So, 1% of our electricity is from coal at the moment.
And I'm guessing it will stay that way until Monday evening as the final stocks are burned up.
We are living through the end of an era. A remarkable era that completely changed the world - more completely than any before, and probably than any to come. The age of coal power in Britain.
Let us quote what someone said as that era opened properly at Rainhill in 1829:
4The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings. 5He shall recount his worthies: they shall stumble in their walk; they shall make haste to the wall thereof, and the defence shall be prepared. 6The gates of the rivers shall be opened, and the palace shall be dissolved. 7And Huzzab shall be led away captive, she shall be brought up, and her maids shall lead her as with the voice of doves, tabering upon their breasts.
PB is really having a meltdown tonight..🥴 2 months of grifting is hardly balancing with 14 years of corruption and incompetence..🧐😏
I'm inclined to agree with this. We are at the Bernie Ecclestone level of scandal - which came along six months into Blair's reign. Starmer will be with us a few years more at least. PB Tories should remember it's a marathon, not a sprint.
No, this is far worse than Ecclestone
It's endless and it's often personal, and much of it is clearly coming from the top of Labour itself, trying to oust Starmer. None of that was true of Ecclestone
IS it within realm of possibility (if not of KCIII) that Rosie Duffield's epic resignation/repudiation of the Labour whip, is really a cunning conspiracy by The Blog and it's henchpeople low & high, to confuse and mislead the anti-Woke Blogophobes?
PB is really having a meltdown tonight..🥴 2 months of grifting is hardly balancing with 14 years of corruption and incompetence..🧐😏
Yeah, but that's just a slogan, isn't it?
Previous administration was in for X years of very bad thing 1 and very bad thing 2.
It's simply not true. The previous Conservative administration got plenty of things right, and only really jumped the shark from mid 2020 to late 2022.
That was enough, though.
And they had Covid to deal with, which has brought down governments across the world
Wow, what a letter. I saw Rod Liddle being interviewed on some channel or other and he said that Starmer wont be PM for long. I remember thinking that a ridiculous statement, but now?....
Social media is promising more Starmer relevations. IF that is true - big if - then what are they? The PM is now tottering
Quite incredible, after just 3 months and with a 170 seat majority
Social Media always promises but never delivers when it comes to these things
If there are all these skeletons in the closet for SKS why didn’t they come out before.
People on twitter need to be careful. Jenny Chapman has already received damages for an untrue allegation re her and SKS. Others may well end up suing.
The rumours about SKS are probably BS. And probably not much of our business anyway.
SKS's stupidity over the donations is much more important.
“The sleaze, the nepotism and the apparent avarice are off the scale. I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle has done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party”
It's what you might expect after being in power a decade. Not three months
Didn't check the letter properly. Huge grammatical error there in your quote, if that wording is correct. The error would make me wonder how considered the letter was.
No, it is not correct. The letter actually says, "I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done..."
PB is really having a meltdown tonight..🥴 2 months of grifting is hardly balancing with 14 years of corruption and incompetence..🧐😏
Yeah, but that's just a slogan, isn't it?
Previous administration was in for X years of very bad thing 1 and very bad thing 2.
It's simply not true. The previous Conservative administration got plenty of things right, and only really jumped the shark from mid 2020 to late 2022.
That was enough, though.
And they had Covid to deal with, which has brought down governments across the world
I rather think that it was their response to Covid that was the jumping of the shark - putting through a policy that, very clearly, the PM implementing it didn't believe in.
It was in the interest of both Duffield and the Labour Party for the inevitable break to happen after the election. So she gets to be MP and they put off a damaging row until after the vote has been made. I would put the chances of that being the calculation on both sides at over half.
That is the most savage resignation letter I have ever seen. I do not believe this is because she is so suddenly shocked by griftgate and The free-frockalypse. However she has cannily used those to great effect - "shameful avarice"
There must now be a decent chance Starmer goes. Not a big chance, but no longer vanishingly small
Popcorn!
Sadly there’s an awful lot of Labour MPs to cross the floor before their majority is in jeopardy.
That said, the first job of the new Tory leader is to appoint a chief whip who can go and pick off Labour MPs one at a time, who disagree with the news agenda of the week.
Starmer is more likely to lose MPs to greens or lib dems than Tories I reckon.
No, I've thought about it and decided that there's no such thing as The Blob: it's merely a fictional Behemoth invented by a generation of incapable Tory politicians to mask their many failings. That's the most plausible explanation.
What is the nature of your denial? You can't deny that it exists, because the massive growth of the state and its related institutions is a matter of payroll. Are you denying that it seeks to implement its own agenda, opposing and frustrating the agenda of elected Governments when the two are misaligned? That seems, well, an interesting perspective.
I was recently speaking with a guy who, until his retirement a few years ago, was a leading Whitehall civil servant. He was despairing becuase the Civil Service - its neutrality and its processes - is being increasingly corrupted by government hacks with a partisan agenda. The complete opposite of the 'Blob' phenomenon in fact. This makes perfect sense from what we know of the 'new' political class and the its behaviour.
And we should value our generally non-political civil service, judiciary, and associated bodies such as the Electoral and Boundary Commissions, since in the US very little is non-political nowadays and, my, aren’t they suffering because of it.
The point is that such organisations as the judiciary can no longer claim to be non-political when they make take it upon themselves to wade into the political sphere.
As one example, it is not for The High Court to find Suella Braverman guilty of 'discrimination' because she decided not to implement 2 out of the 30 recommendations of a post-Windrush report that Priti Patel said she was going to implement when Home Secretary. The two recommendations (incidentally) were to strengthen the powers of an inspectorate (more blob) and to appoint a 'Migrant Commissioner' (new blob). And apparently Braverman had 'discriminated' by not doing that. Is it any wonder that we can't control our borders with the thicket of courts, inspectorates, quangos, the chattering media, and civil action groups growing ever denser and thornier by its own hand?
What’s to explain . It’s been a terrible start with one of the biggest political own goals of all time as in the WFA . Don’t Labour have any decent advisers ? Duffield had fallen out with Starmer a long time ago so this isn’t a huge shock but seriously Labour need to get a grip .
It was in the interest of both Duffield and the Labour Party for the inevitable break to happen after the election. So she gets to be MP and they put off a damaging row until after the vote has been made. I would put the chances of that being the calculation on both sides at over half.
The only issue I would have with that is the freebies and cronyism together with the WFP were not in the narrative until post the election
Problem with calling 17th-centuries Tories "Conservatives", is that the Conservative Party that emerged in mid-19th-century included many previously Whig politicos AND voters, who ended up with their formerly hated rivals due to economic > social > political changes and transformations.
Note that in US history, the anti-Federalists of the late 18th to early 19th century are considered precursors of the Democratic Party. However, in their heyday during the "Virginia Dynasty" (Jefferson>Madison>Monroe) they were commonly called "Republicans". The "Democratic Party" not appearing on the scene until the era of Andrew Jackson. Thus leaving label "Republican" free for use by their mid-century opponents follow the demise of the Whig Party in the USA.
Incidentally, the Whigs adopted THAT name in part, to keep their Democratic opponents from calling them Tories!
Bit early for an MP defection really, as Leon notes it's more of an 'in power for 10 years' thing, but an atypical individual situation. Kind of feels like she would have done it before, but needed to get re-elected first. I'm sure her views are sincere, but has that much changed about the party since taking power?
