Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
Are you talking to me? I had no interest in Mrs Truss's necklace and what it represented. The only poster who had a seriously unhealthy interest was Leon. Now Johnson was a wholly different matter because of his sexually incontinent backstory. His antics might have been hilarious to his political opponents but the stories would have been heartbreaking for Marina and his children.
The left weren't too bothered accusing David Cameron of revolting things nor dreaming up things about George Osbornes wife.(cf Derek Draper iirc) Some of the things Labour did were despicable... which I won't even mention.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don’t recall you getting all huffety-tuffety when there was wild speculation about Boris’ love life? Or indeed Liz “the necklace” Truss?
This is what it’s like to be prime minister. You are the subject of relentless gossip and scrutiny, much of it quite nasty
It’s like lefties think all the shit they threw at Tories is somehow unfair if done in return to Labour, now in office
Quite - whoever was responsible that vile necklace stuff about Truss should be deeply ashamed.
It is quantitatively different, though, from day 1, the relentless level of just plain made up bullshit, about the budget, this, even siding with actual fascists in August, and the extent to which the rump Tories on here just lap it up and Labour are awful because *insert our fabricated bullshit here*.
To be clear, educated speculation is part of the deal, a furore over excessive freebies is part of the deal, managing markets in the run up to a budget is part of the deal. This torrent of invented shit, though, Telegraph fabrication, the Americanisation of UK politics - it may be part of the deal for the left in 2024 but I don't accept it. No, Tories and clients, fuck off and die in a corner forever if this is what you have become, if this is what you call fair game. I think back to those Tory scandals and how we reacted and I cannot for one moment draw the parallel in how things were covered on here.
By this evidence the Tories are already fully paid up on the GOP / Reform / Putinganda bullshit train and there is no way back. Honestly, if Leon were in the pay of Russia, which I'm sure he's not, but if he were, what the hell different would his output be.
The left weren't too bothered accusing David Cameron of revolting things nor dreaming up things about George Osbornes wife.(cf Derek Draper iirc) Some of the things Labour did were despicable... which I won't even mention.
As ye sew,so shall ye reap.
That was disgusting. The unpleasant nonsense about Dorries was unforgivable. Why would I be comfortable with any of that?
You are the ones saying Mrs Starmer should be humiliated but It is unacceptable ( which it is) for Conservative figures to be targeted.
And don't forget the pig story was from Ashcroft 's book wasn't it?.
The left weren't too bothered accusing David Cameron of revolting things nor dreaming up things about George Osbornes wife.(cf Derek Draper iirc) Some of the things Labour did were despicable... which I won't even mention.
As ye sew,so shall ye reap.
Wasn't the revolting stuff about Cameron the product of Oakeshott, who isn't exactly on the left?
Odd headline. Which reins of powers is he referring to?
Sharing in leadership of the West. For example Starmer deferred to Biden on using British weapons against Russia. If that was his decision he should have been informing Biden, not asking permission.
Odd headline. Which reins of powers is he referring to?
The last para
"...The moral of this strange modern fable, then, is ultimately one of power. Keir Starmer is learning that no matter how nicely he plays, his government will be buffeted by the wider struggle for dominance currently playing out in the US — not just between Trump and Harris, but between the titans of Silicon Valley and the party establishments in Washington. These are battles with huge stakes, financially and politically, the winners of which will control the world’s most powerful country and the world’s most powerful industry. Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney are mere straws blowing in the wind. The Brits aren’t coming for America. The Americans have already taken Britain..."
He means that in comparison with Musk and Trump, Starmer is a minnow who cannot influence things.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
That can't be right. Mark Carney says "she's a serious economist". He would know, wouldn't he?
Musk's views, of course, have nothing to do with the fact that one of his own children is trans and has disowned him, nor the fact that Grimes left him for a trans woman...
"I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form,” said his daughter in the court filing when she legally changed her name.
I couldn't even begin to speculate where the entire bag of chips on Musk's shoulder might stem from...
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
The reporting of indiscretions of the Major Government came about as a result of the moral crusade the Government embarked upon against, for example, unmarried teenage mothers in St Mellons, and it turned out some of the Cabinet were equally feral.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
I suggest you DYOR - I wouldn't dream of commenting.
I've heard the accusations. Perhaps Guidio should repeat them and see where that takes him. If that story is true it is in the public interest, much like the Russian Violinist.The key of course is he has made a dirty mac hatchet job insinuation without placing himself in the cross hairs of litigation
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
That can't be right. Mark Carney says "she's a serious economist". He would know, wouldn't he?
