Can someone in the UK explained how the country has fared with multiple PMs since Borris Johnson? My read as an outsider is it would take another brexit exit (a singular, definable political question that can cleanly classified in a binary label) to create a unifier but I also have no idea what that could be (ai, immigration, climate change, etc are too load bearing and multifaceted to see such a clean binary moment).
I'm not an UK citizen but as someone who lived in the UK for a while, my assessment would be that the issues that we're seeing in the UK (low trust in the politicians, ineffective of the government to address real issues, economic stagnation, etc) are actually not unique to the UK. We're seeing similar trends in The Netherlands, Germany and the Nordic countries.
If I had to take a guess, I would say that the western European political systems seems to work well in a homogenous population where you mostly need "alignment" (e.g between companies and labour unions) but seems seems to struggle with major reforms. Too many stakeholders, too many vetos and too many processes.
To give an concrete example. The Netherlands has a severe housing crisis. Despite being a relatively rich country it's not uncommon for people (sometimes even couples) to live with their parents untill they're well in their 30ies.
Yet a single guy was able to block the building of almost a hundred houses on the chance that there might be some rare(?) frogs living at the building site. While I'm all for nature conservation, surely the needs of a hundred families should go above the concerns of some hypothetical frogs.
Everyone agrees that this is crazy, seemingly very little changes.
You can get a lot of stalemate when the majority agrees that there is a problem, and often even what the problem is, but they can't agree on what the solution is. I think that's the situation in a lot of Western European countries right now — there's a broad dissatisfaction in governments, but there's isn't really a clear mobilisation towards any one solution because nobody can agree what the solution should be. That's why you see very low approval ratings for a lot of European governments, but you also don't see any single party capitalising on that. Even Labour's success in the UK was mainly the collapse of the Conservatives rather than a clear vote of confidence in Labour.
The Western European political system mostly depends on the center-right and the center-left working together and making compromises to reduce the support for more radical parties on the other side. During the Cold War, social democrats were addressing the same issues as communists, but their policies were far more palatable to conservatives.
That approach failed around 2000. When the left was protesting against globalization, social democrats had people like Blair in charge, leaving no moderate options for those opposing globalization. And when the nationalist right started growing a bit later, the center-right similarly rejected them and the issues they raised.
You could say that the center-right and center-left parties fail, because they are no longer center-right or center-left. Instead, they are divided into ideological and moderate wings. The former want to address the same issues as the more radical parties on the same side, but they are unwilling to collaborate with the other side. The latter are all for collaboration, but they are unwilling to disrupt the status quo.
Dutch politics is very very different from the UK. There is no concept of working together for the country in the UK. its party first, stab your leader and take their spot.
The issue in the UK is that living standards have been dropping, or perceived to be dropping for the last 15ish years.
Housing and local community are the bigger issues. most people under 35 who don't own a house now will not be able to. So youre stuck renting. which means shitty houses.
Your local council has no cash, so the only thing they provide is adult social care and bins. Everything else fun/cohesive/community making has been cut. There are no kids clubs, and because there are so many renters, no real community in a lot of places.
Job prosepects are not great for 18-25 year olds and there are a record amount not in education employment or training (NEETs) which means they are rightly pissed off and depressed.
The causes are many, globalisation, cost cutting, and poor industrial policies. (plus a boat load else.)
The issue with PMs is they come in and promise change, but deliver only sound bites.
Cameron: stopped spending on the poor, set in chain brexit
May: delivered "brexit" but couldnt sell it to her party, thus we got a really shit deal (mind you no one wanted to compromise, so we are all guilty on that)
Boris: corrupt chancer that couldnt give a shit about anything for any length of time. Had a great way to get something devisive in the news papers and nothing else
Sunak: Tim nice but dim. No experience, charisma, or authority. No real guiding vision for what britian is supposed to be
Truss: Utterly deranged.
Starmer: confused having shit opponents with being good. Failed to think about policy until after he got in. Didn't want to make decisions, had no ability to create an argument for anything.
Burnham: he was a weak performer in the brown years, but that makes him a star performer in this present age. He failed to read the room in the last two leadership election. Was somewhat effective as the mayor of manchester. He might be alright, but he also has fuck all time, money or authority to do much
I partly agree with this but I don't think it addresses the root cause sufficiently. And that is (IMHO) the hoarding of land.
