
Edit 2: What constitutes a "serious criminal offence" is not subjective based on one's personal opinion, it is what the law defines as such...
The police always have a choice as to which crimes they investigate. This is why petty theft in London is almost totally ignored.
(and the underlying decision to proscribe Palestine action was, of course, taken by Keir Starmer. It is a significant part of why he is out now.)
(edit war: "the signs are a serious criminal offence" -- this is why the Americans will be laughing at us about freedom of speech when they wake up on this forum.)
I don't see corresponding arrests being deployed against Twitter posters who were supporting the riots in Belfast, including the firebombing of immigrant homes, for example. I guess that's because they're not an organisation with a name, which is the important thing, rather than the actual violence?
This was literally a decision Starmer personally made, to put Palestine Action on the proscribed organization list. Without that the signs would not be an offence.
My personal favourite (and not the only example, but my own final straw) was his response when a large chunk of his traditional electorate voted for a female Plumber 'who wanted to make work pay for working people' and build 'healthier communities' is worth watching as an example of how to make more people jump ship.
For better or worse I signed up for the Green Party on the spot when I read that.
He was possibly a good backroom manager and well intentioned, but for leadership... no.
(note that the mirror image of this, the Gordon Brown being secretly taped talking about a bigoted woman, was considered career ending!)
Yes, chiefly immigration policy.
Internal thoughts or internal voice?
Maybe devolution will unlock revenue or growth?
So governance is, at best, semi random…
Now it's start again...
But no one wants suffer the temporary pain to make the reforms needed to change it. They just want to grumble and say the current leader isn’t any good before moving onto the next one, rather than admitting they might need to actually accept some change in the country.
If you could get one bill through Parliament, what would it do?
I would also insert a trapdoor that future changes to the voting system would require the approval of >50% of eligible voters, including non-voters. Yes, I know Parliament cannot bind its successors and all that, but at least I can make it look bad to change it again.
Does this solve any of the immediate problems? No. Does it solve the dysfunctionality since 2008? I think so, especially given that polling these days looks like five parties getting 20% of the vote each. Labour themselves came to power on 38% of the vote.
What would be nice for voting reform, is to add regional elections across the nation (replacing the old European ones). This would be a great layer of government to vote in coalitions, who deal with 'softer day to day areas of government' (care, benefits, roads, etc). Would be a great incubator for national talent, too. We should be able to see how future PMs deal with a region before trusting them with national affairs.
This is your pet issue, completely based on the grass looking greener on the other side.
Man doesn't have any ideas! Let alone insane ones. He's simply the dull thud of quiescent authoritarianism.
Brexit was -8% GDP, according to Bank of England.
Wanting people who disagree with you to "just die out" is profoundly antidemocratic.
Only way into the EU is way you described. Full on Schengen, EUR, no more special UK exceptions etc. Will never fly.
Exclusive: Former chief Brexit negotiator says staying out of euro and Schengen area would be ‘perfectly possible’" https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/18/uk-could-ke...
Edit: lol thanks HN for the usual downvote! :) I love this place!
Opposing the Oval Office means shortages in the supermarkets, gas power stations turning off and a bond crash that makes the DWP lack the liquidity to service all of the monthly state pension payments, besides a great many other problems.
If you do a million pounds in criminal damage and attack a police officer with a sledgehammer, you can't just write it off as 'direct action', you deserve a tough jail sentence whatever the cause.
If the government is legitimately evil for proscribing a group they should be able to deal with their constituents calling them out for it. Materially hindering a genocide is by all currently accepted human standards a good thing.
It's weird how you people never notice that NOBODY else is "arrested"
If I went to practically anywhere in the world and started publicly expressing support for groups which are actively attacking military facilities and key infrastructure, I'd be arrested.
> Since July last year, police have arrested at least 2,787 people across the UK for holding signs displaying statements such as “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”, according to the civil liberties organisation Defend Our Juries.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/16/arrested-ret...
> An 83-year-old was arrested alongside 64 other people at a pro-Palestine protest in Liverpool city centre.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1wg4e1nlrjo
> "The law does not have an age limit", the head of the Metropolitan Police said after an 83-year-old retired priest was arrested for supporting a banned protest group.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vrjkev802o
And in the same above article there's an explanation about why this "violent terrorist group" has been banned:
> The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were sprayed with red paint at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on 20 June. It caused about £7m of damage, police said.
Their violence was against capital.
"Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid."
But again, let's be clear: that justifies the conviction of the person with the hammer. Not the people with signs.
And they videoed themselves doing it and published that.
And the aircraft weren't usable in the Israel-Palestine conflict but were in the Ukraine one. You have to wonder considering the Russian connections of the principal sponsor of Palestine Action: Fergie Chambers. Worth reading up on him.
Actions of a traitor or enemy saboteur. Lucky they didn't get shot.
Some of these protesters seem to think they're invincible these days because they support a popular cause (Palestine or climate, usually). They need to get a grip on what reasonable 'direct action' is. Obstructive protests are generally OK, Destructive protests aren't.