You're joking, but for those who don't know, Mark Carney went hyper-partisan a couple of years ago, alledgedly in hopes of a place in Canadian politics. Even hardcore Remainers mocked him for his lies about the size of the UK economy after Brexit:
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
That can't be right. Mark Carney says "she's a serious economist". He would know, wouldn't he?
I don't think this, from 2021, bigs up or claims she was an economist at the HBOS, rather involved in developing the structure of mortgage lending at a point which was already quite late in the day before the crash:
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
That can't be right. Mark Carney says "she's a serious economist". He would know, wouldn't he?
You're joking, but for those who don't know, Mark Carney went hyper-partisan a couple of years ago, alledgedly in hopes of a place in Canadian politics. Even hardcore Remainers mocked him for his lies about the size of the UK economy after Brexit:
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
That can't be right. Mark Carney says "she's a serious economist". He would know, wouldn't he?
I don't think this, from 2021, bigs up or claims she was an economist at the HBOS, rather involved in developing the structure of mortgage lending at a point which was already quite late in the day before the crash:
"Her official biography, often shared at speaking engagements, proudly states that she “worked as an economist at the Bank of England, the British Embassy in Washington DC, and latterly at Halifax Bank of Scotland."
The plain reading of that is economist in all three roles. Perhaps it was just poorly worded (do they have economists at embassies?).
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
The rumours - quite substantial now, and with some evidence already in the public domain - are a lot more lurid than THAT
Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
Musk's views, of course, have nothing to do with the fact that one of his own children is trans and has disowned him, nor the fact that Grimes left him for a trans woman...
"I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form,” said his daughter in the court filing when she legally changed her name.
I couldn't even begin to speculate where the entire bag of chips on Musk's shoulder might stem from...
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don’t recall you getting all huffety-tuffety when there was wild speculation about Boris’ love life? Or indeed Liz “the necklace” Truss?
This is what it’s like to be prime minister. You are the subject of relentless gossip and scrutiny, much of it quite nasty
It’s like lefties think all the shit they threw at Tories is somehow unfair if done in return to Labour, now in office
Quite - whoever was responsible that vile necklace stuff about Truss should be deeply ashamed.
It is quantitatively different, though, from day 1, the relentless level of just plain made up bullshit, about the budget, this, even siding with actual fascists in August, and the extent to which the rump Tories on here just lap it up and Labour are awful because *insert our fabricated bullshit here*.
To be clear, educated speculation is part of the deal, a furore over excessive freebies is part of the deal, managing markets in the run up to a budget is part of the deal. This torrent of invented shit, though, Telegraph fabrication, the Americanisation of UK politics - it may be part of the deal for the left in 2024 but I don't accept it. No, Tories and clients, fuck off and die in a corner forever if this is what you have become, if this is what you call fair game. I think back to those Tory scandals and how we reacted and I cannot for one moment draw the parallel in how things were covered on here.
By this evidence the Tories are already fully paid up on the GOP / Reform / Putinganda bullshit train and there is no way back. Honestly, if Leon were in the pay of Russia, which I'm sure he's not, but if he were, what the hell different would his output be.
lol. Defensive much?
All this is in the public interest as it appears the new rumours “relate to/explain” alleged lockdown rule breaking by Starmer, easily as bad as Partygate
Less than ten years ago, but still useful for the tourist. For vending machines, for ticket vending machines for restaurants, for some train systems and many bus systems outside major cities.
(Buses have change making machines built in next to the fare machines, which is fun. You have to do it in two stages though: make change, then put it in the fare machine.)
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don’t recall you getting all huffety-tuffety when there was wild speculation about Boris’ love life? Or indeed Liz “the necklace” Truss?
This is what it’s like to be prime minister. You are the subject of relentless gossip and scrutiny, much of it quite nasty
It’s like lefties think all the shit they threw at Tories is somehow unfair if done in return to Labour, now in office
Quite - whoever was responsible that vile necklace stuff about Truss should be deeply ashamed.
It is quantitatively different, though, from day 1, the relentless level of just plain made up bullshit, about the budget, this, even siding with actual fascists in August, and the extent to which the rump Tories on here just lap it up and Labour are awful because *insert our fabricated bullshit here*.
To be clear, educated speculation is part of the deal, a furore over excessive freebies is part of the deal, managing markets in the run up to a budget is part of the deal. This torrent of invented shit, though, Telegraph fabrication, the Americanisation of UK politics - it may be part of the deal for the left in 2024 but I don't accept it. No, Tories and clients, fuck off and die in a corner forever if this is what you have become, if this is what you call fair game. I think back to those Tory scandals and how we reacted and I cannot for one moment draw the parallel in how things were covered on here.
