Starmer's resigned

[Sadcafe]

So the admittedly boring but truly decent PM has announced his resignation and the egotistical, pompous Burnham will doubtless become PM. God help the country

My assertion that he has the lowest polling of any PM in living memory is detailed in the link I shared.

But, we were all responding to a poster who maintained that it was the absolutely worst PM in history. Which is different.

That wasn’t your assertion. Your assertion was that he was the worst PM in history - or at least you used that data to say the claim he was the worst PM wasn’t nonsense. They aren’t the same thing.

I don't think its different. Polling measures how people feel about him, and they felt worse about Starmer than any other PM since 1977.
The reasons for that will differ from person to person depending on their individual circumstances.

To be fair, my first post was very much tongue-in-cheek - I wasn't expecting a reply! Of course the poster doesn't want a super majority vote in the event of another referendum.

Ok, since TV cameras started he is the worst.

Ooohh, I don't know - children in the playground used to chant:

Harold Wilson's on TV
Advertising Brooke Bond tea
If you see a chimpanzee
You'll know it's Harold Wilson

(I think the poor chimps were being exploited for PG Tips but let's not let the truth get in the way of a good rhyme!)

And neither do you. Why assume that they are not? Many will be basing it on just feelings or personally feeling hard done by or just not supporting the party in general. For example, one policy could be enough to stir up a lot of ill feeling with an individual, even if the economy were doing well. Take VAT on school fees. Or employer's NI increases.

Ok, but why shouldn't people base their opinion and vote on issues that impact them personally? That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Well how is it that educated professionals were predominantly anti-brexit? I would assume that many of them had a good enough grasp of economics to grasp that the economics of leaving were very complex, that it would take a professional economist with specific knowledge in that area to even start to understand them but that even very basic economies of scale suggested that it was a bad idea to leave.

Ok, for someone who had a sizeable majority (that he kept banging on about) and came to power claiming to be a few levels above the Tories on sleaze etc.and about to "fix" the country after years of mismanagement he was fucking useless. To be fair he tinkered about and did some good stuff, but you need to hold the public when you talk on camera, he can"t do that, Farage can, the other main Reform guys can also do it way better than KS.

People can vote and have an opinion on whatever they want. However, if mainly self-interest is driving their voting and determining their satisfaction with a leader, it's not taking account of the whole objective picture of how good a leader someone is though. It's missing the holistic picture of how good they are for society/the country as a whole.

So you’re saying he’s the worst PM in history because he isn’t ‘charismatic’? I’m really not interested in charisma. Johnson had it and he was really a fucking disaster.

Many were infected with the "Woke" disease and just totally vulnerable to EU propaganda, for people who remember pre-Euro times the whole thing is just laughable. If you don"t get that economists are just making it up as they go you know nothing about economics, SKY news etc. exploit this with the guy jumping around at the big screen showing graphs etc. It is all just shite for a gullible public.

I actually think that for Labour it’s almost impossible to govern. They are traditionally the party for the working people, but that’s isn’t the case anymore.

The main problem Burnham will have is does he appeal to the left of the party and the more left wing voters, or turn to the right? Many people have turned to Reform and may continue to do so.

I genuinely don’t know what Burnham can do to keep his party happy. We’ve seen time and time again that once a PM doesn’t deliver, then their days are numbered.

The more simple days of the Major, Blair eras are long gone .

Well he has put himself forward as being able to save Labour - so we will have to wait and find out. There will be nothing to fall back on with this coronation - no mandate from a GE, no overwhelming majority that he has personally campaigned for. It will be all up to him.

As I have said before, Clint Eastwood has charisma, Steve McQueen had charisma, the lead singer from INXS etc. A guy who combs his hair with a balloon does NOT have charisma! But even that clown understood what "the will of the people" means and acted accordingly, KS had a tin ear and just thought he could tell people what they were supposed to be doing constantly, he was fucking useless as a communicator whatever else he did, but communication to the voters is the number one skill you need in politics, and so many of the Labour team are so fucking useless at this that it beggars belief how they ever won an election. (everybody knows they only won to get the Tories out)

In the areas we did share we voted against EU trade laws about 2% of the time between 1999 and 2016

Your link reports research showing that;

'between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.'

'That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period - the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time.'

I’m a lawyer. I have gone to the trouble of explaining which laws we chose to vote on and share (in trade related legislation) and I have listed the areas where there was no crossover. But still the same myths perpetuate.

I don't know which area of law you specialise in but your posts are woefully ill-informed regarding EU law. Even from my limited knowledge I know there is a 'crossover' in many of the areas in which you claim otherwise.

From your negative list/s, EU law affects, to varying degrees: banking and finance, commercial law, construction law, energy and resources, contract law, debt recovery, pensions, family law, crime, torts, wills and probate (cross border), public health... (not an exhaustive list). Also immigration/free movement of people/deportation of convicted EU criminals.

Where you claim there are 'some laws' there are extensive regulatory frameworks such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Common Fisheries Policy, Environment and Climate Action ... also in Financial Services and Energy (again, not an exhaustive list).

In addition, court rulings from the ECJ/CJEU, involving not just the UK, but those involving other member states as well (which then set a precedent) often broadened the scope of EU law well beyond its original intention - known as competence creep.

Thats a bizarre (and worrying) take imo, particularly in the context of Starmer's premiership.
Each to their own, but even Labour MPs have reached the conclusion that Starmer has failed.

No, they haven’t. They’ve reached the conclusion that he’s unpopular with the voters. That’s not the same as failing at what he was elected to do.

He has failed twice previously to become Labour leader, everyone knows he is a dead clown walking, he is only there to get rid of KS who no one could stand to look at or listen to any longer.

But statistically Burnham would be unlikely to be the absolute worst PM ever since TV began?

What was he elected to do, other than get rid of the Tories? A stuffed donkey could have headed up Labour at the last election and won, the Tories were that hated.

How is it bizarre and worrying to say that if people are only bothered about themselves then that is clouding objectivity about whether a leader (not specifically Starmer) is good for the country overall. It's not a take, it's just a fact.

He will be worse than KS when he starts trying to act hard with the bond market.