Next British Prime Minster

[danny.]

26 minutes ago, Fox1norfolk said:

He’s doing a good job destroying British oil and gas with massive job losses, plus’s increasing all of our energy bills with his fixation for zero carbon. Banning petroleum cars, tumble dryers, etc etc. obviously copying North Korea. If you check his background very questionable

he literally doesn't understand basic numeracy, no chance at him doing a good job in this position 
 

 

[Lionator]

You guys are all underrating Andy Burnham. He’s not gonna change the world because the country is on an irreversible slide but he can easily do a Carney/Mamdani

[deep blue]

5 hours ago, Fox1norfolk said:

He’s doing a good job destroying British oil and gas with massive job losses, plus’s increasing all of our energy bills with his fixation for zero carbon. Banning petroleum cars, tumble dryers, etc etc. obviously copying North Korea. If you check his background very questionable

I'm not convinced about Milliband, but the increase in energy bills isn't because of zero carbon, it's to do with an inadequate national network and the link between gas and electricity price.  The underinvestment in the network occurred under the Tories.  The link between gas and electricity prices needs to be broken, and I would criticise Milliband for not acting with more urgency on that.  I also suspect that his keenness in progressing òn ways to remove carbon from the air will not be cost-effective.

[Jon the Hat]

17 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

And Theresa May, and Boris Johnson. I know Truss is an easy target but you can't exclude the other two disgraces they inflicted on us. 

Theresa was unopposed and boris wildly popular for reasons lost to history.  Truss though was selected ahead of Rishi Sunak by members.  Which is unbelievable by any measure.

[urban.spaceman]

18 hours ago, Fox1norfolk said:

He’s doing a good job destroying British oil and gas with massive job losses, plus’s increasing all of our energy bills with his fixation for zero carbon. Banning petroleum cars, tumble dryers, etc etc. obviously copying North Korea. If you check his background very questionable

Oil and gas job losses were already happening before Labour came back into power. That sector employed over 450,000 people in 2016 - it's currently around 150,000.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-36491937

https://www.rgu.ac.uk/news/news-2025/uk-offshore-energy-industry-faces-grangemouth-scale-redundancies-every-fortnight-without-intervention-warns-new-rgu-report

In other, good news: The UK offshore renewables workforce is forecast to increase from approximately 39,000 in 2024 to between 84,000 and 153,000 by 2035 (click link above)

 

Miliband had actually lowered energy prices. The Iran war sent them rising. Nothing to do with net zero. It's because they're tied to wholesale gas prices on the international market. Not Labour's doing. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-coming-down-thanks-to-government-action-as-prime-minister-vows-to-bear-down-on-cost-of-living

https://news.sky.com/story/cost-of-living-hope-as-oil-prices-return-to-pre-war-levels-13557556

 

He isn't "banning petroleum cars" - sales of new petrol/diesel vehicles is being phased out by 2030. You can still drive your petrol car for as long as you like then buy a second hand one if you wanted to. This isn't even Miliband's policy - Cameron's government set that target for 2050 in 2015. May shortened it to 2040. Johnson moved it to 2030. Sunak moved it to 2035. Miliband just moved it back to 2030. 
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmbeis/383/38305.htm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54981425

 

Labour are also not banning tumble dryers. Older, less efficient models are being phased out. This is a perfectly normal practice. 

https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/the-tumble-dryer-ban-what-does-it-mean-for-you-alPRI3r8KXPx

 

TL;DR:

Miliband inherited an oil and gas workforce that had already fallen by 300,000 in the last 10 years. 

Miliband is creating over a 100,000 new jobs in Renewables by 2035.

Miliband's policies have reduced energy prices.

The Iran war increased energy prices.

The ban on petroleum cars has existed since at least 2015, the target has just changed and was then reinforced by Miliband. 

Tumble dryers are not being banned. 

 

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Theresa was unopposed and boris wildly popular for reasons lost to history.  Truss though was selected ahead of Rishi Sunak by members.  Which is unbelievable by any measure.

Again, they still imposed these national disgraces on the country; either directly through voting for them or indirectly through the demands they placed on the party which led to May and Sunak ending up in power. The problem has never just been the individuals. It's the ideology. The damage it has done is immense. 

[danny.]

