this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
514 points (97.4% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2702 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chitak166@lemmy.world 141 points 11 months ago (16 children)

I think there's something fundamentally wrong with British culture. How do they keep electing such garbage politicians? It's like every decision they make looks awful to everyone but Brits only realize it after the fact.

[–] Z3k3@lemmy.world 134 points 11 months ago (5 children)

While you are not wrong it's worth noting he was not elected by the public and even worse before he was basically handed the job he ran (internaly) on a platform of fixing the economy he fucked as chancellor of the exchequer

[–] nicetriangle@kbin.social 63 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

Well someone keeps voting in the fucking tories. If they didn't, he wouldn't be PM right now.

[–] TheMongoose@kbin.social 36 points 11 months ago (2 children)

While true, the Tory party that won the last election looks a bit different to the gobshites that are in government now.

Don't get me wrong, I thought the last lot were assholes as well, but while technically legal, swapping out basically all of the government several times seems like a bit of a bait and switch.

[–] nicetriangle@kbin.social 13 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Yeah same can be said for republicans. Seems like conservative parties around the western world are going batshit crazy lately

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I hate this excuse, everyone knows how parliaments work. You vote for representatives that form a government. Everyone votes for their own constituency only but not everyone ends up with dickheads so consistently.

[–] Uncle_Bagel@midwest.social 14 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Sure, but Sunak wasnt even the second choice for the Tories during the last election. He's in the Gerald Ford grey zone where no one feels like they voted for him, making him seem illegitimate. The British public voted for the Tories in 2019 (because they are morons) with the expectation that Boris Johnson would be in charge. Now the head of the party has resigned twice since then. In theory it'sall standard procedure for Parliament, but it's a clearly unstable government and viewed as a farce at this point.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

with the expectation that Boris Johnson would be in charge

I'm not sure this make it any better. It's not like Boris Johnson hid the fact that he was a Tory. At a certain point I'm just going to stop saying "I told you so" and start calling you an idiot.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The guy that was elected by the public was Boris Johnson, who is arguably even worse.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months ago (11 children)

Britain elects parties who then choose the leader. Thats how weve had so many different PMs. Its not like for example where the people elect an individual for four years.

We had a PM who lasted less time than a lettuce. All chosen by the conservative party

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

Look who is voting and who isn't.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 70 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Americans get too excited when they read headlines like this. Nobody voted for Rishi, they voted for the Tories what felt like a decade ago. The Tories have had a revolving door policy, and new rubes keep taking the PM position after the last one leaves/is forced out. Some portion of that 70% are Tory voters who just want another spin on the PM wheel.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How long has it been since the last election?

[–] TheOgreChef@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Last election was in 2019, and they’re usually every 5 years. The next one has to be set for no later than January 2025, but could be earlier than that.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Ummm.... Why the variable timeline? I don't really understand US politics, and I'm an American. I've no hope of really understanding the UK system... Still, how do you not just vote in a new government/PM/MPs on a set schedule? That's the most not British thing I've ever heard of. I thought you guys love routines.

[–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 14 points 11 months ago (10 children)

We have the same system in Australia. Constitution sets a maximum govt term but a parliamentary majority can call an election at any time before then.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Minarble@aussie.zone 38 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Is that because he is a twat?

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

No, it's because he's a Conservative MP

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago

A distinction without a difference

[–] Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Conservative MP is only a subset of twat species, and I would say a more severe variety.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 32 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Surely the next Tory PM the British voters elect won't try to implement all of the terrible and unpopular policies that the tories openly espouse!

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Two nitpicks

1st: the UK never voted for Rishi Sunak. Truss (also unelected) left and the Conservative party internally chose their new leader, who they appointed as PM since they're the party in government.

2nd: most people in the UK vote against the Tories and always have. All they need to do is get a couple of percent above the next most popular party and it gives them 100% say. The worst part is that if another anti-Tory party comes around, all it serves to do is split the anti-Tory vote more, and hand them more power.

