18 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

My point really is that given the fairly wide array of political philosophies in both the main parties, there's always the potential for a new PM to stray quite far from the manifesto the government was elected on and that leaves a bit of a democracy deficit

A failing of the parliamentary democracy sytsem

It is what it is

Yeah you make a fair point but I would rather this system than the likes of the US for example.

We just need to get some form of PR implemented IMO.

1 minute ago, MancWanderer said:

I’d love to know why anyone feels that there is a need for one

Labour (the party) were elected for a term. They should serve it. I didn’t vote for them but happily accepted that they should be given the chance to right the wrongs of the previous incumbents

Starmer failed. I feel a tad sorry for him. I’m sure that he’s a decent man. But not a PM

Not convinced about Burnham but he needs the chance to prove himself and I hope that he does. We need a decent government desperately

Did he really though, considering what he inherited? I suspect the history books will be very kind to him, and rightly so.

17 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

The term Social Democrat is very European. It’s not one that is used regularly here in the UK. Technically correct of course but If we go down that road, anyone who is right of centre here politically is not necessarily a Tory. In Australia the centre right party are the Liberal Party. In the Czech Republic the Civic Democratic Party. It’s just a name.

Can I just stick with being technically correct? 😁

If you want to say any government left of centre is a socialist government then yes, we've had socialist governments.

In reality - an actual socialist government would be waaaaaaaay more radical than anything we've ever had in the UK.

You're right though - we don't really use the correct terminology in this country. People say socialist and don't really know what that means half the time. Same with fascist.

21 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Did he really though, considering what he inherited? I suspect the history books will be very kind to him, and rightly so.

No he didn't. The levels of ridicule and hate thrown at him during his time as PM have been embarrassing quite frankly.

He's not set the world on fire. Like all PMs he's made some good decisions and some questionable ones. Some I've agreed with, some I haven't.

There was a meme someone posted on here earlier comparing him to Stalin that I couldn't even be arsed responding to that sums up the ridiculous nature of the criticism pretty well.

He's been a fairly steady pair of hands. Mandleson was the only severe fuck up that I can recall. He's dealt with Trump well on the whole. Made the right call on big issues like Iran and Ukraine. Made some decent inroads into immigration. Jury is still out on the economy - but these things take a long time to turn themselves around. His biggest failure has been the difficulty he has had building a coherent or communicating it.

But anybody claiming he is the worst British Prime Minister of all time is just suffering with a bad case of recency bias.

28 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Did he really though, considering what he inherited? I suspect the history books will be very kind to him, and rightly so.

My opinion. And it’s only an opinion. He had an open goal considering what he inherited but he failed to unite his own party and that to me is a critical failure

I’m sure that you’re correct in that take away the social media “noise” and that the history books will be kind to him. He’s not a bad man. Just never a leader which is the important point.

2 hours ago, mickbrown said:

Encouraging to see that there’s no eejits on here calling for a GE.

Seems the only eejit was one of your own. Mike Tapp.

2 hours ago, kent_white said:

The closest we've ever got to one was Clement Attlee. And even he was fundamentally capitalist.

Harold Wilson was centre left as was Wilson/Callaghan.

We've had debates about the levels of state intervention - but never about whether we should or shouldn't have a capitalist model.

I'd go further actually and say that there's never been a socialist government in a western democracy. The closest we've had is the Scandinavian model (which is incidentally closest to what I'd advocate for). But even Sweden, Norway and Denmark they are still capitalist economies - just capitalist economies with a stronger role for state provision.

Your definition of centre left and mine clearly differ.

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

There might have been socialist rhetoric in campaigning - but in practice they were social democrats. They both worked firmly within a capitalist system and didn't seek to change that system. Other than to nudge it in a more state controlled way.

Incidentally I'm nowhere near as far to the left as some people might assume. I'm a pragmatist if anything. There's some elements of socialism that appeal to me. But whether or not they could be implemented without some level of authoritarianism is up for debate. Which is probably why socialism has never REALLY been tried by a UK government.

I say potato, you say potah -toe.

4 minutes ago, MancWanderer said:

My opinion. And it’s only an opinion. He had an open goal considering what he inherited but he failed to unite his own party and that to me is a critical failure

I’m sure that you’re correct in that take away the social media “noise” and that the history books will be kind to him. He’s not a bad man. Just never a leader which is the important point.

Probably a fair summary at this point - but he united the party enough to make them electable again, and that was no mean feat.

12 minutes ago, kent_white said:

No he didn't. The levels of ridicule and hate thrown at him during his time as PM have been embarrassing quite frankly.

He's not set the world on fire. Like all PMs he's made some good decisions and some questionable ones. Some I've agreed with, some I haven't.

There was a meme someone posted on here earlier comparing him to Stalin that I couldn't even be arsed responding to that sums up the ridiculous nature of the criticism pretty well.

He's been a fairly steady pair of hands. Mandleson was the only severe fuck up that I can recall. He's dealt with Trump well on the whole. Made the right call on big issues like Iran and Ukraine. Made some decent inroads into immigration. Jury is still out on the economy - but these things take a long time to turn themselves around. His biggest failure has been the difficulty he has had building a coherent or communicating it.

But anybody claiming he is the worst British Prime Minister of all time is just suffering with a bad case of recency bias.

Your beloved polls disagree.

7 minutes ago, kent_white said:

No he didn't. The levels of ridicule and hate thrown at him during his time as PM have been embarrassing quite frankly.

He's not set the world on fire. Like all PMs he's made some good decisions and some questionable ones. Some I've agreed with, some I haven't.

There was a meme someone posted on here earlier comparing him to Stalin that I couldn't even be arsed responding to that sums up the ridiculous nature of the criticism pretty well.

