Best Of

The thing about Farage's girlfriend is that the BBC article, when read in detail, contradicts the claim that her family was not rich enough for her to own the flat.

Her parents own a 300,000 euro flat in Strasbourg, but a family company owns a very valuable building that is estimated to generate an income of 95-110,000 euros a year. That building must be worth 2-2.5m euros. And, if they've been getting a rent like that for several years, the company should have hundreds of thousands of euros in its accounts.

That wasn't the figures I've seen about that building previously - it was a factor of 10 out with rent being 9,500 to 11,000 euros.

Equally it's the parents money so why suddenly is it being used to buy something in a poor part of the UK..

Frinton is lovely, it’s certainly not a poor part of the UK, it’s probably one of the richer parts of the SE

Old joke. Harwich for the Continent. Frinton for the incontinent.

Dirty weekends or ...?

Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament

LOL. This is getting ridiculous.

Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.

So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.

Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).

Responding to your edit:

Mandelson has already had to 'resign' from government twice over dodgy dealings. Starmer, not once.

Why would you back Mandelson, given that?

(As an aside, what has Mandelson said about his departure? Is he actually personally at odds with Starmer?)

The point is that Mandy in all likelihood has a "little black book" or equivalent wherein he notes down all this stuff. Whatever else he is he is an operator.

"in all likelihood"

And given his history, why would you trust what's in this imaginary little black book as being the truth?

I am not convinced that Mandelson would want to go for early revenge. I think he will most likely keep quiet and lie low for a bit before popping up as an informal advisor. Why burn bridges and risk getting sent to Coventry?

Incidentally, I am not sure it is wise of the Tories to try to bring down Starmer. He would almost certainly be replaced by someone more formidable. Better to let him limp on wounded.

Who?

What you might get is someone who:
a) is better at enthusing the left, winning voters back from Lib, Green and Sofa to Lab
b) does policy things that are less agreeable to anyone of a centre-right disposition (Starmer's sucessor is likely to go a lot further and faster on Europe than SKS)
c) is less competent as a manager of systems (no giggling at the back).

Remember, the consequence of Starmer falling isn't the right back in government. It's someone else with nearly four years to play with and a huge majority. Be very careful what you wish for.

Ok. Who?

If Starmer falls under a bus tomorrow, Lammy.

If she has long enough to do a meaningful job on the boats, Mahmood comes into play.

If her time in exile has been sufficient, maybe Rayner.

Maybe the Deputy Leader, once there is one.

I suspect Streeting loses under the unwritten 'if you want it too much, it shows your unsuitability' rule.

The point is, I won't get a say, and I don't think you will either. The socialists will replace one socialist with another one of their choice. Same principle as all the changes of PM from 2016 to 2022.

Starmer wanted it too much and got it.

Rayner has the wrong chromosomes to be eligible to be Labour leader.

Disagree on Starmer.

When he got the Labour leadership, nobody can have thought that they would win next time. Surely?

(Snip)

It wasn't out of the question. Boris Johnson was always unsuited to be PM, as wise people pointed out well before he became PM. There was always a possibility - not a certainty - that he would crash and burn the party.

The size of the majority was the thing that was amazing, and shows the damage Boris did to the party.

If Boris was still Tory leader, the Tories would probably be leading the polls with Reform second.

Boris would also have won well over 200 seats in 2024 with a lower Reform vote than Rishi faced

Perhaps.

But he would still be unsuitable to be PM, just as he was before 2019.

Your belief also ignores one other thing: the odds are that, even if he had remained in No. 10, he would have continued doing stupid things that damaged his premiership, the party, and even the country. Why would he have changed, when he never changed before?

I don't think it helps Starmer that he has no substantial power base or ultra-loyalists within the Labour Party. I recall reading an article mentioning that there is no such thing as "Starmerism" and that in itself is instructive, I think.

He doesn't really believe in anything (he's not even confidently wedded to pragmatism, which Blair and Thatcher both had, aside from their overarching orthodoxies). And that makes it hard to inspire loyalty.

Most other PMs had to build a base of loyal, fellow travellers within their party - look at Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Johnson - all good examples of this. Starmer instead inherited a party where the most ambitious figures were desperate to stop losing, and as a result I suspect that a lot of this iron-fisted party management style that people lauded him for was a bit of luck - in that the party was so weary of defeat people just accepted it. Compare this to New Labour, where the same desperation existed but the architects of that project realised they needed more.

This is now coming back to bite him, because now he is politically short of friends, who is there to help him? Who are his loyal lieutenants ready to ride to the rescue? Burnham clearly now sees himself as a rival. Rayner wasn't a "ride or die" ally, often on leadership manoeuvres herself. Streeting also has one eye on the top job. The closest he has is Reeves, who is also utterly discredited - and even for her, he couldn't back her in the Commons as she sobbed next to him. He also simply doesn't have the ace up his sleeve that other PMs had - the underpinning vision, the ideology, the team moving towards a common goal - that saved them and gave them allies through their darker hours.

