starmer

Looks like he resigned.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
IIRC, there was a time in Italy where they had practically a "government of the month."

I vaguely remember those days.
But a serious question for those who (correctly) believe that less government is often better than more: If a parliamentary system often results in ineffective chaos at the top, wouldn’t the results be better?
(Note that I’m asking about the results, not how and why they result that way; i.e., I’m not suggesting we’d be better off with a parliamentary system.)

I often used to wonder about people complaining that Obama spent too much time on a golf course or some other non-presidential activity. Really, you want him doing more of what he and his cabal do? We like it when it’s our guy who has “a pen and a phone,” but not so much when it’s someone else (as it always is, sooner or later).

I should point out that I’m not in the “get rid of all the bureaucrats” crowd. Like it or not, much of what we enjoy as members of the Nation these days is due to what the “government” does.

I think from time to time about how Ben & Jerry’s used to offer an ice cream confection they called the “Peace Pop.” They claimed that a portion of the profits of its sales would be donated to efforts to promote peace, rather than war and all the other bad stuff the US was doing at the time. It struck me because it made clear that whoever came up with the idea had no conception of what it takes to keep the peace and how the US was (and is) spending huge sums with that goal at least indirectly in mind.

quote:

But a serious question for those who (correctly) believe that less government is often better than more: If a parliamentary system often results in ineffective chaos at the top, wouldn’t the results be better?
(Note that I’m asking about the results, not how and why they result that way; i.e., I’m not suggesting we’d be better off with a parliamentary system.)

I'm not all that familiar with a parliamentary system... but the results don't seem better in the UK.

I was kind of wondering this morning whether Starmer's resignation, and Andy Burnham now being the overwhelming frontrunner to be Britain's next Prime Minister, would make things better or worse?

I really don't know. I do know that they will continue to limit free speech:

UK Government Plans To Force Social Media Giants To Boost BBC Content To 'Fight Disinformation'

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

The UK government, under the apparently outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer, is advancing proposals that would require platforms like Facebook, YouTube and others to make BBC and other public service broadcaster content more prominent in users' feeds.

Officials frame the move as essential to combat 'disinformation,' citing Ofcom data that social media serves as the main news source for 51% of adults and 75% of 16- to 24-year-olds.

Yes, they want to turn social media into a literal Ministry of Truth.

Under plans to further restrict private media firms, news from public service broadcasters would be given priority to fight "disinformation".

The proposals will set Sir Keir Starmer on a collision course with tech giants already frustrated by his under-16s social media ban …

https://www.zerohedge.com/geop...fight-disinformation

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Morgan:
Looks like he resigned.

quote:

The UK government, under the apparently outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer, is advancing proposals that would require platforms like Facebook, YouTube and others to make BBC and other public service broadcaster content more prominent in users' feeds.

I hope Elon gives them the business when they ask him…