He's been a fairly steady pair of hands. Mandleson was the only severe fuck up that I can recall. He's dealt with Trump well on the whole. Made the right call on big issues like Iran and Ukraine. Made some decent inroads into immigration. Jury is still out on the economy - but these things take a long time to turn themselves around. His biggest failure has been the difficulty he has had building a coherent or communicating it.

But anybody claiming he is the worst British Prime Minister of all time is just suffering with a bad case of recency bias.

There are many things that this government can be criticised for. I’ve highlighted many. He’s the leader so has to take the blame.

Having said that, all governments are criticised. I’ve never seen one yet that is perfect. He had the chance to change things, unfortunately he tried to remain loyal to his ministers and policies or was too weak to change. His loyalty was misplaced because he was brought down by his own party. I thought he would fight a leadership challenge but he was obviously advised by those he was loyal to, to resign. Not a good look for the party.

7 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Your definition of centre left and mine clearly differ.

That's because you're a thick old racist and you don't really understand what socialism means 😉

He surrounded himself with human shields, which he tossed under the bus to protect himself. No wonder they were happy to turn when the going got tough.

Just reading earlier about a "get together" at the Fabian society, where cabinet ministers, Sadiq Khan and Burnham were all present.

Essentially creating the means to depose him.

Just now, BobyBrno said:

There are many things that this government can be criticised for. I’ve highlighted many. He’s the leader so has to take the blame.

Having said that, all governments are criticised. I’ve never seen one yet that is perfect. He had the chance to change things, unfortunately he tried to remain loyal to his ministers and policies or was too weak to change. His loyalty was misplaced because he was brought down by his own party. I thought he would fight a leadership challenge but he was obviously advised by those he was loyal to, to resign. Not a good look for the party.

I never enjoy listening to any red rag but if we have to listen to them on the news on a regular basis, I would rather listen to Burnhams positive outlook (however contrived) than Mr. Beige and his U turns. Good riddance.

An Evertonian at the helm instead of a Gooner. Has to be a positive eh?

Now let the harder left of those scoundrels really fuck things up then the rebuilding can begin once they've been ousted.

1 minute ago, kent_white said:

That's because you're a thick old racist and you don't really understand what socialism means 😉

Can you amplify and then disseminate this to a much wider audience please mate.

Manna from heaven as they say.

4 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

There are many things that this government can be criticised for. I’ve highlighted many. He’s the leader so has to take the blame.

Having said that, all governments are criticised. I’ve never seen one yet that is perfect. He had the chance to change things, unfortunately he tried to remain loyal to his ministers and policies or was too weak to change. His loyalty was misplaced because he was brought down by his own party. I thought he would fight a leadership challenge but he was obviously advised by those he was loyal to, to resign. Not a good look for the party.

It's not a good look. But people will forget pretty quickly. Not that that's necessarily a good thing.

I think he just became a pantomime villain for some. And those people projected a lot of their own fears and apprehensions onto him like he was some kind of evil, nefarious figure. Despite the fact he never really represented anything they were afraid of.

I still can't get my head around the levels of hate for someone so unutterably bland and middle of the road.

Just now, bolty58 said:

Can you amplify and then disseminate this to a much wider audience please mate.

Manna from heaven as they say.

😁 - come on mate. I put a safety wink in so you'd know I was pulling your leg. You're not THAT old 😉

1 minute ago, kent_white said:

😁 - come on mate. I put a safety wink in so you'd know I was pulling your leg. You're not THAT old 😉

I'm older than when you posted this.

Just now, bolty58 said:

I'm older than when you posted this.

😁😁

25 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Seems the only eejit was one of your own. Mike Tapp.

How many times? I don’t belong to any gang

8 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

I never enjoy listening to any red rag but if we have to listen to them on the news on a regular basis, I would rather listen to Burnhams positive outlook (however contrived) than Mr. Beige and his U turns. Good riddance.

An Evertonian at the helm instead of a Gooner. Has to be a positive eh?

Now let the harder left of those scoundrels really fuck things up then the rebuilding can begin once they've been ousted.

As was discussed earlier on the wireless, Burnham is an accomplished, more natural politician, than Starmer.

I'm far from convinced he is as accomplished a parliamentarian as Starmer, though shares an ability to switch and u-turn.

Is he PM material?

Well, my mum us as staunch a Labour supporter as I've ever known, yet she said Burnham won't hack it, especially internationally.

Quite revealing really.

4 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

How many times? I don’t belong to any gang

Certainly not the Gang of Four.

2 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

As was discussed earlier on the wireless, Burnham is an accomplished, more natural politician, than Starmer.

I'm far from convinced he is as accomplished a parliamentarian as Starmer, though shares an ability to switch and u-turn.

Is he PM material?

Well, my mum us as staunch a Labour supporter as I've ever known, yet she said Burnham won't hack it, especially internationally.

Quite revealing really.

Probably not but we are banking on this.

The one he's replaced certainly wasn't. Can picture him leading a charge over the top with the troops saying "Fuck off, I'm staying put".

Have I mentioned that I had a beer with Mr Burnham last year? He came across a decent bloke for a fake scouser. We didn’t talk politics which is probably why.

8 minutes ago, royal white said:

Have I mentioned that I had a beer with Mr Burnham last year? He came across a decent bloke for a fake scouser. We didn’t talk politics which is probably why.

I didn't have a beer with him, but he did come across as decent, until I got home and realised he lied to me personally.

After bullshitting in writing.

Classic example of someone prepared to do and say whatever it takes to get the top gig.

He's far from the first and certainly won't be the last. Just another self serving twat on the road to power.

For all his faults, I don't think Starmer was quite of that ilk. Just weak and a poor PM.