By this evidence the Tories are already fully paid up on the GOP / Reform / Putinganda bullshit train and there is no way back. Honestly, if Leon were in the pay of Russia, which I'm sure he's not, but if he were, what the hell different would his output be.
lol. Defensive much?
All this is in the public interest as it appears the new rumours “relate to/explain” alleged lockdown rule breaking by Starmer, easily as bad as Partygate
OK, let's get beyond the floaty insinuation then. Because, until something breaks properly, this just reeks of Bannonite flooding the field.
Sir Keir said he believed a working person was somebody who "goes out and earns their living, usually paid in a sort of monthly cheque" but they did not have the ability to "write a cheque to get out of difficulties".
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
Pressed on whether that meant taxes for those people could go up, the prime minister said: "You can probably give me any number of examples... you're asking me for a definition of who's a working person, and then you're making assumptions about what that tax might be in relation to."
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don’t recall you getting all huffety-tuffety when there was wild speculation about Boris’ love life? Or indeed Liz “the necklace” Truss?
This is what it’s like to be prime minister. You are the subject of relentless gossip and scrutiny, much of it quite nasty
It’s like lefties think all the shit they threw at Tories is somehow unfair if done in return to Labour, now in office
Quite - whoever was responsible that vile necklace stuff about Truss should be deeply ashamed.
It is quantitatively different, though, from day 1, the relentless level of just plain made up bullshit, about the budget, this, even siding with actual fascists in August, and the extent to which the rump Tories on here just lap it up and Labour are awful because *insert our fabricated bullshit here*.
To be clear, educated speculation is part of the deal, a furore over excessive freebies is part of the deal, managing markets in the run up to a budget is part of the deal. This torrent of invented shit, though, Telegraph fabrication, the Americanisation of UK politics - it may be part of the deal for the left in 2024 but I don't accept it. No, Tories and clients, fuck off and die in a corner forever if this is what you have become, if this is what you call fair game. I think back to those Tory scandals and how we reacted and I cannot for one moment draw the parallel in how things were covered on here.
By this evidence the Tories are already fully paid up on the GOP / Reform / Putinganda bullshit train and there is no way back. Honestly, if Leon were in the pay of Russia, which I'm sure he's not, but if he were, what the hell different would his output be.
lol. Defensive much?
All this is in the public interest as it appears the new rumours “relate to/explain” alleged lockdown rule breaking by Starmer, easily as bad as Partygate
OK, let's get beyond the floaty insinuation then. Because, until something breaks properly, this just reeks of Bannonite flooding the field.
It’s all out there but I’ve no desire to get PB into legal trouble of any kind
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
The rumours - quite substantial now, and with some evidence already in the public domain - are a lot more lurid than THAT
Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
Where have I said that? If Labour politicians are as sexually incontinent as Boris Johnson of course they should be called out in the same way as he was called out. Guido if he is so confident should spell it out rather than rely on innuendo.
As I recall the only Truss fetish jewellery grubby raincoat masturbatory fantasy reporting repeated on here was by er, you.
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
That is fair enough. If this is a budget for people who actually work for a living (and include people on salaries affected by those silly cutoffs at £55k,£100k), then it will be a good one.
So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don’t recall you getting all huffety-tuffety when there was wild speculation about Boris’ love life? Or indeed Liz “the necklace” Truss?
This is what it’s like to be prime minister. You are the subject of relentless gossip and scrutiny, much of it quite nasty
It’s like lefties think all the shit they threw at Tories is somehow unfair if done in return to Labour, now in office
Quite - whoever was responsible that vile necklace stuff about Truss should be deeply ashamed.
It is quantitatively different, though, from day 1, the relentless level of just plain made up bullshit, about the budget, this, even siding with actual fascists in August, and the extent to which the rump Tories on here just lap it up and Labour are awful because *insert our fabricated bullshit here*.
To be clear, educated speculation is part of the deal, a furore over excessive freebies is part of the deal, managing markets in the run up to a budget is part of the deal. This torrent of invented shit, though, Telegraph fabrication, the Americanisation of UK politics - it may be part of the deal for the left in 2024 but I don't accept it. No, Tories and clients, fuck off and die in a corner forever if this is what you have become, if this is what you call fair game. I think back to those Tory scandals and how we reacted and I cannot for one moment draw the parallel in how things were covered on here.
By this evidence the Tories are already fully paid up on the GOP / Reform / Putinganda bullshit train and there is no way back. Honestly, if Leon were in the pay of Russia, which I'm sure he's not, but if he were, what the hell different would his output be.
lol. Defensive much?
All this is in the public interest as it appears the new rumours “relate to/explain” alleged lockdown rule breaking by Starmer, easily as bad as Partygate
OK, let's get beyond the floaty insinuation then. Because, until something breaks properly, this just reeks of Bannonite flooding the field.