As kyf_100 suggests, doesn't seem like she'd be a good fit for Cotbyn and the Gaza Bros. Long term independent I reckon.
But it comes at the worst possible moment for Starmer, when he is rocked daily by the grift allegations
It feels relentless, and again I wonder if it is in some way co-ordinated to destabilise him, and ultimately remove him
Truss was gift to Labour
Rosie gift to all Labour’s opponents
You need some perspective.
Rosie Duffield, a nondescript backbench MP most of the public couldn't pick out or the Prime Minister who spooked the markets and lost to a lettuce?
We will see but you cannot deny this is a gift to Labour’s opponents
@TheScreamingEagles would be correct if otherwise all was calm in the Labour camp
But it is not. This is like another hefty punch to a man already on the ropes with one eye badly cut
No, it would have been more destabilising if she had resigned a week ago or even last Tuesday/Wednesday as it would have dominated the Labour Party conference.
The next fortnight is going to be dominated by the Tory conference then voting in the leadership contest.
Equally, you could argue that this is great timing for the Tories. Labour might have been hoping to point and laugh at the feeble candidates, now they will be consumed by this. Meanwhile at their conference the Tories will have a real pep. The government is imploding so fast the Tories really will have a chance of winning next time, despite the huge Labour majority
Delicious. THAT letter is why we all love politics!
Nah, timing is everything.
Just imagine if she had quit the morning of Starmer's speech or on budget day.
Yes, it’s a bit tomorrow’s fish&chip paper.
I’ve no great love for Starmer, but I don’t see how this makes much of a difference to unseating him, FWIW.
OTOH, he’s yet to display much in the way of Prime Ministerial competence. A proper plot could easily do for him, were there anyone on the front bench sufficiently competent in the art of political machination.
PB is really having a meltdown tonight..🥴 2 months of grifting is hardly balancing with 14 years of corruption and incompetence..🧐😏
I'm inclined to agree with this. We are at the Bernie Ecclestone level of scandal - which came along six months into Blair's reign. Starmer will be with us a few years more at least. PB Tories should remember it's a marathon, not a sprint.
No, this is far worse than Ecclestone
It's endless and it's often personal, and much of it is clearly coming from the top of Labour itself, trying to oust Starmer. None of that was true of Ecclestone
So let's say Starmer is replaced in the next few months (despite it being very difficult under Labour party rules to do). It will be by either Streeting or Reeves in number 10, and ostensibly bugger all will change for the next five years.
Meanwhile the Tories seem determined to crown "Honest" Bob Jenrick as leader, a man who can apparently be bought for as little as £12,000, who broke lockdown (twice) and who claimed 100k in expenses on his *third* house, leading a government minister at the time to say "it’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
People are getting rather hyped up over nothing, if we don't have Starmer we'll have someone with almost exactly equal views from the inner circle taking over for the next five years, implementing exactly the same policies Starmer would have. Plus "Honest" Bob Jenrick in opposition.
Bit early for an MP defection really, as Leon notes it's more of an 'in power for 10 years' thing, but an atypical individual situation. Kind of feels like she would have done it before, but needed to get re-elected first. I'm sure her views are sincere, but has that much changed about the party since taking power?
As kyf_100 suggests, doesn't seem like she'd be a good fit for Cotbyn and the Gaza Bros. Long term independent I reckon.
But it comes at the worst possible moment for Starmer, when he is rocked daily by the grift allegations
It feels relentless, and again I wonder if it is in some way co-ordinated to destabilise him, and ultimately remove him
Truss was gift to Labour
Rosie gift to all Labour’s opponents
You need some perspective.
Rosie Duffield, a nondescript backbench MP most of the public couldn't pick out or the Prime Minister who spooked the markets and lost to a lettuce?
We will see but you cannot deny this is a gift to Labour’s opponents
@TheScreamingEagles would be correct if otherwise all was calm in the Labour camp
But it is not. This is like another hefty punch to a man already on the ropes with one eye badly cut
No, it would have been more destabilising if she had resigned a week ago or even last Tuesday/Wednesday as it would have dominated the Labour Party conference.
The next fortnight is going to be dominated by the Tory conference then voting in the leadership contest.
Equally, you could argue that this is great timing for the Tories. Labour might have been hoping to point and laugh at the feeble candidates, now they will be consumed by this. Meanwhile at their conference the Tories will have a real pep. The government is imploding so fast the Tories really will have a chance of winning next time, despite the huge Labour majority
Delicious. THAT letter is why we all love politics!
Nah, timing is everything.
Just imagine if she had quit the morning of Starmer's speech or on budget day.
Yes, it’s a bit tomorrow’s fish&chip paper.
I’ve no great love for Starmer, but I don’t see how this makes much of a difference to unseating him, FWIW.
OTOH, he’s yet to display much in the way of Prime Ministerial competence. A proper plot could easily do for him, were there anyone on the front bench sufficiently competent in the art of political machination.
I am now fairly sure - 63% sure - this is a "proper plot", of sorts, and the plotters have not yet finished
I remember noting on here, weeks ago, the oddity of the Guardian constantly attacking Starmer, and often in quite personal and nasty ways. Totally weird, for a new Labour PM with a big majority
It now makes more sense. There is a schism and there is resentment
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
Yes but this passes the risk/reward test for her. She's elected, she's an MP, and can now also focus on building her personal brand. A media career beckons.
So, 1% of our electricity is from coal at the moment.
And I'm guessing it will stay that way until Monday evening as the final stocks are burned up.
We are living through the end of an era. A remarkable era that completely changed the world - more completely than any before, and probably than any to come. The age of coal power in Britain.
Let us quote what someone said as that era opened properly at Rainhill in 1829:
4The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings. 5He shall recount his worthies: they shall stumble in their walk; they shall make haste to the wall thereof, and the defence shall be prepared. 6The gates of the rivers shall be opened, and the palace shall be dissolved. 7And Huzzab shall be led away captive, she shall be brought up, and her maids shall lead her as with the voice of doves, tabering upon their breasts.
That era really opened in 1882, when Edison's coal-fired power station opened in London. Or if you mean industrious use of coal, probably Watt's first engines in the 1760s.
I did not vote for you to lead our party for reasons I won’t describe in detail here. But, as someone elevated immediately to a shadow cabinet position without following the usual path of honing your political skills on the backbenches, you had very little previous political footprint
I find this bit the more interesting part of the letter, because as far as political attacks go it is not one which the public at large probably care about at all, or are even much aware of. But I have noted before just how quickly Starmer was put into a senior position, he was even floated as a leadership candidate weeks after first becoming an MP. Even more than Sunak, he had no experience of backbench life.
In modern times those who make it to the top appear to need to get there quickly, even if in shadow positions, and it is interesting that Duffield has chosen to call that sort of thing out specifically.
I hadn't realised before that SKS wasn't a backbencher in the usual way (or for the usual time). That possibly explains quite a bit about his inability to make the transition from lawyer/prosecutor to politician.
What’s to explain . It’s been a terrible start with one of the biggest political own goals of all time as in the WFA . Don’t Labour have any decent advisers ? Duffield had fallen out with Starmer a long time ago so this isn’t a huge shock but seriously Labour need to get a grip .