What the UK actually needs to do is land reform. All these duchies (etc) need to be dissolved and returned to the state. Next, the UK needs to build significant stock in social housing, much like Vienna did a century ago. That would be through a combination of building new housing stock and buying existing stock. Part of doing that would be by popping the buy-to-let economy, which is the only thing the UK produces now. And that's political suicide because more than half of the voters are deeply committed to ever-increasing housing prcies.
The first 5 PMs on your list were just Conservative shills for the billionaire class and the aristocracy. They were astroturfed by those same interests that drove Brexit. It's just theft from the British taxpayer on a massive scale.
The real reason this was allowed to happen can be blamed on Tony Blair. Just like Bill Clinton in the US, there was this disastrous wave of so-called Third Way noeliberalism that abandoned the working class and just becamse Conservative Lites. Labor ceased to represent the working class in the 1990s as a result.
We had a brief bright spot with Jeremy Corbyn but this brings us to Keir Starmer. He was part of a political hit on Corbyn, in big part because Corbyn was anti-Israel. Starmer got fewer votes than Corbyn did in either of his elections. All that happened was that the right-wing vote was split between Conservative and Reform. That mistake won't happen again. The Conservatives have effectively been wiped out since. This is a consequence of first-past-the-post.
So Starmer was just a tool of the same establishment that backed the previous 5 PMs who was there to maintain the status quo.
Burnham is still an open question but I'm not super hopeful.
> the UK needs to build significant stock in social housing
YES. I think this would solve a number of problems, especially if they were built well and were built for a mix of sizes, family up to old people studio apartment
> To give an concrete example. The Netherlands has a severe housing crisis. Despite being a relatively rich country it's not uncommon for people (sometimes even couples) to live with their parents untill they're well in their 30ies.
I'm now writing a book provisionally called "How Democracy Got Strangled by Bike Lanes".
> Everyone agrees that this is crazy, seemingly very little changes.
People understand instinctively that "just building more" is not working and never will.
I can address your arguments point-by-point, but think about this. I clearly demonstrated that it's NOT the "just build more" issue. There are more housing units per household than ever in the US (and in the Netherlands).
So there's clearly something else going on.
And what makes you think that just building even more housing without understanding the underlying reasons can solve the issue of the soaring costs?
I feel like relying so much on supply is a farce if the supply is always able to be bought up by people who are already rich and able to continue owning everything by outcompeting working people. Building more has started to mean little to me if we (as in arbitrary municipalities or governing bodies) don't treat it as a special market in which people can't just buy as many as they want
OK so the "at least one" is a Binface campaign promise, used as a joke here. I'm going to leave it up to you to figure out if the Netherlands builds more than 1 additional housing unit every year.
The key word is just. If all the new apartments are luxury or investment properties and your economy is unequal enough then investors will buy them all up and sit on them forever (because selling would drop the value of their portfolio). That keeps them off the market so housing prices never go down.
On the other hand if you also have public and co-op projects, rent control, vacancy and second home taxes to complement private developers then prices will definitely go down or at least stop growing faster than inflation. The housing market can never be competitive without state involvement because land is a natural monopoly.
Of course making building easier is also an important piece of the solution. One radical change I support is replace top-down zoning with a community vote so corrupt developers can't bribe their way to gentrification, and loud NIMBYs can't stop projects everyone else wants. Architects will hate it but cities are for the locals not for aesthetics.
It's not. I don't have statistics for the Netherlands ready, but I would bet that they have more housing units than households. In the US, there's 1.1 housing unit per household.
> Why wouldn't building more be a solution?
Because it's not a housing problem. It's a problem with housing near dense city cores in an ever-dwindling number of cities.
Economic forces concentrate people into dense areas: dense population provides a larger talent pool for employers, so companies with offices in dense city cores have a long-term competitive advantage. This in turn attracts more people. Rinse, wash, repeat.
The solution is to recognize the externalities and properly manage them. For example: cap&trade/tax the dense office space, give tax incentives for remote work, provide tax holidays for people in sparse areas, and so on.
If you live in a town with eight beds and ten people, and you just 'build more' your way into building another bed...
You're still going to have someone sleeping under a bridge, but now really smart people will raise their hand, and yell: "See? Building more was stupid, it didn't work."
And smarter people ask: "Hmm... It would be nice to know why ten people had to come to a town with 8 beds, while there's a town with 20 empty beds nearby"
Brexit divided and continues to cause paralysis. Soft, hard, or no-deal? Simplistic binary vote specified no mechanism, destination, or future relationship. Leave and remain have completely incompatible visions for post-Brexit Britain.