It’s all out there but I’ve no desire to get PB into legal trouble of any kind
If you are so confident let the Spectator lawyers do the heavy lifting.
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
The rumours - quite substantial now, and with some evidence already in the public domain - are a lot more lurid than THAT
Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
Where have I said that? If Labour politicians are as sexually incontinent as Boris Johnson of course they should be called out in the same way as he was called out. Guido if he is so confident should spell it out rather than rely on innuendo.
As I recall the only Truss fetish jewellery grubby raincoat masturbatory fantasy reporting repeated on here was by er, you.
Um, no
Because I first mentioned it on here the rumours were then confirmed by others (in a position to know) on here and elsewhere
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.
Confident move!
I mean seriously. How stupid would she need to be for you to recognise it? No chance in Texas, and no relevance to the result.
More likely her campaign aren't convinced her presense is a net positive.
So:
When Trump makes a stop in California, it's a sign of his strength. And when Harris makes a stop in Texas, it's a sign of her weakness.
Here's the thing: the candidates have no better idea than we do of what's happening.
We don't know. It's entirely possible - as Nate Cohn at NYTimes suggests - that the past vote weighting means the Republican vote share is overstated. It's also possible that the reasons for Dems being easier to find in 2020 (i.e. they were more likely to be locked down at home than Republicans) simply don't apply this year.
And finally, it's perfectly possible that "Shy Trump" simply is no longer a thing.
We don't know.
What we do know is that the data from Nevada in terms of early voting looks very good for the Republicans, while the data from Georgia looks similarly decent for the Democrats.
I've never said Trump stopping in stupid states is a sign of strength - I was just despairing of a poster I consider sensible on British politics posting bilge about American.
Is there evidence of the Georgia early vote being good for 1 candidate or the other - aside from the general trend of R early vote being up more, I'm not sure a subsample of a poll which has them tied constitutes 'what we know' to the same extent as the declared party registrations elsewhere.
Sure: the highest early turnout counties - all well into the 30s are - are in the Atlanta metropolitan area. And, women outnumber men 56:44 in early voting.
Both of those, I would have thought, are positives for the Democrats.
Do we have comparisons to prior elections - if that's a shift from 2020, or 2016 if we want to avoid COVID impacts would indeed be notable.
The answer is... not really.
In 2020, Georgia was mostly postal.
This time, Georgia is not a postal vote election. Only about 10% of early voting is postals. On the contrary, it's early in person (with ID) voting. Basically, it's not so much election day, as election two and a half weeks.
Now, my personal view is that Democrats *need* to be ahead, because historically Georgia has had an issue that on election day there are massively long queues to vote, particularly in areas where there are few polling stations and lots of voters. (Like *cough* Atlanta.)
This means the incentive to vote early is highest in urban areas where Democrats are strong.
Overall turnout so far in Georgia is 32%. In Fulton, the Democrat's strongest county with around 10% of the State's total population (and where Biden won by 46 percentage points in 2020), it's 35%. In the rural constituencies, which are strongest for Trump, it's mostly in the low 20s.
This is particularly important - of course - because historically those urban counties have younger electorates and lower turnout. In Fulton, we've already seen well over half the number of votes case as in 2020.
There's similar quite positive news in the gender split. Georgia split 54:46 female to male in 2020. Early voting is 56:44. Small numbers, but given how much more likely women are to vote Democrat, that's something that would make me quite happy if I were Harris.
Now, it is entirely possible that if we were to look at the breakdown by affiliation then the numbers would not be so positive. But from a cursory - top down - look, they look pretty good for Harris.
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview
There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
So they are misquoting him?
No
Watch the full clip on the link above. He's talking about people who derive their incomes from shares and property, and that's what Sky have quoted in their article.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Media totally MIA on checking this stuff prior to GE.
Well done Sir Kier! You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
The rumours - quite substantial now, and with some evidence already in the public domain - are a lot more lurid than THAT
Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
Where have I said that? If Labour politicians are as sexually incontinent as Boris Johnson of course they should be called out in the same way as he was called out. Guido if he is so confident should spell it out rather than rely on innuendo.
As I recall the only Truss fetish jewellery grubby raincoat masturbatory fantasy reporting repeated on here was by er, you.
Um, no
Because I first mentioned it on here the rumours were then confirmed by others (in a position to know) on here and elsewhere
You were like a dog with a fucking bone, and as usual no one else was interested. So Truss had a necklace and it allegedly represented an epicurean sexual interest. If she enjoyed a spot of S and M in private, so what?
So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person
What an insult to millions of people
It's purely sophistry to justify the claim that they are not taxing "working people" in order to reduce the massive financial deficit that Sunak and Hunt left behind.