The WFA should have been in the manifesto.
Sure, it would have meant they didn't win quite as big a landslide. But Starmer would be better off now with, say, 375 MPs and having been able to diffuse the row with "it was in the manifesto".
PB is really having a meltdown tonight..🥴 2 months of grifting is hardly balancing with 14 years of corruption and incompetence..🧐😏
I'm inclined to agree with this. We are at the Bernie Ecclestone level of scandal - which came along six months into Blair's reign. Starmer will be with us a few years more at least. PB Tories should remember it's a marathon, not a sprint.
No, this is far worse than Ecclestone
It's endless and it's often personal, and much of it is clearly coming from the top of Labour itself, trying to oust Starmer. None of that was true of Ecclestone
So let's say Starmer is replaced in the next few months (despite it being very difficult under Labour party rules to do). It will be by either Streeting or Reeves in number 10, and ostensibly bugger all will change for the next five years.
Meanwhile the Tories seem determined to crown "Honest" Bob Jenrick as leader, a man who can apparently be bought for as little as £12,000, who broke lockdown (twice) and who claimed 100k in expenses on his *third* house, leading a government minister at the time to say "it’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
People are getting rather hyped up over nothing, if we don't have Starmer we'll have someone with almost exactly equal views from the inner circle taking over for the next five years, implementing exactly the same policies Starmer would have. Plus "Honest" Bob Jenrick in opposition.
As I say, this is a marathon, not a sprint.
I do not see Starmer being deposed, but the point is just like Boris it can cause serious longer term damage to him and his party
So, 1% of our electricity is from coal at the moment.
And I'm guessing it will stay that way until Monday evening as the final stocks are burned up.
We are living through the end of an era. A remarkable era that completely changed the world - more completely than any before, and probably than any to come. The age of coal power in Britain.
Let us quote what someone said as that era opened properly at Rainhill in 1829:
4The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings. 5He shall recount his worthies: they shall stumble in their walk; they shall make haste to the wall thereof, and the defence shall be prepared. 6The gates of the rivers shall be opened, and the palace shall be dissolved. 7And Huzzab shall be led away captive, she shall be brought up, and her maids shall lead her as with the voice of doves, tabering upon their breasts.
That era really opened in 1882, when Edison's coal-fired power station opened in London. Or if you mean industrious use of coal, probably Watt's first engines in the 1760s.
Edit: it was the 1760s.
Yeah, but there aren't any awesome Biblical quotations about the apocalypse from the Book of Nahum attached to those.
My essential judgement is that SKS SSW has shit people skills and is a massively self-centred careerist grafter who just says and does what he needs to do to get to the next level, and doesn't care about the consequences.
That would explain why some of the criticism is so bitter and personal.
People hate being deliberately disrespected or ignored.
What’s to explain . It’s been a terrible start with one of the biggest political own goals of all time as in the WFA . Don’t Labour have any decent advisers ? Duffield had fallen out with Starmer a long time ago so this isn’t a huge shock but seriously Labour need to get a grip .
The only grip to be got, is to get him to resign, and quick about it.
My essential judgement is that SKS SSW has shit people skills and is massively self-centred careerist grafter who just says and does what he needs to do to get to the next level, and doesn't care about the consequences.
That would explain why some of the criticism is so bitter and personal. People hate being deliberately disrespected or ignored.
That is the most savage resignation letter I have ever seen. I do not believe this is because she is so suddenly shocked by griftgate and The free-frockalypse. However she has cannily used those to great effect - "shameful avarice"
There must now be a decent chance Starmer goes. Not a big chance, but no longer vanishingly small
Popcorn!
Sadly there’s an awful lot of Labour MPs to cross the floor before their majority is in jeopardy.
That said, the first job of the new Tory leader is to appoint a chief whip who can go and pick off Labour MPs one at a time, who disagree with the news agenda of the week.
Starmer is more likely to lose MPs to greens or lib dems than Tories I reckon.
Wikipedia lists 2 MPs in 1948 moving from Labour to Tory due to opposition to nationalisation of steel. There was one in 1961 who went Labour to Independent, then joined the Tories a year later, and there might be a few more of those I've not spotted in a quick look. And there was another one in 1977.
In short, it is very uncommon. Happens more the other way.
Given the tone of Duffield's letter, she isn't going Tory. Feels like she was heading this way for some time, but needed to be re-elected before acting.
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
Yes but this passes the risk/reward test for her. She's elected, she's an MP, and can now also focus on building her personal brand. A media career beckons.
Sure. But she could have said all of this and remained a Labour MP. Dared them to sack her. Been around to pick up the pieces after the apparently inevitable Starplosion. And still had a media career. But she didn't.
Resigning is a card you can only play once. So why now?
Bit early for an MP defection really, as Leon notes it's more of an 'in power for 10 years' thing, but an atypical individual situation. Kind of feels like she would have done it before, but needed to get re-elected first. I'm sure her views are sincere, but has that much changed about the party since taking power?
As kyf_100 suggests, doesn't seem like she'd be a good fit for Cotbyn and the Gaza Bros. Long term independent I reckon.
But it comes at the worst possible moment for Starmer, when he is rocked daily by the grift allegations
It feels relentless, and again I wonder if it is in some way co-ordinated to destabilise him, and ultimately remove him
Truss was gift to Labour
Rosie gift to all Labour’s opponents
You need some perspective.
Rosie Duffield, a nondescript backbench MP most of the public couldn't pick out or the Prime Minister who spooked the markets and lost to a lettuce?
We will see but you cannot deny this is a gift to Labour’s opponents
@TheScreamingEagles would be correct if otherwise all was calm in the Labour camp
But it is not. This is like another hefty punch to a man already on the ropes with one eye badly cut
No, it would have been more destabilising if she had resigned a week ago or even last Tuesday/Wednesday as it would have dominated the Labour Party conference.
The next fortnight is going to be dominated by the Tory conference then voting in the leadership contest.
Equally, you could argue that this is great timing for the Tories. Labour might have been hoping to point and laugh at the feeble candidates, now they will be consumed by this. Meanwhile at their conference the Tories will have a real pep. The government is imploding so fast the Tories really will have a chance of winning next time, despite the huge Labour majority
Delicious. THAT letter is why we all love politics!
Nah, timing is everything.
Just imagine if she had quit the morning of Starmer's speech or on budget day.
Yes, it’s a bit tomorrow’s fish&chip paper.
I’ve no great love for Starmer, but I don’t see how this makes much of a difference to unseating him, FWIW.
OTOH, he’s yet to display much in the way of Prime Ministerial competence. A proper plot could easily do for him, were there anyone on the front bench sufficiently competent in the art of political machination.
I think he was elected mostly for competence, not ideology or anything else. Quite simply he needed to be Roger Federer when it came to unforced errors. WFA combined with freebies, combined again with how each has been handled - still ghastly, still unresolved - does huge damage to what was the USP of Starmer's Labour.
Assuming (as generally we always have for decades) that government is a choice between Lab and Con, the trashing of the brand means there is no semblance of a party to vote for to govern with competence.
Combine that with the (understandable) combined Con/Lab polling at about 54-57%, and still falling since the GE of 2024, (compare 82% in 2017), and the possibility of a new era arises.
My essential judgement is that SKS SSW has shit people skills and is massively self-centred careerist grafter who just says and does what he needs to do to get to the next level, and doesn't care about the consequences.
