Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "The New Statesman" channel.

  1. They don't either. It was a question from a subscriber.
    1
  2.  @chriswatson3464  Nothing lasts forever. That doesn't mean Starmer is headed for oblivion yet.
    1
  3. I have a minor theory which I haven't heard expressed yet (but I'm following from Australia and we, in the Colonies, still rely on the bush telegraph, you see) but which I came up with. Sunak had a very small window of opportunity. Polls show that Labour's margin was slowly shrinking nd Reform's popularity was rising to the point where they are now too close to the Tories for comfort. If Sunak wanted the Tories to remain the major opposition party, he had to move fast. At the same time he needed to save the furniture.
    1
  4. 3:11 'Not like Australia...' The current Australian government is pretty stable but i see your point. The Labor Party changed its processes so that MPs would be reigned in from panicking and changing the leader. Even though we are not a presidential system like the United States, most people still live under the illusion that we vote for Prime Ministers and when they change it's usually a very unpopular move. The experience of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government from 2007 to 2013 was followed by the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison show which ended two years ago. Even if Labor wanted to oust the leader, Anthony Albanese, it can't do it without putting it to the membership, rather than just brawling in the party room. The conservatives in Australia have not yet adopted such a party policy.
    1
  5. Don’t forget that America handed over a lot of its manufacturing capacity to Asian countries, particularly China. That was not a political decision. It was a commercial decision made by manufacturers themselves. This guy is arguing the number of angels that could fit on the head of a pin. That whole passage about the difference between a republic and a democracy was a wank.
    1