Well done Sir Kier! You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal
I have 3 of those but I certainly don’t “derive my income from assets”.
To derive your income from assets you need a hell of a lot of assets.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Media totally MIA on checking this stuff prior to GE.
I get the horrible feeling I am smarter than anyone in the Labour government. This is not boasting, the feeling is deeply troubling - as I know how much I get WRONG
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
The rumours - quite substantial now, and with some evidence already in the public domain - are a lot more lurid than THAT
Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
Where have I said that? If Labour politicians are as sexually incontinent as Boris Johnson of course they should be called out in the same way as he was called out. Guido if he is so confident should spell it out rather than rely on innuendo.
As I recall the only Truss fetish jewellery grubby raincoat masturbatory fantasy reporting repeated on here was by er, you.
Um, no
Because I first mentioned it on here the rumours were then confirmed by others (in a position to know) on here and elsewhere
You were like a dog with a fucking bone, and as usual no one else was interested. So Truss had a necklace and it allegedly represented an epicurean sexual interest. If she enjoyed a spot of S and M in private, so what?
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
Well done Sir Kier! You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal
Since Brexit Labour are a middle class party, the ISA/SIPP wealth is a big factor in their new core vote.
Rachel Reeves was born on 13 February 1979 in Lewisham,[1] the daughter of teachers Graham and Sally Reeves.[2][3][4][5] She was educated at a comprehensive school, the Cator Park School for Girls in Beckenham.[6] While at secondary school she won a British Under-14 girls chess championship title in a tournament organised by the now-defunct British Women's Chess Association.[7] After sitting A-Levels and achieving four As[8] in politics, economics, mathematics and further mathematics, she studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford, where she was an undergraduate student at New College, achieving a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 2000.[9] She then obtained a Master of Science degree in economics from the London School of Economics.[10] Reeves's first job after leaving university was with the Bank of England.[11] She moved to Leeds in 2006 to work for the retail arm of HBOS.[1][12]
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
This is one of the most revealing stories about the current government that came out in recent days. On whose authority is Simon Case telling ministers what they can and can't say on a contentious political issue?
Shabana Mahmood has defied official advice from the cabinet secretary to declare she will vote against the assisted dying bill next month.
She told @RSylvesterTimes she is opposed to assisted dying because as a Muslim she has an "unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life".
Simon Case wrote to ministers earlier this month urging them to refrain from entering the public debate on the issue.
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview
There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
So they are misquoting him?
I have noticed that Beth Rigby doesn't need any excuse to stick the boot in since the GE. It's like he's shat in her handbag or something. Perhaps he told her to pronounce the g at the end of her words .
This is one of the most revealing stories about the current government that came out in recent days. On whose authority is Simon Case telling ministers what they can and can't say on a contentious political issue?
Shabana Mahmood has defied official advice from the cabinet secretary to declare she will vote against the assisted dying bill next month.
She told @RSylvesterTimes she is opposed to assisted dying because as a Muslim she has an "unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life".
Simon Case wrote to ministers earlier this month urging them to refrain from entering the public debate on the issue.
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
That is fair enough. If this is a budget for people who actually work for a living (and include people on salaries affected by those silly cutoffs at £55k,£100k), then it will be a good one.
She told @RSylvesterTimes she is opposed to assisted dying because as a Muslim she has an "unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life".
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview
There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
So they are misquoting him?
I have noticed that Beth Rigby doesn't need any excuse to stick the boot in since the GE. It's like he's shat in her handbag or something. Perhaps he told her to pronounce the g at the end of her words .
That is just how Beth Rigby is everybody. Shout lots of questions and follows up with "so what you are saying Prime Minister'. She was the same with Boris and Sunak. Lots of heat generated, never much light.
Rachel Reeves was born on 13 February 1979 in Lewisham,[1] the daughter of teachers Graham and Sally Reeves.[2][3][4][5] She was educated at a comprehensive school, the Cator Park School for Girls in Beckenham.[6] While at secondary school she won a British Under-14 girls chess championship title in a tournament organised by the now-defunct British Women's Chess Association.[7] After sitting A-Levels and achieving four As[8] in politics, economics, mathematics and further mathematics, she studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford, where she was an undergraduate student at New College, achieving a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 2000.[9] She then obtained a Master of Science degree in economics from the London School of Economics.[10] Reeves's first job after leaving university was with the Bank of England.[11] She moved to Leeds in 2006 to work for the retail arm of HBOS.[1][12]
So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person
What an insult to millions of people
It's purely sophistry to justify the claim that they are not taxing "working people" in order to reduce the massive financial deficit that Sunak and Hunt left behind.
