No, he absolutely still could. Whether he will be is another matter, he’s got extremely wealthy backers.

Hence why Starmer threw in the towel over nothing. The UK isn’t really run by the elected politicians, it’s run by the people who fund the party LLCs.

The camel’s back was not broken, though. What happened was the media flogged a dead horse, and told everyone it was a camel.

This article says the fleet is 4.2GW, so I guess they’re working on a home needing about 500W to get 8 million.

Better not lose then.

“Billionaire to put his money forward for extremely profitable venture that everyone pays for”

There will be some meaningful difference, he will serve their interests better.

This was apparent as soon as Wes Streeting bowed out before him.

Literally the only reason we’re changing PM’s is because the wealthy cunts want it. Kier is more bland than a sausage roll, but he’s also been pretty good like a sausage roll. He navigated a lot of Trump’s bullshit and we came out relatively clean because of that. He hasn’t done anything controversial enough to warrant stepping down, and yet the media was making out like he had without ever really saying what it was that crossed the line.

Burnham is not a change that is any way positive for Britain.

Lawyers for the Tates said the brothers had offered to be interviewed by Bedfordshire police in Romania and had undertaken to give up £20,000 each if they revealed the names of their accusers in the UK.

They didn’t just try to get the names, they tried to bribe the police - with relative pocket change - for the names.

How can they act when they’re on holiday?

I mean if you’re going to have an ambassador to Trump, someone who was also friends with Epstein almost sounds appropriate…

The waste is throwing in the towel less than halfway through over nothing.

The article spends an awful lot of time talking about the government and pretty much glosses over the media.

The government responds to public interest, if there is more public interest on a topic the government will spend more time addressing it.

Public interest is by and large driven by the media (and even when it’s not it often appears to be so).

The problem here is that the media is not covering this widely enough. This is perhaps understandable with privately owned media, who have their own vested interests, but I think the bigger question is why state-funded news organisations aren’t better at picking this up. That is a root cause and political issue.

Did you notice that they said no reputable international economists actually say that?

But you’re right to call out the accusatory tone of @Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com’s comment, that did kind of spoil an otherwise very informative post.

I actually kind of think Cameron introducing austerity may have been worse, overall, over time. Brexit was a fumble, but austerity was malicious.

deleted by creator

I’m just trying to imagine what kind of holiday £300k might buy…

I get Nick Clegg vibes from Burnham tbh (similar to Zack Polanski of the Green Party), it feels like it’s only a matter of time before he betrays everyone who buys into his words.

The fact that Wes Streeting has put his hat in with Burnham all but confirms it.

Murdoch says we need a new PM so…

Rule 34. And cemented by Rule 35.

It used to be the case that the US formally didn’t allow dual nationality, but other nations didn’t mind if you had US nationality as well as theirs. So many people were just not telling the US about their second nationality that the US got rid of that rule maybe 15 or so years ago.