I'm less bothered by PMs that aren't "elected" in, as others have said already, we don't vote for a PM, we vote for local MPs. It does bother me when parliaments bring in things not in their manifesto, though. They really do have no mandate for that. If the government want to bring in something they didn't explicitly declare in their manifesto it should go to a referendum or call a fresh GE as the current setup means whoever is in power can, within reason (obviously we have some guardrails), bring in anything - not just policies people voted for.

[urban.spaceman]

20 hours ago, danny. said:

he literally doesn't understand basic numeracy, no chance at him doing a good job in this position 
 

 

Where's the car crash? Miliband was right. 

[danny.]

4 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Where's the car crash? Miliband was right. 

Why do we have the highest energy prices in the world, then, if it's all set internationally, and only wholesale prices are a factor in end user pricing?

[urban.spaceman]

17 minutes ago, danny. said:

Why do we have the highest energy prices in the world, then, if it's all set internationally, and only wholesale prices are a factor in end user pricing?

This woman:

 

[Sampson]

2 hours ago, danny. said:

I'm less bothered by PMs that aren't "elected" in, as others have said already, we don't vote for a PM, we vote for local MPs. It does bother me when parliaments bring in things not in their manifesto, though. They really do have no mandate for that. If the government want to bring in something they didn't explicitly declare in their manifesto it should go to a referendum or call a fresh GE as the current setup means whoever is in power can, within reason (obviously we have some guardrails), bring in anything - not just policies people voted for.

In theory I would agree, but too much happens in 5 years that you have to allow a government some liquidity to change course from their original plans. Let's say for example, the government said it would invest in one type of energy and not another, but then there's great technological advancements in that 2nd set that it becomes cheaper, cleaner and would create more jobs - it'd just be bad governance not to change course there. Then there's also times where rapid technological chsnges (e.g. AI), wars (e.g. Ukraine), pandemics (e.g. covid, foot and mouth) natural weather or environment disasters (e.g.floods, low crop yields), manmade disasters (e.g, Grenfall), or changes in trade or international agreements (e.g. US tarrifs) force a government to have to do things not in their manifesto,

 

The Lords already do kick back on quite a bit that gets passed in parliment saying it wasn't mandated for if it wasn't considered important enough to change course or there weren't adequate enough reasons for why there is that change - that's one of the main roles of the House of Lords.

 

But I think if a government couldn't do things they didn't put in their manifesto it would cause so many unintended consequences I reckon, as no one can really predict the way the world will look in 3 or 4 years time,

Edited Saturday at 15:30 by Sampson

[bovril]

39 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

This woman:

 

That was a real jump scare

[danny.]

On 27/06/2026 at 15:34, Sampson said:

In theory I would agree, but too much happens in 5 years that you have to allow a government some liquidity to change course from their original plans. Let's say for example, the government said it would invest in one type of energy and not another, but then there's great technological advancements in that 2nd set that it becomes cheaper, cleaner and would create more jobs - it'd just be bad governance not to change course there. Then there's also times where rapid technological chsnges (e.g. AI), wars (e.g. Ukraine), pandemics (e.g. covid, foot and mouth) natural weather or environment disasters (e.g.floods, low crop yields), manmade disasters (e.g, Grenfall), or changes in trade or international agreements (e.g. US tarrifs) force a government to have to do things not in their manifesto,

 

The Lords already do kick back on quite a bit that gets passed in parliment saying it wasn't mandated for if it wasn't considered important enough to change course or there weren't adequate enough reasons for why there is that change - that's one of the main roles of the House of Lords.

 

But I think if a government couldn't do things they didn't put in their manifesto it would cause so many unintended consequences I reckon, as no one can really predict the way the world will look in 3 or 4 years time,

Yea, I agree with you there - a change in tack to react to changes is totally fair and just common sense. I meant more like when digital ID came out of nowhere - that wasn't in the manifesto and in fact they specifically ruled it out, and now it's slipping back in via the backdoor with the U16 social media ban - also not in the manifesto. The Lords is a great guardrail but is it a good use of time if it's there is get rid of policies not in a manifesto - just feels like a sneaky way to try to get in new policies without ever seeking a mandate.

[DJW1]

On 27/06/2026 at 15:55, urban.spaceman said:

This woman:

 

I agree, but please delete that photo 🤮

[deep blue]

On 27/06/2026 at 14:14, danny. said:

I'm less bothered by PMs that aren't "elected" in, as others have said already, we don't vote for a PM, we vote for local MPs. It does bother me when parliaments bring in things not in their manifesto, though. They really do have no mandate for that. If the government want to bring in something they didn't explicitly declare in their manifesto it should go to a referendum or call a fresh GE as the current setup means whoever is in power can, within reason (obviously we have some guardrails), bring in anything - not just policies people voted for.