It's not really worth clutching your pearls over.
But if people on the right don't clutch their pearls, Reeves will come and steal them to give to undeserving public sector shirkers.
It is fascinating seeing how quickly and easily some on the right have flipped from "seriously, though, the government are doing a grand job" to quick loud attack.
And as for the allegations, if only someone had been able to stand them up before the election. Isn't that what the attack units of political parties are meant to do?
Well done Sir Kier! You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal
You can';t include "owning a house" as capital, as you can't sell it and live off the income. But if you rent out a room(s), that's different.
This is one of the most revealing stories about the current government that came out in recent days. On whose authority is Simon Case telling ministers what they can and can't say on a contentious political issue?
Shabana Mahmood has defied official advice from the cabinet secretary to declare she will vote against the assisted dying bill next month.
She told @RSylvesterTimes she is opposed to assisted dying because as a Muslim she has an "unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life".
Simon Case wrote to ministers earlier this month urging them to refrain from entering the public debate on the issue.
Wes Streeting has also come out against
I thought "Streeting ha(d) come out" a while ago.🤣
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
The words of Beth Rigby and Sky news following his interview
There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
So they are misquoting him?
I have noticed that Beth Rigby doesn't need any excuse to stick the boot in since the GE. It's like he's shat in her handbag or something. Perhaps he told her to pronounce the g at the end of her words .
That is just how Beth Rigby is everybody. Shout lots of questions and follows up with "so what you are saying Prime Minister'. She was the same with Boris and Sunak. No wonder Adam Boulton lost his temper at her.
And some people here who now hang on her every word used to condemn her for that.
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
That is fair enough. If this is a budget for people who actually work for a living (and include people on salaries affected by those silly cutoffs at £55k,£100k), then it will be a good one.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
The rumours - quite substantial now, and with some evidence already in the public domain - are a lot more lurid than THAT
Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
Where have I said that? If Labour politicians are as sexually incontinent as Boris Johnson of course they should be called out in the same way as he was called out. Guido if he is so confident should spell it out rather than rely on innuendo.
As I recall the only Truss fetish jewellery grubby raincoat masturbatory fantasy reporting repeated on here was by er, you.
Um, no
Because I first mentioned it on here the rumours were then confirmed by others (in a position to know) on here and elsewhere
You were like a dog with a fucking bone, and as usual no one else was interested. So Truss had a necklace and it allegedly represented an epicurean sexual interest. If she enjoyed a spot of S and M in private, so what?
Plenty were interested - they DM’d me*
*By this I don’t mean “dommed”. Heaven forfend
You've really tied yourself up in knots over Truss's necklace.🤣
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
So if you've got more than a month's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
I am utterly staggered that the PM can even suggest that anyone who works hard, buys a home, invests in shares, and is aspirational is not a working person
What an insult to millions of people
It's purely sophistry to justify the claim that they are not taxing "working people" in order to reduce the massive financial deficit that Sunak and Hunt left behind.
It's not really worth clutching your pearls over.
But if people on the right don't clutch their pearls, Reeves will come and steal them to give to undeserving public sector shirkers.
It is fascinating seeing how quickly and easily some on the right have flipped from "seriously, though, the government are doing a grand job" to quick loud attack.
And as for the allegations, if only someone had been able to stand them up before the election. Isn't that what the attack units of political parties are meant to do?
“It is fascinating seeing how quickly and easily some on the right have flipped from "seriously, though, the government are doing a grand job" to quick loud attack.”
It’s called “a change of government”. Often happens after elections
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
Yes, the chess champion claim - which is even on her Wiki page - appears to be a lie. The only proof is some other paper repeating this assertion
There might have been another tournament - the one referenced earlier was the main British Championship (a mixed event) from which they picked the leading female player as the Girl's champion, so I wouldn't immediately dismiss it.
There were very few girls playing chess at that time, so she gets at least some credit for that.
Rachel Reeves was born on 13 February 1979 in Lewisham,[1] the daughter of teachers Graham and Sally Reeves.[2][3][4][5] She was educated at a comprehensive school, the Cator Park School for Girls in Beckenham.[6] While at secondary school she won a British Under-14 girls chess championship title in a tournament organised by the now-defunct British Women's Chess Association.[7] After sitting A-Levels and achieving four As[8] in politics, economics, mathematics and further mathematics, she studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford, where she was an undergraduate student at New College, achieving a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 2000.[9] She then obtained a Master of Science degree in economics from the London School of Economics.[10] Reeves's first job after leaving university was with the Bank of England.[11] She moved to Leeds in 2006 to work for the retail arm of HBOS.[1][12]
What is footnote [11]?