That would explain why some of the criticism is so bitter and personal. People hate being deliberately disrespected or ignored.
As I said before the GE, SKS is not a very good politician. In that, Ms Duffield may have a point in what she said about time spent on the backbenches.
Most of Labour's GE success was down to the Conservative's implosion, rather than any desire for Labour - which was why the percentages were the way they were.
It wasn't too many years ago when we were wondering who the first Labour MP to defect to the Tories would be. I don't expect such a defection before the Tories elect a new leader and that leader has settled in; but I reckon there's a good chance we'll see one this parliament.
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
I've never really gotten on board with the second one, as a supposed caution against people indulging in revenge. Many people who seek revenge might consider that a fair trade, depending on what they seek revenge for, or may already consider their prospects dead even if they are not, so it doesn't work much to dissuade people.
As kinabalu notes, there's not much downside for her.
That is the most savage resignation letter I have ever seen. I do not believe this is because she is so suddenly shocked by griftgate and The free-frockalypse. However she has cannily used those to great effect - "shameful avarice"
There must now be a decent chance Starmer goes. Not a big chance, but no longer vanishingly small
Popcorn!
Sadly there’s an awful lot of Labour MPs to cross the floor before their majority is in jeopardy.
That said, the first job of the new Tory leader is to appoint a chief whip who can go and pick off Labour MPs one at a time, who disagree with the news agenda of the week.
Starmer is more likely to lose MPs to greens or lib dems than Tories I reckon.
Wikipedia lists 2 MPs in 1948 moving from Labour to Tory due to opposition to nationalisation of steel. There was one in 1961 who went Labour to Independent, then joined the Tories a year later, and there might be a few more of those I've not spotted in a quick look. And there was another one in 1977.
In short, it is very uncommon. Happens more the other way.
Given the tone of Duffield's letter, she isn't going Tory. Feels like she was heading this way for some time, but needed to be re-elected before acting.
She isn't a Tory. Neither is JK Rowling.
She's a classic welfare state Labourite, but detests identity politics and culture war.
What’s to explain . It’s been a terrible start with one of the biggest political own goals of all time as in the WFA . Don’t Labour have any decent advisers ? Duffield had fallen out with Starmer a long time ago so this isn’t a huge shock but seriously Labour need to get a grip .
The WFA should have been in the manifesto.
Sure, it would have meant they didn't win quite as big a landslide. But Starmer would be better off now with, say, 375 MPs and having been able to diffuse the row with "it was in the manifesto".
He’d have been lucky to get any majority if the WFA was in the manifesto . The WFA cut is one of the worst political decisions of all time . I’m still astonished that Reeves was so clueless to do this and Starmer useless in not stopping her .
What’s to explain . It’s been a terrible start with one of the biggest political own goals of all time as in the WFA . Don’t Labour have any decent advisers ? Duffield had fallen out with Starmer a long time ago so this isn’t a huge shock but seriously Labour need to get a grip .
The WFA should have been in the manifesto.
Sure, it would have meant they didn't win quite as big a landslide. But Starmer would be better off now with, say, 375 MPs and having been able to diffuse the row with "it was in the manifesto".
Since May's attempt to put some difficult stuff in a manifesto because she expected to win went down badly, I expect vague pablum to be what we get for a long time.
PB is really having a meltdown tonight..🥴 2 months of grifting is hardly balancing with 14 years of corruption and incompetence..🧐😏
I'm inclined to agree with this. We are at the Bernie Ecclestone level of scandal - which came along six months into Blair's reign. Starmer will be with us a few years more at least. PB Tories should remember it's a marathon, not a sprint.
No, this is far worse than Ecclestone
It's endless and it's often personal, and much of it is clearly coming from the top of Labour itself, trying to oust Starmer. None of that was true of Ecclestone
So let's say Starmer is replaced in the next few months (despite it being very difficult under Labour party rules to do). It will be by either Streeting or Reeves in number 10, and ostensibly bugger all will change for the next five years.
Meanwhile the Tories seem determined to crown "Honest" Bob Jenrick as leader, a man who can apparently be bought for as little as £12,000, who broke lockdown (twice) and who claimed 100k in expenses on his *third* house, leading a government minister at the time to say "it’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
People are getting rather hyped up over nothing, if we don't have Starmer we'll have someone with almost exactly equal views from the inner circle taking over for the next five years, implementing exactly the same policies Starmer would have. Plus "Honest" Bob Jenrick in opposition.
As I say, this is a marathon, not a sprint.
I do not see Starmer being deposed, but the point is just like Boris it can cause serious longer term damage to him and his party
A lot of that requires an effective opposition.
Assuming it's Jenrick, he's going to have a pretty hard time lobbing bricks from that glass house of his. Starmer was able to lob bricks by presenting himself as Mr Clean, even if we now know that's not the case.
The silence from the Conservative benches on the whole donations scandal is deafening, because most of them have probably accepted similar. Remind me again where that £75,000 donation to Jenrick's campaign fund we were all talking about came from? An anonymous offshore company? At least with Lord Alli, you know who the guy is...
Unfortunately I see the long term beneficiary of this as one N. Farage, MP for Clacton and Mar-a-Largo. The "stuff them all, they're all the same" vote will increase and Our Nige will pick up a few more angry protest votes (despite being the biggest grifter there is).
I’m pretty sure the LibDems would take her in, if she wanted; there’s nothing disqualifying in her views, as far as I can see. And the LDs could hold Canterbury with her, as well; in 2010 and during the Thatcher era they chalked up solid second places there.
Although her phrase “this is the end of the road for me for now” is an interesting one.
What’s to explain . It’s been a terrible start with one of the biggest political own goals of all time as in the WFA . Don’t Labour have any decent advisers ? Duffield had fallen out with Starmer a long time ago so this isn’t a huge shock but seriously Labour need to get a grip .
The WFA should have been in the manifesto.
Sure, it would have meant they didn't win quite as big a landslide. But Starmer would be better off now with, say, 375 MPs and having been able to diffuse the row with "it was in the manifesto".
Since May's attempt to put some difficult stuff in a manifesto because she expected to win went down badly, I expect vague pablum to be what we get for a long time.
True, but that was somewhat different because it was targeting her own voters.
That is the most savage resignation letter I have ever seen. I do not believe this is because she is so suddenly shocked by griftgate and The free-frockalypse. However she has cannily used those to great effect - "shameful avarice"
There must now be a decent chance Starmer goes. Not a big chance, but no longer vanishingly small
Popcorn!
Sadly there’s an awful lot of Labour MPs to cross the floor before their majority is in jeopardy.
That said, the first job of the new Tory leader is to appoint a chief whip who can go and pick off Labour MPs one at a time, who disagree with the news agenda of the week.
Starmer is more likely to lose MPs to greens or lib dems than Tories I reckon.
Wikipedia lists 2 MPs in 1948 moving from Labour to Tory due to opposition to nationalisation of steel. There was one in 1961 who went Labour to Independent, then joined the Tories a year later, and there might be a few more of those I've not spotted in a quick look. And there was another one in 1977.
In short, it is very uncommon. Happens more the other way.
Given the tone of Duffield's letter, she isn't going Tory. Feels like she was heading this way for some time, but needed to be re-elected before acting.