Along with (IMHO) a polycrisis of far-right immigration agitation, post-COVID stagnation, high energy costs, NHS/social care strain, housing/planning hell, lack of infrastructure investment.
We're not in a great place and, to your point, there is no clear way out.
> Leave and remain have completely incompatible visions for post-Brexit Britain.
This would have been less of a problem if Leave had itself been a single position, rather than as it turned out to be several different positions that all started off in the same vague direction but pulled apart almost immediately, with those involved all insisting the rest of them "weren't proper Brexit" or were "secret Remainers", ignoring all the times Temainers said "What? Them? They aren't Remainers!" unless said Remainers pointed out this division at which point all these supposed "secret Remainers" who wanted something that wasn't "proper Brexit" suddenly were totes Leavers what are you talking about.
But yeah, polycrisis, and it's not just the UK, but the UK seems to have it worse than most because Brexit added to it.
I think an important issue in the UK political landscape and public is the polarisation that makes people label immigration a "far-right agitation".
Immigration is a serious and key issue, which impacts everything else, too. As long as the left of centre denies that it is an issue at all (because only "far right" people have a problem with it, apparently) Nigel Farage and the like will only keep increasing their share of the vote. The other aspect of Reform UK's rise is that the Conservatives only paid lip service to the issue so lost the support of many on the right and were destroyed at the last general election (still very visible in the polls).
Perhaps this, like Brexit before, also highlights another issue in the UK/England, which is that London tends to live in its own bubble.
Xenophobia is a tool of demagogues, not a rational policy.
So while it's an issue, it's not even in the top ten of of the UK's most important practical issues.
And the racism it generates - including Brexit, and currently the collapse of income from foreign students, which was a huge earner for the university sector - does huge and lasting harm.
It's a political shiny penny used for distraction, not a realistic solution to anything. And the people who make careers out of promoting it are provably cynical, corrupt, incompetent, and disinterested in solving real problems.
The problem with this argument is that for essentially my entire lifetime, the UK population has wanted less migration. And what they have got instead is gross migration running at 1 million per year. If they are just fundamentally wrong on this and have been for 50 years, it seems like democracy is a bad idea. Alternatively, if you feel you have to accept democracy, then maybe it would be good to give people what they consistently say they want on this issue.
> And what they have got instead is gross migration running at 1 million per year.
LEGAL migration of 1 million per year. For one year only during Boris Johnson's term. Mostly it's in the 100,000s.
Most migration is legal. People crossing the channel in boats is minuscule in comparison (tens of thousands). And, whilst people crossing the channel in small boats is certainly a problem (for their lives, if nothing else), it is not something that should be taking up so much political air. It's a side issue in the big scheme of things.
Governments should certainly have more strategic plans for dealing with the legal migrants, like infrastructure building, and if they're unable to deliver the infrastructure, limit the legal migration. But the rest of it is often driven by political opportunists and bigots.
I did say "gross migration", right? That was about a million in the most recent data, IIRC. Net migration was about 250K, sure, and about a million in the Boriswave.
Yes most immigration is legal, so a policy choice. That's exactly why the Conservatives lost the last general election as voters shunned them and voted Reform UK. Why? Because for years they say they wanted lower immigration but actually did the opposite.
Arguably even illegal immigration is a policy choice at this point considering the clear reluctance of the government to do much about it. So this has a big symbolic and political impact.
This public growing skepticism about immigration while successive governments have made the choice to support it is fuelling the Reform vote.
This isn't unique to the UK, we see the same pretty much across Europe.
But weren't biggest sources of the "Boriswave" increase in immigration people fleeing Ukraine and Hong Kong, and an increase in skilled worker and care worker visas needed as a result of the loss of EU freedom of movement?
Helping people from Ukraine and Hong Kong is overwhelmingly popular. Loss of freedom of movement is much less so, but was an inevitable result of the Brexit vote. And the surge of Xenophobia in the past couple of years has come despite a huge drop in immigration.
It's almost as if it were being driven by demagoguery rather than anything to do with policy choices or delivery.
> That's exactly why the Conservatives lost the last general election
No, it isn’t. Rampant corruption, parties at No.10, Liz Truss, and then inflation because of the Ukraine war causing a cost of living and cost of energy crisis. You know, “it’s the economy, stupid”.
