News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Brits, what’s the read on his presumed replacement? I figure he can’t be more of a disappointment than Starmer has been but I’m still curious.
It's likely to be Andy Burnham, who IIRC is currently the only British politician with a net positive approval rating. So that's something. 🤷♂️ He's been pretty successful (and well liked) as the mayor of Greater Manchester, and generally comes across a bit more human than the other lizard-people in British politics.
He's often described as "soft-left" by the media. So far, he's been a vocal supporter of proportional representation, which is great, but whether he'll drop that as soon as he gets into Number 10 is a different matter.
He's a member of the "Labour Friends of Israel" group, but kinda seems to mostly sit on the fence on that whole issue. (He called for a ceasefire but refused to call it a genocide.)
I'm sure other people will chip in with other problematic things about him, I haven't looked too deeply. 😃
This is a good summary.
I think whats missing is a lot of the hope being put into Burnham is by disillusioned Labour MPs, and may not reflect actual change.
Burnham is personally popular, but being Mayor of Manchester is generally an uncontroversial role: he can't raise taxes and he has limited power, but he can be noisey complaining about how the Westminster Government mistreats the north and also claim a share in the success for projects like the integrated transport system. Things people don't like in Manchester he can blame on Westminster.
While Burnham is a good communicator, he can't actually change the fundamentals for Labour in government: there is no spare money even after tax rises, the economy is growing slowly (or shrinking slowly factoring in inflation) which both severely limits what can be done. Many Labour MPs fear they will lose their seats in the next election, and can't see how to change things.
Burnham may be better at communicating how bad things are but I think realistically he will also become very unpopular, as the problem isn't the prime minister as much as the reality. "Manchesterism" as a political philosophy is fools gold.
I'd also add: Burnham chose not to stand in the last general election when he would have been a shoe-in as an MP. He has instead had to gamble now to become an MP as he's seen an opportunity to become PM. While is gamble paid off, I'm not sure that shows very good political judgement, and may be a warning about what's to come.
I think the only way the UK has of getting it of the mess they're in is to ditch their idiotic election system. They had the Tories in power for most of the last four decades and they've absolutely fucked up the place, while never actually having a majority of the vote. Burnham at least said he wants to do electoral reform so let's hope he comes through.
In 2015 Justin Trudeau said he'd do electoral reform for Canada, and we've had 3 un-reformed elections since then. Don't get your hopes up.
Thanks, sounds like a marginal improvement but I suppose we’ll see about that