She isn't a Tory. Neither is JK Rowling.
She's a classic welfare state Labourite, but detests identity politics and culture war.
That is the most savage resignation letter I have ever seen. I do not believe this is because she is so suddenly shocked by griftgate and The free-frockalypse. However she has cannily used those to great effect - "shameful avarice"
There must now be a decent chance Starmer goes. Not a big chance, but no longer vanishingly small
Popcorn!
Sadly there’s an awful lot of Labour MPs to cross the floor before their majority is in jeopardy.
That said, the first job of the new Tory leader is to appoint a chief whip who can go and pick off Labour MPs one at a time, who disagree with the news agenda of the week.
Starmer is more likely to lose MPs to greens or lib dems than Tories I reckon.
Wikipedia lists 2 MPs in 1948 moving from Labour to Tory due to opposition to nationalisation of steel. There was one in 1961 who went Labour to Independent, then joined the Tories a year later, and there might be a few more of those I've not spotted in a quick look. And there was another one in 1977.
In short, it is very uncommon. Happens more the other way.
Given the tone of Duffield's letter, she isn't going Tory. Feels like she was heading this way for some time, but needed to be re-elected before acting.
She isn't a Tory. Neither is JK Rowling.
She's a classic welfare state Labourite, but detests identity politics and culture war.
I’m pretty sure the LibDems would take her in, if she wanted; there’s nothing disqualifying in her views, as far as I can see.
Not even her gender views? Are the LDs accepting of wider views on the subject?
cf. Tim Farron?
The LibDems are pretty tolerant of individual views differing from the party’s policy, provided the person’s overall politics are in the right place. As you’d expect, being liberal.
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
I've never really gotten on board with the second one, as a supposed caution against people indulging in revenge. Many people who seek revenge might consider that a fair trade, depending on what they seek revenge for, or may already consider their prospects dead even if they are not, so it doesn't work much to dissuade people.
As kinabalu notes, there's not much downside for her.
Fair enough- there are times when pursuit of vengeance is worth it, just recognise the likely cost.
But ultimately this makes more sense as a howl of despair by the anti-Starmerites; no point staying to fight, because Sir Boring has won for the foreseeable. So do the thing where you slam the door and stomp away, because that's all you can do. (Been there, done that, might make you feel alive, but that's all it does do.)
I’m pretty sure the LibDems would take her in, if she wanted; there’s nothing disqualifying in her views, as far as I can see. And the LDs could hold Canterbury with her, as well; in 2010 and during the Thatcher era they chalked up solid second places there.
There is a sane future trajectory as a possibility in which, with the successive moral and competence collapse of Tory and Labour, centrists of both stripes move in the LD direction, at least WRT what they say to pollsters; there are already good reasons for populists of all stripes to move towrds Reform. Polling over the next 12 months could be of more than theoretical interest.
That is the most savage resignation letter I have ever seen. I do not believe this is because she is so suddenly shocked by griftgate and The free-frockalypse. However she has cannily used those to great effect - "shameful avarice"
There must now be a decent chance Starmer goes. Not a big chance, but no longer vanishingly small
Popcorn!
Sadly there’s an awful lot of Labour MPs to cross the floor before their majority is in jeopardy.
That said, the first job of the new Tory leader is to appoint a chief whip who can go and pick off Labour MPs one at a time, who disagree with the news agenda of the week.
Starmer is more likely to lose MPs to greens or lib dems than Tories I reckon.
Wikipedia lists 2 MPs in 1948 moving from Labour to Tory due to opposition to nationalisation of steel. There was one in 1961 who went Labour to Independent, then joined the Tories a year later, and there might be a few more of those I've not spotted in a quick look. And there was another one in 1977.
In short, it is very uncommon. Happens more the other way.
Given the tone of Duffield's letter, she isn't going Tory. Feels like she was heading this way for some time, but needed to be re-elected before acting.
She isn't a Tory. Neither is JK Rowling.
She's a classic welfare state Labourite, but detests identity politics and culture war.
Yeah, she’s a good egg. Really sad to see her go
Also, as @Casino_Royale notes, she is not without personal charm
If you were on say, God, I dunno - OK let's say the Lerins islands, off Cannes, and you were having a walk with her, and she was in a floaty summer dress, and you spotted a handy altar....
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
I've never really gotten on board with the second one, as a supposed caution against people indulging in revenge. Many people who seek revenge might consider that a fair trade, depending on what they seek revenge for, or may already consider their prospects dead even if they are not, so it doesn't work much to dissuade people.
As kinabalu notes, there's not much downside for her.
She’s greatly reduced her chances of retaining her seat at the next general election.
Wow, what a letter. I saw Rod Liddle being interviewed on some channel or other and he said that Starmer wont be PM for long. I remember thinking that a ridiculous statement, but now?....
Social media is promising more Starmer relevations. IF that is true - big if - then what are they? The PM is now tottering
Quite incredible, after just 3 months and with a 170 seat majority
Social Media always promises but never delivers when it comes to these things
If there are all these skeletons in the closet for SKS why didn’t they come out before.
People on twitter need to be careful. Jenny Chapman has already received damages for an untrue allegation re her and SKS. Others may well end up suing.
BUT we PBers will always have "Finland" - NOT?
I’m probably one of the few who hasn’t got a clue what this is, still.
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
I've never really gotten on board with the second one, as a supposed caution against people indulging in revenge. Many people who seek revenge might consider that a fair trade, depending on what they seek revenge for, or may already consider their prospects dead even if they are not, so it doesn't work much to dissuade people.
As kinabalu notes, there's not much downside for her.
She’s greatly reduced her chances of retaining her seat at the next general election.
Of course. But she's an MP now until probably 2029, which will be 12 years in office. Not a super long time, but plenty if someone is independent minded and frustrated, which she has been for quite some time. So she may not even have intended to stand again.
That is the most savage resignation letter I have ever seen. I do not believe this is because she is so suddenly shocked by griftgate and The free-frockalypse. However she has cannily used those to great effect - "shameful avarice"
There must now be a decent chance Starmer goes. Not a big chance, but no longer vanishingly small
Popcorn!
Sadly there’s an awful lot of Labour MPs to cross the floor before their majority is in jeopardy.
That said, the first job of the new Tory leader is to appoint a chief whip who can go and pick off Labour MPs one at a time, who disagree with the news agenda of the week.
Starmer is more likely to lose MPs to greens or lib dems than Tories I reckon.
Possibly, they should definitely all be on the hunt. With such a large majority, there’s ample opportunity to break off both individual MPs and groups disaffected by government policy on a weekly basis.
Wow, what a letter. I saw Rod Liddle being interviewed on some channel or other and he said that Starmer wont be PM for long. I remember thinking that a ridiculous statement, but now?....
Social media is promising more Starmer relevations. IF that is true - big if - then what are they? The PM is now tottering
Quite incredible, after just 3 months and with a 170 seat majority
Social Media always promises but never delivers when it comes to these things
If there are all these skeletons in the closet for SKS why didn’t they come out before.
People on twitter need to be careful. Jenny Chapman has already received damages for an untrue allegation re her and SKS. Others may well end up suing.
I am mindful of what @TheScreamingEagles says about lawyers and I will comment no more on this aspect
However it DOES look like there is a concerted drip-drip of leaks from Number 10/the Labour elite, against Starmer. How come we KEEP getting more revelations about griftgate, day by day?