If it was about immigration, why did Labour get in, when they were accused of “opening the floodgates” to European migration in the past?
It may be your biggest issue, it’s not the country’s.
> This public growing skepticism
You spelt “manipulation” wrong. This is raw unfettered populist manipulation. Sure, immigration comes with costs (also benefits), but it’s the rhetoric that’s made this a hot topic, not anything of substance.
This country is a nation of immigrants. And whilst immigration should be managed properly, it is nowhere near the top of the list of things the government should be prioritising. But they’ll have to, wasting time and resources, to hold back this tide of nonsense.
Labour got in because people voted for Reform instead of the Tories for the reasons you mention but also because of the handling of immigration (remember it was just after largest net immigration on records) so Tories dropped and first-past-the-post did the rest. Corbyn got more votes nationally than Starmer.
Brexit, Torie implosion, Reform polling in first place or just about... clearly it isn't "my issue".
Your comment, and others, illustrates my original comment about some people absolutely refusing to acknowledge that immigration is a major issue, for some reason and even resorting to conspiracy theories.
(The UK has only seen mass immigration since after WWII, by the way)
> The UK has only seen mass immigration since after WWII, by the way
Pretty sure we have been invaded by: Vikings, Romans, Germanic tribes which gave us our name, Normans, Beaker folk, Huguenots, and our Empire past literally led to us giving out British passports after WW2 to get immigration from the former colonies to help us rebuild after the devastation of the war.
We are all likely the offspring of immigrants, there are likely very few ‘original’ Celtic bloodlines. Whatever the fuck ‘original’ means when it comes to being born in a place, like it matters.
I am not refusing to acknowledge the issue of migration. But if people like you were really serious about it, you would be talking about global causes of the migration: war, poverty, climate change. But let’s face it, most people are not interested in that, they’re interested in having fewer brown people in their line of sight.
There are pretty much no other visible artefacts of migration in daily life.
I don’t need to thinly veil anything: most people who constantly bang on about immigration are racists.
Those who talk about migration from a structural perspective: infrastructure costs, capacity, etc. have legitimate grounds. But, I would hope they have a decent understanding of the costs and strategic planning required to build infrastructure for a growing population and they weren’t just using this as cover.
Those who discuss the root causes of migration and think those should be resolved from a human dignity point of view, also have legitimate grounds.
Yet, those grounds are nearly never discussed. I don’t see any mention of those in your comments either.
I think one of the most basic features of any "cooperative venture for mutual advantage" (as Rawls called the state) is who's going to be in the club. If that shouldn't be under democratic control, what should be?
Also, I don't know why you think opposition to migration is driven by anti-brown-people racism. That opposition grew quite a lot when migration was coming mostly from Eastern Europe. I'd expect concerns over jobs, housing, public services etc. to be more important - I'm not claiming that those are correct, though I don't think they are illegitimate.
Lastly, I am not sure why the empire is relevant. Is the story that because Britain had an empire, it's morally obligated to accept immigration? That could be true for e.g. Hong Kong or Ugandan Indians, but I'm not sure it need be true for all time and everywhere.
Labour pivoted way to the right on immigration and it didn't get them any more votes. There's nothing they can do to get that part of the electorate and it's a waste of time to try to cater to them.
Hmm, their manifesto said "A fair and properly managed immigration system"... That's the absolute minimum lip service and a platitude, not any sort of pivot, which they cannot do considering the various power groups within the party.
Since then it's really only foreign students who have had issues, so the group that probably makes the least sense to 'hit' (although there was abuse of the system that needed to be addressed)but the easiest politically, again because it's the least resistance path within party and party supports while allowing to say that they are acting.
> Immigration is a serious and key issue, which impacts everything else, too.
No, other things are serious and key issues, and immigration is the scapegoat that gives people someone to blame for their problems, distracting from actual solutions that don't fit in a one-sentence slogan the way the non-solution "kick out all the Xes" does. This has been an electoral tactic of right-wing populists for a long, long time.
It's just amazing how simple people can be when things like economic inequality, lack of affordable healthcare and housing, climate change, social security, public services etc. can all be labeled as leftist (and thus bad) issues, and focus turned just to immigration (which itself is also a complex topic).
"I'd vote for the left, but they do nothing about the brown people." I wish these people just stayed at home on the voting day.