Sorry, but that takes no account of unpredictable events, not covered by the manifesto, that crop up during a parliament and which require a response.  Two of the obvious recent examples - COVID and the Iran war.

 

....

 

Sorry, didn't see the reply and other responses that cover this.

Edited Sunday at 15:47 by deep blue
Change

[danny.]

1 minute ago, deep blue said:

Sorry, but that takes no account of unpredictable events, not covered by the manifesto, that crop up during a parliament and which require a response.  Two of the obvious recent examples - COVID and the Iran war.

See above.
 

1 hour ago, danny. said:

Yea, I agree with you there - a change in tack to react to changes is totally fair and just common sense. I meant more like when digital ID came out of nowhere - that wasn't in the manifesto and in fact they specifically ruled it out, and now it's slipping back in via the backdoor with the U16 social media ban - also not in the manifesto. The Lords is a great guardrail but is it a good use of time if it's there is get rid of policies not in a manifesto - just feels like a sneaky way to try to get in new policies without ever seeking a mandate.

Edited Sunday at 15:48 by danny.

[urban.spaceman]

On 27/06/2026 at 15:34, bovril said:

That was a real jump scare

 

18 hours ago, DJW1 said:

I agree, but please delete that photo 🤮

Should have posted this one instead:

 

[DJW1]

On 27/06/2026 at 13:17, urban.spaceman said:

Oil and gas job losses were already happening before Labour came back into power. That sector employed over 450,000 people in 2016 - it's currently around 150,000.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-36491937

https://www.rgu.ac.uk/news/news-2025/uk-offshore-energy-industry-faces-grangemouth-scale-redundancies-every-fortnight-without-intervention-warns-new-rgu-report

In other, good news: The UK offshore renewables workforce is forecast to increase from approximately 39,000 in 2024 to between 84,000 and 153,000 by 2035 (click link above)

 

Miliband had actually lowered energy prices. The Iran war sent them rising. Nothing to do with net zero. It's because they're tied to wholesale gas prices on the international market. Not Labour's doing. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-coming-down-thanks-to-government-action-as-prime-minister-vows-to-bear-down-on-cost-of-living

https://news.sky.com/story/cost-of-living-hope-as-oil-prices-return-to-pre-war-levels-13557556

 

He isn't "banning petroleum cars" - sales of new petrol/diesel vehicles is being phased out by 2030. You can still drive your petrol car for as long as you like then buy a second hand one if you wanted to. This isn't even Miliband's policy - Cameron's government set that target for 2050 in 2015. May shortened it to 2040. Johnson moved it to 2030. Sunak moved it to 2035. Miliband just moved it back to 2030. 
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmbeis/383/38305.htm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54981425

 

Labour are also not banning tumble dryers. Older, less efficient models are being phased out. This is a perfectly normal practice. 

https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/the-tumble-dryer-ban-what-does-it-mean-for-you-alPRI3r8KXPx

 

TL;DR:

Miliband inherited an oil and gas workforce that had already fallen by 300,000 in the last 10 years. 

Miliband is creating over a 100,000 new jobs in Renewables by 2035.

Miliband's policies have reduced energy prices.

The Iran war increased energy prices.

The ban on petroleum cars has existed since at least 2015, the target has just changed and was then reinforced by Miliband. 

Tumble dryers are not being banned. 

 

Thanks for looking up the data to support my earlier suggestion! I see you´re still waiting for a negative, fact-based reply to your well-researched contribution.

Technology has always changed with time, meaning that old jobs are lost and new ones created. The ideal situation is that the new technologies generate at least the same number of jobs. We should view the current "green revolution" as an opportunity, not a threat. Last week a number of new UK hydro-power plants were announced.

Perhaps in a few years´ time people will be complaining about the loss of jobs in the wind and solar power industries as we switch to hydrogen/algae or whatever new technology emerges.

[Samilktray]

I like the cut of Andy Burnham’s gib 

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

I like the cut of Andy Burnham’s gib 

He'll have to hit the ground running, the attempted character assassination in various corners of media has already begun.