That is the classic technique to bring down a politician. You do it slowly and cruelly so they never get a chance to recover, they are always defensive, then they fall
It's how they brought down Boris, ironically
The final paragraph quoted here is very interesting.
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
Yes but this passes the risk/reward test for her. She's elected, she's an MP, and can now also focus on building her personal brand. A media career beckons.
Sure. But she could have said all of this and remained a Labour MP. Dared them to sack her. Been around to pick up the pieces after the apparently inevitable Starplosion. And still had a media career. But she didn't.
Resigning is a card you can only play once. So why now?
As an independent she can be totally "Rosie". And the sooner she resigns the whip the more "Rosie" she can be and for longer. I could be wrong but that's my sense of it.
That is the most savage resignation letter I have ever seen. I do not believe this is because she is so suddenly shocked by griftgate and The free-frockalypse. However she has cannily used those to great effect - "shameful avarice"
There must now be a decent chance Starmer goes. Not a big chance, but no longer vanishingly small
Popcorn!
Sadly there’s an awful lot of Labour MPs to cross the floor before their majority is in jeopardy.
That said, the first job of the new Tory leader is to appoint a chief whip who can go and pick off Labour MPs one at a time, who disagree with the news agenda of the week.
Starmer is more likely to lose MPs to greens or lib dems than Tories I reckon.
Wikipedia lists 2 MPs in 1948 moving from Labour to Tory due to opposition to nationalisation of steel. There was one in 1961 who went Labour to Independent, then joined the Tories a year later, and there might be a few more of those I've not spotted in a quick look. And there was another one in 1977.
In short, it is very uncommon. Happens more the other way.
Given the tone of Duffield's letter, she isn't going Tory. Feels like she was heading this way for some time, but needed to be re-elected before acting.
She isn't a Tory. Neither is JK Rowling.
She's a classic welfare state Labourite, but detests identity politics and culture war.
Yeah, she’s a good egg. Really sad to see her go
Also, as @Casino_Royale notes, she is not without personal charm
If you were on say, God, I dunno - OK let's say the Lerins islands, off Cannes, and you were having a walk with her, and she was in a floaty summer dress, and you spotted a handy altar....
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
I've never really gotten on board with the second one, as a supposed caution against people indulging in revenge. Many people who seek revenge might consider that a fair trade, depending on what they seek revenge for, or may already consider their prospects dead even if they are not, so it doesn't work much to dissuade people.
As kinabalu notes, there's not much downside for her.
She’s greatly reduced her chances of retaining her seat at the next general election.
That depends on a lot of things including her desire to continue in the HOC and which party she decides to join, if any
I’m pretty sure the LibDems would take her in, if she wanted; there’s nothing disqualifying in her views, as far as I can see. And the LDs could hold Canterbury with her, as well; in 2010 and during the Thatcher era they chalked up solid second places there.
There is a sane future trajectory as a possibility in which, with the successive moral and competence collapse of Tory and Labour, centrists of both stripes move in the LD direction, at least WRT what they say to pollsters; there are already good reasons for populists of all stripes to move towrds Reform. Polling over the next 12 months could be of more than theoretical interest.
That would require the LDs to actually be centrist, rather than the Labour Party for places where the actual Labour Party can't win.
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
I've never really gotten on board with the second one, as a supposed caution against people indulging in revenge. Many people who seek revenge might consider that a fair trade, depending on what they seek revenge for, or may already consider their prospects dead even if they are not, so it doesn't work much to dissuade people.
As kinabalu notes, there's not much downside for her.
She’s greatly reduced her chances of retaining her seat at the next general election.
That depends on a lot of things including her desire to continue in the HOC and which party she decides to join, if any
It certainly does not help Labour in that seat
If she wants to continue as an MP, and perhaps she doesn’t, she’s got 5 years to try to build up her brand as an independent, or as the candidate for another party, but Labour also has 5 years to build up an alternative position in the constituency.
She’s not writing as if she’s going to move to the right, so a defection to Con or RefUK seems unlikely. The Greens won’t take her. She could go LibDem, but it would have been more beneficial for the LibDems if she’d jumped straight to them and done it to coincide with the LibDem party conference.
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
I've never really gotten on board with the second one, as a supposed caution against people indulging in revenge. Many people who seek revenge might consider that a fair trade, depending on what they seek revenge for, or may already consider their prospects dead even if they are not, so it doesn't work much to dissuade people.
As kinabalu notes, there's not much downside for her.
She’s greatly reduced her chances of retaining her seat at the next general election.
Which she only had because of the party label. I understand from some residents of her constituency that she is fairly widely disliked for having no interest in the constituency or her constituents - I don't see her doing a Corbyn.
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
I've never really gotten on board with the second one, as a supposed caution against people indulging in revenge. Many people who seek revenge might consider that a fair trade, depending on what they seek revenge for, or may already consider their prospects dead even if they are not, so it doesn't work much to dissuade people.
As kinabalu notes, there's not much downside for her.
She’s greatly reduced her chances of retaining her seat at the next general election.
That depends on a lot of things including her desire to continue in the HOC and which party she decides to join, if any
It certainly does not help Labour in that seat
If she wants to continue as an MP, and perhaps she doesn’t, she’s got 5 years to try to build up her brand as an independent, or as the candidate for another party, but Labour also has 5 years to build up an alternative position in the constituency.
She’s not writing as if she’s going to move to the right, so a defection to Con or RefUK seems unlikely. The Greens won’t take her. She could go LibDem, but it would have been more beneficial for the LibDems if she’d jumped straight to them and done it to coincide with the LibDem party conference.
The point is if you read her letter, the post election freebies and cronyism together with the WFP just added to her pre election issues and exploded tonight in a letter that has to damage Starmer and the cabinet
It must be a difficult night for Labour supporters and frankly I am astounded how quickly Labour have imploded
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
I've never really gotten on board with the second one, as a supposed caution against people indulging in revenge. Many people who seek revenge might consider that a fair trade, depending on what they seek revenge for, or may already consider their prospects dead even if they are not, so it doesn't work much to dissuade people.
As kinabalu notes, there's not much downside for her.
She’s greatly reduced her chances of retaining her seat at the next general election.
Not necessarily.
My core scenario for the next GE is that the government isn’t particularly popular but that the Conservatives haven’t recovered to any significant extent.
If the government is rather more unpopular and the Tories rather more successful in getting their act together than I anticipate, Canterbury could be in play.
As an Independent, with a decent constituency record, she could be in with a chance of doing a Dick Taverne.
And as a LibDem by then, as per my post above, she could be sitting relatively pretty.
I’m pretty sure the LibDems would take her in, if she wanted; there’s nothing disqualifying in her views, as far as I can see.
Not even her gender views? Are the LDs accepting of wider views on the subject?
cf. Tim Farron?
The LibDems are pretty tolerant of individual views differing from the party’s policy, provided the person’s overall politics are in the right place. As you’d expect, being liberal.
That is the most savage resignation letter I have ever seen. I do not believe this is because she is so suddenly shocked by griftgate and The free-frockalypse. However she has cannily used those to great effect - "shameful avarice"
There must now be a decent chance Starmer goes. Not a big chance, but no longer vanishingly small
Popcorn!