I’m not being “silly”, each party is more extreme than the last. Rupert Lowe is an ethno-nationalist who clearly believes in ethnic cleansing (through forced deportation, at least) and is clearly a fascist with deep religious intolerance (against Islam and Judaism). Farage although he occasionally comes out with troubling rhetoric, and is clearly racist, I don’t think he’d go full Nazi; and the Conservatives, although they have moved further right in the past decade, are still fundamentally centre right.
* Conservatives “centre right” to “right wing” [1]:
* Reform: “far right” [2], but they have tempered their original far-right rhetoric and are clearly positioning themselves as hard-right these days.
* Restore: “far right” [3]
I don’t know why you think this is odd. Political parties tend to carve out their niche on the political spectrum.
The UK has no constitutional method to remove a PM.
The USA does have a constitutional method to remove a President.
Nevertheless, in living memory all Presidents have survived their impeachments. Whereas (with the exceptions of Major, Brown, and Sunak) all UK Primes Minister have been removed while in office.
It makes an interesting study in the effectiveness of a written and inflexible constitution.
> The UK has no constitutional method to remove a PM.
It absolutely does. Now, it's rare that it is used, because normally the party will dump the leader first (or simply implicitly threaten to). But it exists.
>The UK has no constitutional method to remove a PM.
I not sure this is correct, a vote of confidence in Parliament. Will bring down the government. Hence the PM.
What do you mean "personally" ? Are you expecting a process to behead the Prime Minister or something ?
The Government led by that person falls. Parliament can in principle pick a new government, but in practice is likely to trigger a General Election instead and replace all the MPs. Since the Prime Minister is chosen by those MPs, the new one even if it's the same person, clearly does have their confidence, at least for now, right ?
Anyway, even when the PM survives a confidence vote that's often bad for them, if some of "your" people vote "No confidence" (as must happen for a Majority government) or even if those who've promised Confidence to you (in a Coalition) actually renege, you're done even if you carry the day in the House. This is also true for internal processes. You can, and often Tory PMs do, win a 1922 committee vote and then resign by next week because you'd expected to win by a huge landslide and instead it turns out dozens of people you'd thought were solid have doubts after all.
>What do you mean "personally" ? Are you expecting a process to behead the Prime Minister or something ?
I don't know precisely what they were thinking, but in America someone who is impeached and convicted by the Senate can be personally barred (by simple majority vote at that point) from ever holding any federal office ever again, which seems the political equivalent of a "beheading".
I presume Congress, like Parliament, cannot bind its future self, so "barring" a leader is just a pinky swear because any future Congress can just "unbar" them. The thing about beheading is that you can't undo it, cos that's not Man's law keeping them dead.
Charles I was beheaded. Even if the day after Parliament had thought better of it, their only option was to make somebody else King instead, Charles I was dead.
You do have to be in Parliament, you just don't need to be an elected MP in the Commons.
Once upon a time it was the usual practice for the PM to be from the Lords, but in modern history that seems very unlikely to ever happen again. In principle (though this certainly was not how it was done historically) you could elevate somebody of your choice to become a Life Peer, just so that they can be PM.
When I say this wasn't done, I mean Life Peers didn't even exist until relatively recently, so back when "Lets have Lord So-and-So as PM" made sense they were a Lord for life anyway, typically because their father and his father and so on, the Life Peers are a new thing - created in the 20th century.
Parliament can also impeach ministers. It hasn't bothered trying for about 180 years because a vote of no confidence is simpler, but it hasn't given up the power (and it's hard to argue that it's somehow fallen into abeyance through lack of use, as there's precedent for a gap of a couple of centuries between impeachments).
Sorry but today anyone can shit on the USA. Compare the UK to working democracies. Italy has clearly a written constitution and has seen way more Prime Ministers than the UK.
It’s very difficult for anyone person to say because we all see our slice.
If you got an education in an area that’s in demand and you are a good communicator, made sensible choices and were lucky to not have any major misfortune hit you directly then more than likely you have a pretty nice life that has been getting better and unaffected but the political circus.
If you were unlucky with your starting point in life, didn’t get an education in an in demand area, or did but really struggle to communicate, or got hit by some bad luck then life could feel very stalled at the moment and frustrating.
There’s a lot of negative news around the UK at the moment and I think a lot of it is taking real aspects of life here and massively blowing it up or extrapolating across the whole country. I suspect by a certain political party funding negative news on a mass scale.
Crime is up in some places, but still generally not very high. Pot holes are up in many areas, but roads are still good in the main. Some industries are declining but even within things like manufacturing there is a lot of growth and jobs.
