Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Britain's prime minister to step down, Burnham puts himself forward as successor

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 125 posts

Re: Britain's prime minister to step down, Burnham puts himself forward as successor

#61

Post by mytailorisrich »

pjc50 wrote: post #52
OgsyedIE wrote: post #14

Whilst the value of the pound and NHS backlog did slowly improve under Starmer, my favourite part of his term was the 2024 interview where he described himself as not dreaming or having internal thoughts. 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…

The police swerved hard into deploying state capacity against exactly the wrong people: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/more-women-arres... Meanwhile ignoring the actually violent far right to the point that we had arson attacks in Belfast and a stabbing spree killer in Edinburgh.

Police has no choice but to arrest people who commit a serious criminal offence on purpose and very publicly. It would undermine their credibility and the rule of law not to arrest them.

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...

Re: Britain's prime minister to step down, Burnham puts himself forward as successor

#62

Post by pjc50 »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #61
pjc50 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police swerved hard into deploying state capacity against exactly the wrong people: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/more-women-arres... Meanwhile ignoring the actually violent far right to the point that we had arson attacks in Belfast and a stabbing spree killer in Edinburgh.

Police has no choice but to arrest people who commit a serious criminal offence on purpose and very publicly. It would undermine their credibility and the rule of law not to arrest them. 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…

The attack on Brieze Norton was a serious criminal offence. The signs are not, no matter how much people want to pretend they are to conflate the two issues.

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?

Re: Britain's prime minister to step down, Burnham puts himself forward as successor

#63

Post by cassianoleal »

pjc50 wrote: post #60
cassianoleal wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny u/JumpCrisscross who was asking for sources has now deleted the post with the question. > 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 wa…

I agree with you generally but the RAF are part of the state and not meaningfully "capital". If you attack the military then yes obviously you are going to get the book thrown at you. That does _not_ justify going after the people with signs.

They painted the aircraft.

Re: Britain's prime minister to step down, Burnham puts himself forward as successor

#64

Post by gaiagraphia »

mbmbn wrote: post #47
mellosouls wrote: post #18

Ridiculous and undemocratic. 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...

Why undemocratic? I thought parliamentary elections in UK worked like in most of Europe: you vote for a party, not a candidate. 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.

You vote for a local candidate, who may belong to a party. The candidate can switch party, resign from the party, etc, and will still keep his seat.

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.

Re: Britain's prime minister to step down, Burnham puts himself forward as successor

#65

Post by cryo32 »

bluescrn wrote: post #4

And he'll be just as powerless to solve any of the big problems as the last half a dozen PMs.

People forget that the government is still mostly the civil service. The thin veneer of politicians over the top doesn't change the operating constraints of the UK unless you can spend a long time on the matter and reshape things slowly. Which was what was happening until this mess.

Now it's start again...

Re: Britain's prime minister to step down, Burnham puts himself forward as successor

#66

Post by pjc50 »

cassianoleal wrote: post #63
pjc50 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you generally but the RAF are part of the state and not meaningfully "capital". If you attack the military then yes obviously you are going to get the book thrown at you. That does _not_ justify going after the people with signs.

They painted the aircraft.

Not just that: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce950111xk7o

"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.

Re: Britain's prime minister to step down, Burnham puts himself forward as successor

#67

Post by SirFatty »

OgsyedIE wrote: post #14

Whilst the value of the pound and NHS backlog did slowly improve under Starmer, my favourite part of his term was the 2024 interview where he described himself as not dreaming or having internal thoughts. 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…

"not dreaming or having internal thoughts."

Internal thoughts or internal voice?

Re: Britain's prime minister to step down, Burnham puts himself forward as successor

#68

Post by OgsyedIE »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #53
OgsyedIE wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 2,000 middle aged women have been arrested as terrorists on the basis of holding protest signs though, it's been widely reported.

They did that on purpose, though: Palestine Action has been banned on the basis of being a "terror organisation", this means that supporting them is a criminal offence. Knowing that, they purposedly propested by holding signs saying that they supported Palestine Action... and therefore they were arrested as expected (and really the police has no choice in such cases not to undermine the rule of law). Note what the Co…

The suffragettes committed dozens of assaults and arsons and at least one deployment of an IED, which suggests bad faith in the interest of political orthodoxy by Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr.

Re: Britain's prime minister to step down, Burnham puts himself forward as successor

#69

Post by greengreengrass »

mbmbn wrote: post #47
mellosouls wrote: post #18

Ridiculous and undemocratic. 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...

Why undemocratic? I thought parliamentary elections in UK worked like in most of Europe: you vote for a party, not a candidate. 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.

> I thought parliamentary elections in UK worked like in most of Europe: you vote for a party, not a candidate.

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.

Re: Britain's prime minister to step down, Burnham puts himself forward as successor

#70

Post by rapsey »

pjc50 wrote: post #57
rapsey wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grand coalition governments of the EU are not in any way better. They just result in bickering and gridlock because parties that hate each other get stuck in the same room. This is your pet issue, completely based on the grass looking greener on the other side.

The gridlock is real whether it happens inside or outside the party. This is partly why we're here in the first place! Starmer is out because he couldn't do coalition management inside the Labour party.

He is out because he is an insane ideologue that the vast majority of the country despises.
Post reply on HN