[urban.spaceman]

5 hours ago, DJW1 said:

Thanks for looking up the data to support my earlier suggestion! I see you´re still waiting for a negative, fact-based reply to your well-researched contribution.

Technology has always changed with time, meaning that old jobs are lost and new ones created. The ideal situation is that the new technologies generate at least the same number of jobs. We should view the current "green revolution" as an opportunity, not a threat. Last week a number of new UK hydro-power plants were announced.

Perhaps in a few years´ time people will be complaining about the loss of jobs in the wind and solar power industries as we switch to hydrogen/algae or whatever new technology emerges.

[urban.spaceman]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

He'll have to hit the ground running, the attempted character assassination in various corners of media has already begun.

Would love him to do Leveson 2 immediately after coming into office. We've been letting the malicious ****ers at the Mail/Telegraph/GBeebies get away with far too much already. 

[inckley fox]

On 27/06/2026 at 15:14, danny. said:

I'm less bothered by PMs that aren't "elected" in, as others have said already, we don't vote for a PM, we vote for local MPs. It does bother me when parliaments bring in things not in their manifesto, though. They really do have no mandate for that. If the government want to bring in something they didn't explicitly declare in their manifesto it should go to a referendum or call a fresh GE as the current setup means whoever is in power can, within reason (obviously we have some guardrails), bring in anything - not just policies people voted for.

It's very normal though. We have a representational democracy rather than a direct one.

 

That applied when Thatcher brought in the poll tax, when Blair gave independence to the Bank of England and when he brought in tuition fees. It also applied when Cameron legalised same-sex marriages. In fact, when you get a coalition government like that particular one, it can only work if you accept that the manifesto isn't set in stone. It helps political legitimacy to secure a mandate, but sometimes it's just impractical. Things arise, circumstances change, and we've effectively entrusted a majority of MPs to make the best judgement on the big decisions without seeking individual mandates.

 

In fact, that's also, in principle, why the Lords exist. They aren't supposed to vote down manifesto commitments but have more freedom to apply the brakes on other major legislation. There's a name for this, but I can't remember what it is.

 

We haven't had a single parliament in which an elected PM survived to the end, with his/her party's manifesto intact, since Blair was re-elected for the first time. Since then there has been a change of PM or a coalition government which automatically compromises manifesto commitments in every single parliament.

 

On the occasions when those governments have consulted the public via referendum, you could argue that it tended to get a little messy and served to remind us that direct democracy has plenty of its own flaws too.

[danny.]

47 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

It's very normal though. We have a representational democracy rather than a direct one.

 

That applied when Thatcher brought in the poll tax, when Blair gave independence to the Bank of England and when he brought in tuition fees. It also applied when Cameron legalised same-sex marriages. In fact, when you get a coalition government like that particular one, it can only work if you accept that the manifesto isn't set in stone. It helps political legitimacy to secure a mandate, but sometimes it's just impractical. Things arise, circumstances change, and we've effectively entrusted a majority of MPs to make the best judgement on the big decisions without seeking individual mandates.

 

In fact, that's also, in principle, why the Lords exist. They aren't supposed to vote down manifesto commitments but have more freedom to apply the brakes on other major legislation. There's a name for this, but I can't remember what it is.

 

We haven't had a single parliament in which an elected PM survived to the end, with his/her party's manifesto intact, since Blair was re-elected for the first time. Since then there has been a change of PM or a coalition government which automatically compromises manifesto commitments in every single parliament.

 

On the occasions when those governments have consulted the public via referendum, you could argue that it tended to get a little messy and served to remind us that direct democracy has plenty of its own flaws too.

I don't disagree. I still don't like it. You could say FPTP is also normal, but I really don't like that either. We live in a completely different time to when our parliamentary system was established, and I feel we could definitely look at changing our systems to make people feel more connected to politics, and to give parties a mandate for the things that are doing. Probably will never happen, or not for a long time but it's a forum to air thoughts, right?

[inckley fox]

26 minutes ago, danny. said:

I don't disagree. I still don't like it. You could say FPTP is also normal, but I really don't like that either. We live in a completely different time to when our parliamentary system was established, and I feel we could definitely look at changing our systems to make people feel more connected to politics, and to give parties a mandate for the things that are doing. Probably will never happen, or not for a long time but it's a forum to air thoughts, right?

Of course it is! I think historically that sort of system is very chaotic, but it doesn't mean that what was right in the past is right now.