It’s the fifth largest economy in the world and most things works pretty well. So swings and roundabouts.
> If you were unlucky with your starting point in life, didn’t get an education in an in demand area, or did but really struggle to communicate, or got hit by some bad luck then life could feel very stalled at the moment and frustrating.
Which was always the case, but now you can find someone online with an agenda to manipulate you. Or, in reality, the algorithm pairs you.
IMHO it comes down to the Housing Theory of Everything [1].
The UK doesn't produce anything anymore. The best returns on investment aren't in productive output. They're in hoarding land. This is exacerbated by an anachronistic system whereby artistocrats are still significant landowners (eg the Duke of Westminster). The UK badly needs land reform but the system is designed to protect landowners through the House of Lords. Up until only fairly recently, the House of Lords still had hereditary peers.
This relaly started in Thatcher's time but was made significantly worse in the aftermath of 2008. The UK government chose to bail out the banks at the expensive of taxpayers and then pay for it by crippling the economy with 15+ years of austerity measures.
So there's been a revolving door of British PMs because literally none of them have been interested in addressing these core issues. What we really need is another Oliver Cromwell.
It's the natural state of the UK political system. The PM has a (figurative) gun on his head constantly, and has to fight and defend his actions in parliament almost every day of the week. Keeps him on his toes and ensures that he gets replaced if things go down.
The stability of the US presidency comes at a cost. It allowed a senile president to stay in office when it was clear to everyone that he was incapable of assuming his function. Or with the current presidency, it enables a president to renege on pretty much all of his electoral program with impunity. Both would have been replaced 6 months into their term in the UK.
Brexit essentially created the short-term PM thing in the first place. Thatcher was 11 years, Major was 7, Blair was 10, Cameron was 6, even Brown managed 3. The new-PM-every-five-minutes thing is mostly a Brexit phenomenon.
> another brexit exit (a singular, definable political question that can cleanly classified in a binary label)
Yes, the referendum was a binary choice, but I think it was flawed in that Brexit covered many different, incompatible options (e.g. soft, hard, in-between). If the referendum had depicted the situation more accurately, then we wouldn't have wasted so much time and money going through the whole charade (mainly because "remain" would have won).
I like to think of an analogy where people are asked what they want to eat for dinner and they're given a choice of "meat" or "vegetarian". If 40% want vegetarian, 30% want beef and 30% want pork, then the "meat" option will win, but then someone has to choose whether it's beef or pork. That ends up with a choice that only suits 30% of the voters.
Also, it makes sense for a referendum to specify the required margin for whether the choice is carried through and I think the vote was too close to lead to such a destructive change.
Boris actually seemed to be a charismatic leader in the same class as Blair and Thatcher but seems to have been rather morally flawed which ended up bringing about his downfall.
The other leaders have been uninspriring second raters - Andy Burnham himself is a Gordon Brown B-side fully compromised by PFI but perhaps he's grown via his mayorship.
Seems now to have some of the common touch of Boris which is positive.
Britain itself is quite a grey and timid place, challenged by both fear and awe of it's great history and the complex consequences of its impact on the world.
It's neither the diverse heaven the left would tell you, staggering unfairly under the weight of brexit foisted on an unwitting populace by the big bad press barons, or the front line of the fight against Islam and a liberal-triggered decline into a violent dystopia that our more swivel-eyed compatriots on the right would have you believe.
However there are some insights to be gained by listening to all those voices about it's current state and potential - but the ensuing noise represents the confusion and disagreement that is holding us back from moving into the light with purpose.
> Boris actually seemed to be a charismatic leader in the same class as Blair and Thatcher but seems to have been rather morally flawed which ended up bringing about his downfall.
the charismatic bumbling idiot thing was always pure stagecraft. he deliberately messes up his hair before going in front of cameras.
Yea I’m not in the UK but Boris’s schtick reminded me of George W Bush’s ridiculous “hard workin’ folksy swagger” routine. The guy was from Connecticut, went to Harvard, and never worked a hard day in his life.
Brexit has been massively divisive, and was the beginning of the train of short-term PMs we've had over the last 10 years. I don't see how another issue like that would (or could) serve as a unifier.