Probably Wiki explaining that the Bank of England is the British central bank
Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.
Confident move!
What the fuck is she doing there? Trump went to Colorado, Harris to Texas: why? Why? Why are these people acting so stupidly? Make the world make sense, somebody...
Senate race presumably?
Yep. A very competitve race, made so by the Republican being probably the biggest asshole in the Senate.
It is possible a differential turnout could flip Texas. The Senate seat is very much in play.
Well done Sir Kier! You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal
Aren't Arsenal tickets free though? That's what my SPAD told me. I couldn't read the ticket through my ill-fitting thousand-pound glasses, sadly.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
I suggest you DYOR - I wouldn't dream of commenting.
I've heard the accusations. Perhaps Guidio should repeat them and see where that takes him. If that story is true it is in the public interest, much like the Russian Violinist.The key of course is he has made a dirty mac hatchet job insinuation without placing himself in the cross hairs of litigation
So you are quite happy, indeed rather smug, about a situation whereby a blogger cannot legally reveal a potential story (if there is a story) about the Prime Minister that you acknowledge would be in the public interest. You aren't annoyed at the censorship, just annoyed that its chilling effect hasn't been chilling enough to achieve a total trappist silence.
YET, stories about Boris's sex life are totally legitimate because Boris is so dreadful.
I don’t think the word hypocrisy quite covers it does it?
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Media totally MIA on checking this stuff prior to GE.
I get the horrible feeling I am smarter than anyone in the Labour government. This is not boasting, the feeling is deeply troubling - as I know how much I get WRONG
Comments
Tom McTague, Unherd (I know, I know)
October 24, 2024 5 mins
https://archive.is/T18fH
https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
https://x.com/TheDailyShow/status/1849255980632072461
Agree: 50%
Disagree: 43%
Neutral: 7%
Big Village / Oct 23, 2024 / n=1592
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1849551220114903239
Not the greatest among pollsters, sadly.
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
To be clear, educated speculation is part of the deal, a furore over excessive freebies is part of the deal, managing markets in the run up to a budget is part of the deal. This torrent of invented shit, though, Telegraph fabrication, the Americanisation of UK politics - it may be part of the deal for the left in 2024 but I don't accept it. No, Tories and clients, fuck off and die in a corner forever if this is what you have become, if this is what you call fair game. I think back to those Tory scandals and how we reacted and I cannot for one moment draw the parallel in how things were covered on here.
By this evidence the Tories are already fully paid up on the GOP / Reform / Putinganda bullshit train and there is no way back. Honestly, if Leon were in the pay of Russia, which I'm sure he's not, but if he were, what the hell different would his output be.
You are the ones saying Mrs Starmer should be humiliated but It is unacceptable ( which it is) for Conservative figures to be targeted.
And don't forget the pig story was from Ashcroft 's book wasn't it?.
"...The moral of this strange modern fable, then, is ultimately one of power. Keir Starmer is learning that no matter how nicely he plays, his government will be buffeted by the wider struggle for dominance currently playing out in the US — not just between Trump and Harris, but between the titans of Silicon Valley and the party establishments in Washington. These are battles with huge stakes, financially and politically, the winners of which will control the world’s most powerful country and the world’s most powerful industry. Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney are mere straws blowing in the wind. The Brits aren’t coming for America. The Americans have already taken Britain..."
He means that in comparison with Musk and Trump, Starmer is a minnow who cannot influence things.
"I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form,” said his daughter in the court filing when she legally changed her name.
I couldn't even begin to speculate where the entire bag of chips on Musk's shoulder might stem from...
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/11/brexit-damage-uk-economy-mark-carney
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/what-rachel-reeves-learnt-from-witnessing-the-financial-crisis-unfold-in-halifax-3491160
Another Tory torrent of fabricated bullshit.
The plain reading of that is economist in all three roles. Perhaps it was just poorly worded (do they have economists at embassies?).
Let’s face it, you don’t believe Labour politicians should face the same crap you threw at the Tories
The chipmaker would be interested in expanding its US investment, he said, depending in part on whether there’s a Chips Act 2.0
https://x.com/mackhawk/status/1849547470029922578
Trump, of course, boasted about such projects, but failed to actually bring any to fruition. Remember the Foxconn deal ?
Donald Trump opposes U.S. funds for massive Phoenix chip factory, could scrap deal with Taiwan semiconductor giant if elected
https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/10/17/donald-trump-tsmc-phoenix-factories-funding/
Trump is an idiot, who believes his own ‘Art of the Deal’ bullshit.
All this is in the public interest as it appears the new rumours “relate to/explain” alleged lockdown rule breaking by Starmer, easily as bad as Partygate
People with assets are not working people
(Buses have change making machines built in next to the fare machines, which is fun. You have to do it in two stages though: make change, then put it in the fare machine.)