The Starmer story is one of a man who was parachuted into the top of politics, who got very lucky but who ultimately lacks the skills that make a good political leader.

Great post. As someone on the right, I didn't vote for Labour but at the same time it is worrying for the country. If Starmer goes then that is effectively 7 failed PMs in a row - Brown, Cameron (perhaps a little unfair hear), May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Starmer. We badly need a good leader.

Your Party gets going:

Today, we advance the process of founding our new party — one that belongs to its members, not to the establishment.

Britain’s political class is united. They pursue war and profit, while our lives get worse. For too long, the rich have set this country’s political agenda. Not any more.

Our party will take the power back.

Achieving this objective requires a mass democratic movement that meets people where they’re at, organises with them to build power in our communities and lays strong foundations to transform our country.

We can do this. But it’ll take all of us.

In the next two weeks, we will kick off the full founding process: opening our membership portal, initiating wide democratic debate and publishing draft versions of our four core founding documents — our Political Statement, Constitution, Rules, and Organisational Strategy. These documents will be drafts in the truest sense, ready to be edited and evolved. Members will be able to comment, suggest changes, and track how each document develops.

Alongside this online process, Your Party will host huge regional deliberative meetings where thousands of members come together to listen to each other, break bread and debate the founding documents face to face. From Norwich to Newcastle, we’ll foster a political culture of healthy discussion and disagreement, enabling thousands to weigh in with their ideas, questions and concerns.

In November, thousands of in-person founding conference delegates will be chosen by lottery to ensure a fair balance of gender, region, and background. These delegates will have a big responsibility – to debate the founding documents, propose amendments and vote on them at the conference. The final decision will be up to all members through an online, secure, one-member-one-vote system.

This process aims to combine the best of different democratic traditions: individual and collective views, in-person deliberation in assemblies, sortition to keep things fair and representative, and direct voting to give every member a final say.

And we want to go further. We know Your Party can - and must - be even bigger. Keep an eye on your inbox to get involved in The People Speak, a massive door knocking campaign to ask people what they want from a new party and inviting them to join in.

Timeline at a glance:

September: Membership opens, first draft documents published and regional assemblies start.
October: Assemblies continue, draft documents revised, online vote on party name.
November: Delegates selected, amendments submitted, founding conference takes place.



In Solidarity,
Your Party

Still think Our Party would have been a better name.

Inaction In Action
Next week in Acton

Hahahaha. That polling for Starmer

Has a prime minister ever had such negative polling with his own party? Extraordinary

You'd think he might say fuck it and retire

It gives me some consolation, as Britain goes down a Starmer-shaped khazi, that most sensible Britons share my outright loathing of this nauseating dork

Tipping Jess Phillips to be next Labour leader at 50/1 aside, I stand be when I said five years ago in this header, particularly…

“Last month, Keir Starmer appeared on the television in my front room to give his response to the Prime Minister’s Covid-19 statement. A few seconds later my eyes glazed over, a few more passed and I switched the tv off saying “Jesus, he is dull”. It set me thinking that in a world of Reality tv, tiktok, snapchat, (none of which I am a fan of), and general instant gratification, (which I kind of am) Starmer was too boring to be Prime Minister. Those with a keen interest in politics scrutinise policies, but it could be that a significant minority, perhaps even a small majority, of the public prefer someone they can imagine mucking in on I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here.”


https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/06/the-case-for-making-personality-ratings-a-good-electoral-indicator/

Fav to be next PM was indeed a contestant on said show

His dullness isn't his problem though. There's a market for dull. His problem is his incompetence. Or not really believing in anything except process. Or that even when he's telling you about sonething he really believes in - like football - he sounds insincere and inauthentic. Or his political tin ear. Or the fact he came in to office without any real plan apart from not being the Tories, assuming that was all that was needed. Or his grifting. Or his failure to understand how the private sector operates and how money is made. Or his London-centricity.
Compared to all that, his lack of charisma is only a minor handicap.

You've missed the other issue - his chancellor is the 3rd worst I've seen in my lifetime. And the other 2 set really low bars as they are Kwasi Kwarteng and Jeremy Hunt.

And Jeremy Hunt was politically a great Chancellor - but given it was obvious he was going he really shouldn't have shat on the future with his NI cuts.

His "NI cuts" that were a tax rise?

I don't get why you have this hard on for that when you know full well Hunt increased taxes rather than cut them, you're little better than HYUFD with this false obsession.

Yes he increased taxes but he didn't increase them by the amount required to cover real government spending instead of the fantasy the estimates were based on.

No, but he increased them net yet you keep misleadingly implying he cut them, that he shat on the future. Bullshit, and you know it.

You seem to have a real bug up your arse about the NI change, yet if he had never touched ICT and NIC thresholds and rates then the deficit would be worse, not better.

And it's not Hunt's fault that Labour came in and increased spending by £60bn, the Tories were on track to keep cutting the deficit. Labour have blown it out by increasing spending when they didn't need to.