There are various factors at play, some of which are by no means unique to the UK like the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment. But IMO one aspect which is somewhat UK-specific is the first past the post system, which doesn't really work that well in situations where there are more than two parties seriously challenging for power. Starmer won in a "landslide" when you look at seats gained, but actually a lot of that was due to the right wing vote being split between the Tories and Reform. And on the other side you have left or centre-left parties like the Greens and Lib Dems which are now threatening to split the left wing vote. It's a pretty nonsensical and undemocratic system and I do think it plays a large part in the fact that no government ever seems very safe, even when they get a large surplus of seats in Parliament.
(I am not a UK citizen but I have lived here for years.)
I've lived here. My take is it's been mildly depressing. Economically tearing up our trade agreements hasn't been good, immigration wise having european immigrants replaced but a bunch of dark skinned immigrants hasn't made the anti immigration folk happy. We have large amounts of debt which makes it hard for governments to do much. As a result people get pissed off, try changing the leader, it doesn't actually change anything, and repeat.
I'm not quite sure what the answer is. In a few decades it will have blown over.
We're probably more united in that both leavers and remainers are getting more in agreement that Brexit didn't work very well.
The PM is selected from the party that has the majority in Parliament (typically the party leader), so if the PM changes without a national vote, it's still a MP from the majority party.
Still unclear what your point was. There was nothing politically unifying about Brexit. Individual politicians weren’t even consistent in their support or opposition to it. The closest we have to a unifier now is centrist and Left politicians degrading themselves in ever more desperate attempts to vilify immigrants and trans people in an attempt to placate the Right (which as yet hasn’t unified anybody, to everyone’s surprise).
Multiple PMs since Cameron. In fact the last PM to win a GE and see out a whole term was Tony Blair. (Cameron's first term was a coalition - even in the midst of a deeply unpopular PM and a financial crises he failed to win a parliamentary majority).
The instability means paralysis. No-one believes any policy will last the 5 years+ it needs to be implemented, so very little happens.
The Tory saga was mostly caused by Brexit and poor handling of Covid. Theresa May was ousted by Boris Johnson over Brexit, Johnson was ousted for hosting parties at number 10, whilst Covid lockdowns were in-place, and poor party management (ironically). Liz Truss tanked the UK bond market by thinking she could present an unfunded budget full of tax cuts for the rich, she didn't last as long as a lettuce. Rishi Sunak only had a short time before the next election, so didn't really get a chance to bed in, but he was seen to be grossly out-of-touch.
Now we're into the Labour saga: Kier Starmer seemed to actually be doing OK, but he didn't tell anybody about it. Then had a number of U-turns that made him look weak to the country and especially his back-benchers. He was a decent technocrat, but it's clear someone like that can't exist in this modern fast-comms world. The online vitriol against him was unbelievably disproportionate to his performance.
Now we have Andy Burnham, who seems to know how to flood-the-zone (Trump style) without being a bigoted, corrupt, criminal, paedophile. So his communications seem to be carrying a honeymoon period, for now. But the press in the Uk is mostly right-wing biased, so you can expect the attacks to start soon.
In many ways you could argue all of those prime ministers deserved to go and it actually shows 'The UK' will get rid of you if it's not working. They weren't good enough and our main parties have mechanisms to get rid of you if it's not working out.
Outside of that, the UK's biggest problem is its debt and the fact we left the EU. Which is tightening the budget and making it difficult for any government to put money into things that are visible to the average voter. This makes governing especially hard right now.
Oh, and the clear targeted propaganda from hard right-wing organisations, Elon Musk, Russia, and Iran are clearly trying to destabalise the UK on the beloved free-speech platforms of America. It's absolute poison day-in, day-out. And unfortunately, some people fall for it, and end up voting for assets like Nigel Farage. But that isn't real life. Or, at least, the beloved free-speech platforms of America don't represent the the UK in any true form.
“Kier Starmer seemed to actually be doing OK” as someone who voted for his Labour I was immediately regretting it when they tried to force Apple to open a backdoor and they are still trying!
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/uk-still-trying-backdo...
I’m not a single issue voter but the sheer incompetence of this particular decision is just too damning. It rightly caused friction with our 5 eyes partners. I would expect readers of hackernews to appreciate how dumb and impossible the request was.
That is the entire point of FiveEyes. That is a feature.
The US is technically not allowed to spy on it's own citizens. However, legally speaking, if the UK spies on your citizens and forwards whatever is interesting, it's not the US spying on it's own citizens.