Asked by Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby whether he would classify a working person as someone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, the prime minister said: "Well, they wouldn't come within my definition."
Pressed on whether that meant taxes for those people could go up, the prime minister said: "You can probably give me any number of examples... you're asking me for a definition of who's a working person, and then you're making assumptions about what that tax might be in relation to."
https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521
Breaking news
PM - People with assets are not working people
We both voted Labour!
So if you've got more than a month or two's pay in the bank...you apparently aren't a working person.
As I recall the only Truss fetish jewellery grubby raincoat masturbatory fantasy reporting repeated on here was by er, you.
https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521
That is fair enough. If this is a budget for people who actually work for a living (and include people on salaries affected by those silly cutoffs at £55k,£100k), then it will be a good one.
What an insult to millions of people
There can be no excusing such crass stupidity
Because I first mentioned it on here the rumours were then confirmed by others (in a position to know) on here and elsewhere
In 2020, Georgia was mostly postal.
This time, Georgia is not a postal vote election. Only about 10% of early voting is postals. On the contrary, it's early in person (with ID) voting. Basically, it's not so much election day, as election two and a half weeks.
Now, my personal view is that Democrats *need* to be ahead, because historically Georgia has had an issue that on election day there are massively long queues to vote, particularly in areas where there are few polling stations and lots of voters. (Like *cough* Atlanta.)
This means the incentive to vote early is highest in urban areas where Democrats are strong.
Overall turnout so far in Georgia is 32%. In Fulton, the Democrat's strongest county with around 10% of the State's total population (and where Biden won by 46 percentage points in 2020), it's 35%. In the rural constituencies, which are strongest for Trump, it's mostly in the low 20s.
This is particularly important - of course - because historically those urban counties have younger electorates and lower turnout. In Fulton, we've already seen well over half the number of votes case as in 2020.
There's similar quite positive news in the gender split. Georgia split 54:46 female to male in 2020. Early voting is 56:44. Small numbers, but given how much more likely women are to vote Democrat, that's something that would make me quite happy if I were Harris.
Now, it is entirely possible that if we were to look at the breakdown by affiliation then the numbers would not be so positive. But from a cursory - top down - look, they look pretty good for Harris.
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
This is the RAF/Belgrano thing all over again.
I, and many millions more, will hate these puritan bastards if they do jack up the price of booze too much
You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal
It's not really worth clutching your pearls over.
To derive your income from assets you need a hell of a lot of assets.
*By this I don’t mean “dommed”. Heaven forfend
Rachel Reeves was born on 13 February 1979 in Lewisham,[1] the daughter of teachers Graham and Sally Reeves.[2][3][4][5] She was educated at a comprehensive school, the Cator Park School for Girls in Beckenham.[6] While at secondary school she won a British Under-14 girls chess championship title in a tournament organised by the now-defunct British Women's Chess Association.[7] After sitting A-Levels and achieving four As[8] in politics, economics, mathematics and further mathematics, she studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford, where she was an undergraduate student at New College, achieving a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 2000.[9] She then obtained a Master of Science degree in economics from the London School of Economics.[10]
Reeves's first job after leaving university was with the Bank of England.[11] She moved to Leeds in 2006 to work for the retail arm of HBOS.[1][12]
I can only see 4 games on Chessbase:
https://players.chessbase.com/en/player/Reeves_Rachel/685806
Lost to a 2040, Beat a 1720
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
[Though it isn't terrible for 'girls' chess at the time]
https://x.com/matt_dathan/status/1848677356824596937
Shabana Mahmood has defied official advice from the cabinet secretary to declare she will vote against the assisted dying bill next month.
She told @RSylvesterTimes she is opposed to assisted dying because as a Muslim she has an "unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life".
Simon Case wrote to ministers earlier this month urging them to refrain from entering the public debate on the issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie : people whose income comes from their ownership of capital
Technically SKS was correct
No wonder Adam Boulton lost his temper at her.
It is fascinating seeing how quickly and easily some on the right have flipped from "seriously, though, the government are doing a grand job" to quick loud attack.
And as for the allegations, if only someone had been able to stand them up before the election. Isn't that what the attack units of political parties are meant to do?
Funny old world.
It’s called “a change of government”. Often happens after elections
There were very few girls playing chess at that time, so she gets at least some credit for that.
But she's not exactly up with the Polgars.
Texas. The Senate seat is very much in play.
https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521
YET, stories about Boris's sex life are totally legitimate because Boris is so dreadful.
I don’t think the word hypocrisy quite covers it does it?