Note what the Court of Appeal said when ruling that the ban on terror grounds was legal:
[It was] "a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism. It is not - as claimed - a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, operating transparently in the open. It is a covert organisation which operates with secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy property and cause injury. " [1]
Fuck 'em. Sympathy gone.
Also I vote on local policy. The Middle East is a big political distraction from what's actually going on here. 99.9% of us can do fuck all about the Middle East and I suspect 90% of the country couldn't give a flying fuck about it either. But you know the council spent time on a meeting so they have a gaza policy but can't collect the bins reliably.
Huge amounts of funding, huge election talking points, hundreds of thousands of people, entire student bodies, propaganda networks, and what quantifiable achievements have been made? It all comes off as a preformative social occasion with 0 goals.
Have far more respect for those who put their money where their mouth is and actually joined ISIS than the professional protestor caste.
Burnham (for those who are unaware) can be best described as a Tony Blair B-side, and is most notable from his previous stint in government for his role in the Private Finance Initiative disaster, eg:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/28/labour-debt-peter...
At least here, it already happened, to have the PM resigning and then someone else from the party to pick up the role and that’s legally sound.
Whoever can prove to the King he can 'command the confidence of the house' is given the title of Prime Minister, and is free to form a government.
Unfortunately the system has flaws, and a sizeable chunk of people treat it all as a Presidential vote by proxy.
They are. It's a parliamentary system, not a presidential system. Nobody votes directly for who will become PM, who is ultimately selected by the monarch as the person who can best command a majority of the House of Commons – normally the leader of the biggest party, of course, but not necessarily. Perpetuating this view is frustrating because it's not what the system is designed for, and I feel a common misconception among voters that they are "electing the PM".
With the increasing breaking of two-party politics, it would not surprise me if we see this precedent of the monarch choosing a PM who can command a majority tested in close outcomes in future GEs where no party gains an overall majority. I'll be particularly interested to see how the press describes such an outcome, if it occurs, especially if the result is that the party with the most votes doesn't go on to join such a coalition.
Nevertheless, it frustrates me when these changes are described as "undemocratic", as that's a common talking point perpetuated by a poor understanding of the constitutional basis of UK elections. If there is a desire that the PM should be directly elected, that would mean a substantial rewiring of the UK constitution more broadly.
a common talking point perpetuated by a poor understanding of the constitutional basis of UK elections
Please don't presume.
I'm fully aware of the parliamentary vs presidential basis of our government, but it's naive to think the leader of the party isn't a significant factor in whether a party gets elected - that's the whole basis of the current situation!
People voted for a combination of Kier Starmer, Labour, and their local constituency MP - and to get rid of the Tories.
That landslide election result is now being subverted by internal Labour panic, mainstream media stirring up stories and the egos of his competitors (on top of course of any Labour and Starmer failings).
The idea that people voted strictly along paper theoretical purist party lines is for the birds.
By whom, and why are they worth taking seriously? Some politicians these days say all kinds of deranged nonsense about their opponents, and very often paint them as "far left" regardless of actual position. It's not worth taking at face value if it comes from there.
Obviously we shall see what he actually does if he becomes PM.
Still no specifics on who does this describing?
Wikipedia says that he is "soft left". i.e. not "hard left", the "very left wing" part of the Labour party that you claimed.
The entire UK society seem to have been trying to ignore the issue rather than solve the root of it (which is not necessarily immigration itself but political correctness)
Love the UK - we can be brutal if MPs want a leader .
My proposal: Let's get rid of the position of PM altogether. Maybe then the musical chairs will stop.
But replacing it with another guy that has no mandate is a fatal mistake. What Labor needed was an internal contest to fight for the best ideas, even if the winner was already pre-determined. A single local poll can't possibly decide the future of the country.
But perhaps the idea is to trigger a re-election because a "continue as usual" will be fatal for Labour and the country.
I could imagine that they simply didn't want to have weeks or months of limbo while the world situation is as unstable as it is. Labour very much campaigned on "being different than Tories". And you could argue that a lengthy contest is counter productive. Especially if it turns into a media circus that only binds attention and resources, giving Farage room to attack.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I admit to knowing very little (close to nothing) about UK politics. But I'm happy to see the use of "socialism" in up-front talking points. It's at least a nod in the right direction.
> He says years of privatization and deregulation have not only stripped the government of control over its costs and services but also saddled it with inefficiencies.
Ok, also seems reasonable.
> Burnham campaigned for Britain to stay in the European Union at the time of the Brexit referendum in 2016.
Yes, still good (on the surface, anyway).
> Farage's party has been well ahead of Labour in opinion polls for many months.
Unrelated to the stuff directly above but still disappointing. Dems and Labour need to do a better job or disaffected people will continue to listen to the siren song of fascists telling them that their problems are caused by THE SPOOKY OTHER.