You say this like the FBI hasn't asked Apple for a back door before here in the US
Then why (and I'm not saying I like the guy) did JD Vance come out so publicly against it? I mean you could certainly argue that was all theater and the UK was indeed doing the US's bidding but at some point you have to apply Occam's razor. The end result is Apple don't offer Advanced Data Protection (encryption) to UK users iCloud backups so its not like that "feature" has worked out.
And what are you reading and listening to? It's the fifth-largest economy on Earth. Considering the ridiculous self-harm incident that was Brexit, that's not exactly a bad position to be in. The rest is governance (and debt payments).
What happened in 2014? Nothing of note. Quality of Life for most people is how much free cash they have at the end of the month to enjoy life (the UK has low crime, good employee protections, decent education system, universal healthcare, childcare provision and pretty good public services, therefore QoL is mostly about spare cash). So, what has reduced the cash in the pocket? Increased property values up to around 2020. They've been steadily reducing since (in real terms). Inflation: post Global Financial Crisis, the UK government was quantative easing, trying to inflate their debts away, which reduces the value of everybody's wage. Then the oil spike because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And then there's the debt, which reduces government spending (GFC again and Covid).
And finally, Brexit, knocking 6% off GDP.
So, yeah, that's reduced the spare cash for many, which increases the stress for many. But it's also not really a UK problem (other than Brexit, which could have been avoided). I'm sure the decade after the Great Depression was tough for many too. But I'd definitely argue that the UK is not really in a bad position. It's a grown up country, with grown up institutions, life isn't bad in the UK. It only appears bad if you live online.
I spent my 20s in late 1990s and early 2000s London. It was fucking awesome. I wasn't earning much at all (£19,000) when I first moved, but I lived in Highgate and was out every night of the week, enjoying life in London. The main difference I see between then and now: cost of housing, UK debt levels, and the UK was in the EU. To 'fix' the current issues, it seems we need:
* To build many more houses. It could do this by starting a government funded house builder. It is clear the main house-builders are sitting on land banks and not building enough housing. So we should start our own and use compulsory purchase to acquire land-banks for building. The additional supply should help reduce house prices over time. It could also go along with a massive trades apprenticeship programme, improving employment, and reducing the astronomical costs of getting anything built.
* Ban foreign ownership of residential property and all companies that own residential property must be based in the UK. With all taxes from companies holding residential property to go directly to government funded house building.
* Rent pricing control: yearly rent rises to be capped by inflation. So, over time this will start to feel a bit better for the average renter and they have more confidence in future costs.
* Pay down the UK debt as quickly as possible. This is harder to solve when there's no spare cash in the coffers. My suggestion: rejoin the EU and use the 6% of additional GDP to pay down the national debt to more manageable levels as quickly as possible.
* There's a political debate over mining the remaining oil in the North Sea. In reality it won't be economically realistic in about 12 years. So, put all North Sea oil revenues into a Sovereign Wealth Fund asap.
* Transition to a fully renewable/nuclear grid asap. The price of energy is too high and the quicker we get there the better, even if there's some short-term pain. We have got to stop being in-hoc to the whims of megalomaniacs like Putin and Trump.
We, of course, don't have the post-USSR peace dividend. And the electorate will still have their minds poisoned daily by the beloved free-speech platforms of America. So, it won't be exactly the same as the 90s, but people would be in a better position to enjoy life more.
Still, on the whole, I think it's over-egged. Life is more difficult than it was in the 90s, but the country is still better than most in many regards.
The UK's real issue is that it is a corrupt hollowed-out plutocracy run for the benefit of corporations and privileged opportunists, many of whom live abroad. They control the media, they buy politicians, they own much of the land and property market, and key companies and resources, and they set the narrative.
They have no ethics beyond power and money, and their signature attitude is contempt for voters.
The result is PR politics where major issues are ignored - climate catastrophe, the dire state of many utilities, lack of investment, lack of national strategy - and the media concentrate on fear-mongering and distractions, including racism (esp. Brexit and Islamophobia), punching down at the weak, and aggressively disproportionate punishment of very mild public dissent.
A series of comically incompetent and personally grotesque figurehead prime ministers - who can be talked up on installation and trashed when minor release is needed - is just another of the distractions. It simultaneously enrages the population, forces them into apathy (because nothing fundamental can ever change), and reassures the country's owners that money and resources can keep being extracted while the government "can't afford" more spending on healthcare, education, and critical infrastructure.
If you're thinking "That sounds like the US" - yes, it does, and that's not a coincidence.