Sadly there’s an awful lot of Labour MPs to cross the floor before their majority is in jeopardy.
That said, the first job of the new Tory leader is to appoint a chief whip who can go and pick off Labour MPs one at a time, who disagree with the news agenda of the week.
Starmer is more likely to lose MPs to greens or lib dems than Tories I reckon.
Wikipedia lists 2 MPs in 1948 moving from Labour to Tory due to opposition to nationalisation of steel. There was one in 1961 who went Labour to Independent, then joined the Tories a year later, and there might be a few more of those I've not spotted in a quick look. And there was another one in 1977.
In short, it is very uncommon. Happens more the other way.
Given the tone of Duffield's letter, she isn't going Tory. Feels like she was heading this way for some time, but needed to be re-elected before acting.
She isn't a Tory. Neither is JK Rowling.
She's a classic welfare state Labourite, but detests identity politics and culture war.
Yeah, she’s a good egg. Really sad to see her go
Also, as @Casino_Royale notes, she is not without personal charm
If you were on say, God, I dunno - OK let's say the Lerins islands, off Cannes, and you were having a walk with her, and she was in a floaty summer dress, and you spotted a handy altar....
I’m pretty sure the LibDems would take her in, if she wanted; there’s nothing disqualifying in her views, as far as I can see. And the LDs could hold Canterbury with her, as well; in 2010 and during the Thatcher era they chalked up solid second places there.
There is a sane future trajectory as a possibility in which, with the successive moral and competence collapse of Tory and Labour, centrists of both stripes move in the LD direction, at least WRT what they say to pollsters; there are already good reasons for populists of all stripes to move towrds Reform. Polling over the next 12 months could be of more than theoretical interest.
That would require the LDs to actually be centrist, rather than the Labour Party for places where the actual Labour Party can't win.
But the Labour Party can’t win those places precisely because it isn’t centrist enough.
Anyhow, I’ve done sweet FA today. Except trimmed the dog. I’ve even opened and almost finished a bottle of white, at lunchtime, come Leon, while sitting on deck watching a load of driftwood come downstream, now that the tide has turned. Which is a trifle macabre, as I know where it is coming from.
That is the most savage resignation letter I have ever seen. I do not believe this is because she is so suddenly shocked by griftgate and The free-frockalypse. However she has cannily used those to great effect - "shameful avarice"
There must now be a decent chance Starmer goes. Not a big chance, but no longer vanishingly small
Popcorn!
Sadly there’s an awful lot of Labour MPs to cross the floor before their majority is in jeopardy.
That said, the first job of the new Tory leader is to appoint a chief whip who can go and pick off Labour MPs one at a time, who disagree with the news agenda of the week.
Starmer is more likely to lose MPs to greens or lib dems than Tories I reckon.
Wikipedia lists 2 MPs in 1948 moving from Labour to Tory due to opposition to nationalisation of steel. There was one in 1961 who went Labour to Independent, then joined the Tories a year later, and there might be a few more of those I've not spotted in a quick look. And there was another one in 1977.
In short, it is very uncommon. Happens more the other way.
Given the tone of Duffield's letter, she isn't going Tory. Feels like she was heading this way for some time, but needed to be re-elected before acting.
She isn't a Tory. Neither is JK Rowling.
She's a classic welfare state Labourite, but detests identity politics and culture war.
Yeah, she’s a good egg. Really sad to see her go
Also, as @Casino_Royale notes, she is not without personal charm
If you were on say, God, I dunno - OK let's say the Lerins islands, off Cannes, and you were having a walk with her, and she was in a floaty summer dress, and you spotted a handy altar....
The Lerins Islands! You are truly a fish out of water in the wilds of NW1.
Just read it on Sam Coates twitter feed. All I can say is you’re correct. It is.
Three pages of pure loathing and contempt. Not a shred of respect - "you're a decent man doing a hard job" blah blah
Just pure 100% ultra-distilled vitriol. The problem for Starmer is that, nonetheless, it doesn't sound unhinged. It is articulate and pointed
He's consistently ignored, shunned and been rude to her.
So, it's payback time. And she's clearly a person who thinks revenge should be served up absolutely freezing.
Yep. There is bad blood. The letter drips with it.
Two old rules.
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss. 2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
I've never really gotten on board with the second one, as a supposed caution against people indulging in revenge. Many people who seek revenge might consider that a fair trade, depending on what they seek revenge for, or may already consider their prospects dead even if they are not, so it doesn't work much to dissuade people.
As kinabalu notes, there's not much downside for her.
She’s greatly reduced her chances of retaining her seat at the next general election.
Not necessarily.
My core scenario for the next GE is that the government isn’t particularly popular but that the Conservatives haven’t recovered to any significant extent.
If the government is rather more unpopular and the Tories rather more successful in getting their act together than I anticipate, Canterbury could be in play.
As an Independent, with a decent constituency record, she could be in with a chance of doing a Dick Taverne.
And as a LibDem by then, as per my post above, she could be sitting relatively pretty.
Rather surprised to find out she's 53. So she could even decide to stand down/ retire - but I do agree that if she wants to stand as a 'tells it how it is' independent her chances would be good - and probably considerably better than as a Labour candidate.
Curiously she didn't mention trans in her letter. Think that issue may prevent a transfer to LibDems.
There's quite a mob of Independents in Parliament so maybe not so uncomfortable a place to be. Though whether she is a natural bedfellow for JC and his motley crew I've no idea.
I’m pretty sure the LibDems would take her in, if she wanted; there’s nothing disqualifying in her views, as far as I can see.
Not even her gender views? Are the LDs accepting of wider views on the subject?
cf. Tim Farron?
The LibDems are pretty tolerant of individual views differing from the party’s policy, provided the person’s overall politics are in the right place. As you’d expect, being liberal.
Curiously she didn't mention trans in her letter. Think that issue may prevent a transfer to LibDems.
There's quite a mob of Independents in Parliament so maybe not so uncomfortable a place to be. Though whether she is a natural bedfellow for JC and his motley crew I've no idea.
She's genuinely independent and has been pretty much since she was elected. I really don't think she's going to be joining any other party or faction.
Lol. It's going to be a long few years for you, isn't it.
I empathise. Boy did I struggle with Johnson being my PM.
I think Johnson was necessary.
We could have saved the country a lot of political stress if he’d taken over after Dave.
The scandals would probably have been different, but scandals there would have been and they probably would have still brought him down / stopped him from getting reelected in a 2020 election. Although, May 2020 would have been peak covid fear, so who knows?!
Comments
I wouldn't mind the trip to one of the Cannes offshore islands with her, aka @Leon style.
And I'm guessing it will stay that way until Monday evening as the final stocks are burned up.
We are living through the end of an era. A remarkable era that completely changed the world - more completely than any before, and probably than any to come. The age of coal power in Britain.
Let us quote what someone said as that era opened properly at Rainhill in 1829:
4The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings. 5He shall recount his worthies: they shall stumble in their walk; they shall make haste to the wall thereof, and the defence shall be prepared. 6The gates of the rivers shall be opened, and the palace shall be dissolved. 7And Huzzab shall be led away captive, she shall be brought up, and her maids shall lead her as with the voice of doves, tabering upon their breasts.