It's our voting system that is broken. People in general do not like the Conservative party.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

To clarify for those who never lived in Britain and as I explained above:

  • In the UK even as little as 37% of votes cast (which can be less that the votes from 1/4 of voters, due to abstention) can translate into a 50% + 1 majority in Parliament and the country has no written Constitution, so a simple majority in Parliament can easilly changing laws around things most people consider essential, unlike in countries with Constitutions were certain things can only be changed with 66% or even 75% - depending on the country - of parliamentary votes.

People in, for example, the rest of Europe, get all surprised when the UK government just makes demonstrations de facto unlawful and add extreme requirements for labour strikes so that it's extremelly hard for unions to organise them, because in most of those countries, unlike the UK, changing such essential rights is not something a party that only got 25% of voters on their side can do whenever they feel like it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 23 points 11 months ago

did you know that any time a child is born in britain that child has a 10% chance of becoming a tory PM when the sitting one resigns in shame?

[–] Lophostemon@aussie.zone 18 points 11 months ago

He wasn’t even elected in the first place.

[–] UserMeNever@feddit.nl 18 points 11 months ago

What do you mean "any longer" ?! We never wanted him. 4th choise of one party.

[–] Netrunner@programming.dev 16 points 11 months ago

Hardly feels like it matters....is the next person going to be just as bad, it's exhausting...

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Start the lettuce.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Then call for an election and kick the Conservative sods out of the chambers.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Looking as who is voting, you're not going to remove any Tories.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 11 points 11 months ago (5 children)

I'm not from the UK but from what I have seen the UK seems to really be heading in the same direction as the US where there are two absolutely awful parties to vote for and one is like 10% better.

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago

Only if you buy into the Murdoch press. Similar thoughts tend to be expressed about Australia’s Labor party also, when the actual reality is markedly different.

[–] Contestant@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Seems like a simple answer to vote for the one that's 10% better

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I mean okay but just like the US, you get what you voted for.

[–] BaronVonBort@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Honestly that’s the thing about when the UK talks shit about US politics - yeah, we have our problems but yall VOTED to destroy your economy and close your borders to your own detriment and you currently have a revolving door PM where one of them got outlasted by a head of iceberg.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

In all fairness Britain are the only self-proclaimed Democracy ("Oldest in the World", they tell us) with an even more undemocratic political system than the US, because in addition to a First Past The Post voting system, they also have a monarch with - as was exposed a couple of years ago - real power as head of state, an unelected Second Chamber with inherited and nominated-for-live positions and, probably worse, no written Constituition so any party in Parliament with a simple 50% + 1 majority can pretty much do whatever they want.

The FTPT + No Constitution combination is probably the worst part, as it means that a party with a mere 41% of votes of cast (so about the votes of only 1/4 of voters, due to abstention) - such as the current ones - can get a parliamentary majority (so, more than 50% of seats) and do things that in other countries would require constitutional changes (which generally require 66% or 75% of votes, depending on country), so things like changing the local definition of Human Rights.

Mind you, the Brexit vote isn't at all affected by these things, so your point still stands unaffected by those considerations.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That number seems low considering how incompetent the Tories are.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

When only the elderly vote, you get shit government.

[–] Navarian@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

For what it's worth, in 2019 a majority of people voted for parties other than the Tories. They received 43% of the vote, and their leader at the time was Boris Johnson.

The last two Prime Ministers weren't elected by voters, though I suppose you could argue that the majority of voters didn't elect Boris either.

The comments I'm seeing saying something like "well you voted for this" are incredibly misguided. We have a fucking terribly archaic voting system that doesn't serve us at all, there are several large pushes throughout the UK trying to change that.

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

First past the post has to go. I believe it's the most important issue in our country right now, because it's stopping us from dealing with the actually important issues. To wit: we're debating sending 100 refugees or less a year to Rwanda as a matter of the utmost urgency while the world is catching fire, in any metaphorical sense you care to mention. Geographical concentration of voters should no longer confer political power where the open internet exists.

There are two problems with the urgent need to change this broken broken system though: 1. I don't know what better to replace it with, and 2. I don't have enough faith in the British public anymore to actually agree on the more important issues once it's gone.

Side note: the argument doing the rounds about "but the far right will get in" is irrelevant because our last two home secretaries have been irreconcilable, despicable far-right headbangers. They're already in.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

That's 30% lower than members of Rishi's personal bathroom.

load more comments
view more: next ›