It's endless and it's often personal, and much of it is clearly coming from the top of Labour itself, trying to oust Starmer. None of that was true of Ecclestone
Or is it a PB conspiracy ?
SKS's stupidity over the donations is much more important.
Ex-prime minister believed it was his duty to seize British-developed vaccines that had been ‘kidnapped’ by the EU"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/27/boris-johnson-diary-covid-vaccine-invade-netherlands/
Who WAS responsible for that gem?
As one example, it is not for The High Court to find Suella Braverman guilty of 'discrimination' because she decided not to implement 2 out of the 30 recommendations of a post-Windrush report that Priti Patel said she was going to implement when Home Secretary. The two recommendations (incidentally) were to strengthen the powers of an inspectorate (more blob) and to appoint a 'Migrant Commissioner' (new blob). And apparently Braverman had 'discriminated' by not doing that. Is it any wonder that we can't control our borders with the thicket of courts, inspectorates, quangos, the chattering media, and civil action groups growing ever denser and thornier by its own hand?
1. If you shoot at the King, for God's sake don't miss.
2. If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves.
Note that in US history, the anti-Federalists of the late 18th to early 19th century are considered precursors of the Democratic Party. However, in their heyday during the "Virginia Dynasty" (Jefferson>Madison>Monroe) they were commonly called "Republicans". The "Democratic Party" not appearing on the scene until the era of Andrew Jackson. Thus leaving label "Republican" free for use by their mid-century opponents follow the demise of the Whig Party in the USA.
Incidentally, the Whigs adopted THAT name in part, to keep their Democratic opponents from calling them Tories!
I’ve no great love for Starmer, but I don’t see how this makes much of a difference to unseating him, FWIW.
OTOH, he’s yet to display much in the way of Prime Ministerial competence.
A proper plot could easily do for him, were there anyone on the front bench sufficiently competent in the art of political machination.
Meanwhile the Tories seem determined to crown "Honest" Bob Jenrick as leader, a man who can apparently be bought for as little as £12,000, who broke lockdown (twice) and who claimed 100k in expenses on his *third* house, leading a government minister at the time to say "it’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
People are getting rather hyped up over nothing, if we don't have Starmer we'll have someone with almost exactly equal views from the inner circle taking over for the next five years, implementing exactly the same policies Starmer would have. Plus "Honest" Bob Jenrick in opposition.
As I say, this is a marathon, not a sprint.
I remember noting on here, weeks ago, the oddity of the Guardian constantly attacking Starmer, and often in quite personal and nasty ways. Totally weird, for a new Labour PM with a big majority
It now makes more sense. There is a schism and there is resentment
Edit: it was the 1760s.
Sure, it would have meant they didn't win quite as big a landslide. But Starmer would be better off now with, say, 375 MPs and having been able to diffuse the row with "it was in the manifesto".
That would explain why some of the criticism is so bitter and personal.
People hate being deliberately disrespected or ignored.
In short, it is very uncommon. Happens more the other way.
Given the tone of Duffield's letter, she isn't going Tory. Feels like she was heading this way for some time, but needed to be re-elected before acting.
Resigning is a card you can only play once. So why now?
Assuming (as generally we always have for decades) that government is a choice between Lab and Con, the trashing of the brand means there is no semblance of a party to vote for to govern with competence.
Combine that with the (understandable) combined Con/Lab polling at about 54-57%, and still falling since the GE of 2024, (compare 82% in 2017), and the possibility of a new era arises.
Most of Labour's GE success was down to the Conservative's implosion, rather than any desire for Labour - which was why the percentages were the way they were.
It wasn't too many years ago when we were wondering who the first Labour MP to defect to the Tories would be. I don't expect such a defection before the Tories elect a new leader and that leader has settled in; but I reckon there's a good chance we'll see one this parliament.
As kinabalu notes, there's not much downside for her.
She's a classic welfare state Labourite, but detests identity politics and culture war.
Assuming it's Jenrick, he's going to have a pretty hard time lobbing bricks from that glass house of his. Starmer was able to lob bricks by presenting himself as Mr Clean, even if we now know that's not the case.
The silence from the Conservative benches on the whole donations scandal is deafening, because most of them have probably accepted similar. Remind me again where that £75,000 donation to Jenrick's campaign fund we were all talking about came from? An anonymous offshore company? At least with Lord Alli, you know who the guy is...
Unfortunately I see the long term beneficiary of this as one N. Farage, MP for Clacton and Mar-a-Largo. The "stuff them all, they're all the same" vote will increase and Our Nige will pick up a few more angry protest votes (despite being the biggest grifter there is).
Who’s their Michael Gove, the minister that can be sent out to defend the indefensible?
Although her phrase “this is the end of the road for me for now” is an interesting one.
The LibDems are pretty tolerant of individual views differing from the party’s policy, provided the person’s overall politics are in the right place. As you’d expect, being liberal.
But ultimately this makes more sense as a howl of despair by the anti-Starmerites; no point staying to fight, because Sir Boring has won for the foreseeable. So do the thing where you slam the door and stomp away, because that's all you can do. (Been there, done that, might make you feel alive, but that's all it does do.)
If you were on say, God, I dunno - OK let's say the Lerins islands, off Cannes, and you were having a walk with her, and she was in a floaty summer dress, and you spotted a handy altar....
C😂
https://x.com/proftimbale/status/1839598959490207997?s=61
I think you are spot on.
It was Boris’s own side that brought him down, it will be the same with SKS if it happens here.
"Nobody's perfect!"
It certainly does not help Labour in that seat
She’s not writing as if she’s going to move to the right, so a defection to Con or RefUK seems unlikely. The Greens won’t take her. She could go LibDem, but it would have been more beneficial for the LibDems if she’d jumped straight to them and done it to coincide with the LibDem party conference.
It rips Skyr Toolmakersson to shreds. With “forensic” skill empowered by obvious hatred
At least Keith can be in no doubt where he stands with her anyway! 😂
It must be a difficult night for Labour supporters and frankly I am astounded how quickly Labour have imploded
My core scenario for the next GE is that the government isn’t particularly popular but that the Conservatives haven’t recovered to any significant extent.
If the government is rather more unpopular and the Tories rather more successful in getting their act together than I anticipate, Canterbury could be in play.
As an Independent, with a decent constituency record, she could be in with a chance of doing a Dick Taverne.
And as a LibDem by then, as per my post above, she could be sitting relatively pretty.
Anyhow, I’ve done sweet FA today. Except trimmed the dog. I’ve even opened and almost finished a bottle of white, at lunchtime, come Leon, while sitting on deck watching a load of driftwood come downstream, now that the tide has turned. Which is a trifle macabre, as I know where it is coming from.
A dog photo tomorrow.
Yes please.
I think your book has hacked your account and started posting in your name.
I empathise. Boy did I struggle with Johnson being my PM.
They are leaking more than the Boris government and losing leadership faster than OpenAI.
There's quite a mob of Independents in Parliament so maybe not so uncomfortable a place to be. Though whether she is a natural bedfellow for JC and his motley crew I've no idea.
Literally.
We could have saved the country a lot of political stress if he’d taken over after Dave.
The scandals would probably have been different, but scandals there would have been and they probably would have still brought him down / stopped him from getting reelected in a 2020 election. Although, May 2020 would have been peak covid fear, so who knows?!
Counterfactuals are great fun, aren’t they?