Former Conservative Party chairman Sir Jake Berry has defected to Reform warning they “our last chance to pull Britain back from terminal decline”
Hammer blow to Badenoch as former CCHQ says party doomed
At this rate Kemi, JohnO, and myself will be the last three Tories left.
And me, not really a huge story though, gloryhunting ex MP sees Reform as his best chance to win his seat back (not sure Reform members will take too kindly to the fact Berry backed Remain in 2016 though)
I agree and he obviously sees it as a way of winning back the seat he lost to Labour last year
His association with Truss is not the best cv either
"Emily, 41, from Croydon, is autistic and struggles with time management and organising basic tasks for her daily routine. She works full-time as a flight attendant after developing strategies to help organise her day, and also receives a Personal Independence Payment (Pip) of more than £400 a month. But the money mostly goes on her regular bills, rather than on the occupational therapy she thinks would really help her to establish a proper routine.
...
Receiving Pip means Emily is eligible for a disabled discount railcard, which makes travel to work more affordable, and if she were to lose that she says she would struggle with the cost of getting to work."
To be clear, Emily seems like a good person doing her best. But she isn't using PIP for what it's intended for.
Does she also qualify for Motability scheme as well for a cheap car?
You use some of the money for that - it's not extra. But the government loses VAT on the car sale, so it does cost the government extra really.
I understand its not on top, that you agree to pay some of your PIP towards it. I was asking more is that an individual who could qualify for the scheme?
If she receives higher rate mobility pip she would qualify
You don't get a free car unless you score the mobility points.
Timms Review needs to massively look at this because it smells to me (and I am very sympathetic to disabled in general given my own life experience) that this is being abused.
The only way the autistic person gets mobility points is if they need tons of help and prompting to follow a basic journey plan or need someone with them at all times, or a guide dog etc etc.
They do not get it for being unable to walk 20ms.
Now that may be the case - but how is that being tested? In the example given she is able to be a flight attendant and therefore presumably travelling all over the world with stop overs and so on and yet seems unable to make a basic local journey??
This stuff is technical I accept. She might get 8 points for being unable to plan a journey even though she can hop on a plane and be taken abroad by the pilot while dishing out the drinks to Bulgaria. Individual cases are hard.
The bar for mobility based on psychological needs to be higher. The text talks about needing guide dogs for FS.
Edit: How does she get from the airport to the stop-over hotel?
"Emily, 41, from Croydon, is autistic and struggles with time management and organising basic tasks for her daily routine. She works full-time as a flight attendant after developing strategies to help organise her day, and also receives a Personal Independence Payment (Pip) of more than £400 a month. But the money mostly goes on her regular bills, rather than on the occupational therapy she thinks would really help her to establish a proper routine.
...
Receiving Pip means Emily is eligible for a disabled discount railcard, which makes travel to work more affordable, and if she were to lose that she says she would struggle with the cost of getting to work."
To be clear, Emily seems like a good person doing her best. But she isn't using PIP for what it's intended for.
Does she also qualify for Motability scheme as well for a cheap car?
You use some of the money for that - it's not extra. But the government loses VAT on the car sale, so it does cost the government extra really.
I understand its not on top, that you agree to pay some of your PIP towards it. I was asking more is that an individual who could qualify for the scheme?
If she receives higher rate mobility pip she would qualify
You don't get a free car unless you score the mobility points.
Timms Review needs to massively look at this because it smells to me (and I am very sympathetic to disabled in general given my own life experience) that this is being abused.
The only way the autistic person gets mobility points is if they need tons of help and prompting to follow a basic journey plan or need someone with them at all times, or a guide dog etc etc.
They do not get it for being unable to walk 20ms.
Now that may be the case - but how is that being tested? In the example given she is able to be a flight attendant and therefore presumably travelling all over the world with stop overs and so on and yet seems unable to make a basic local journey??
This stuff is technical I accept. She might get 8 points for being unable to plan a journey even though she can hop on a plane and be taken abroad by the pilot while dishing out the drinks to Bulgaria.
The bar for mobility based on psychological needs to be higher. The text talks about needing guide dogs for FS.
There also seems to be quite a lot of people who only have mental health problems. And then magically get fibromyalgia so they can get a physical condition and hence disability.
The consensus seems to be these days that fibro is real. But it's also a diagnosis of exclusiomn, and co-morbid with the mental health conditions.
"Emily, 41, from Croydon, is autistic and struggles with time management and organising basic tasks for her daily routine. She works full-time as a flight attendant after developing strategies to help organise her day, and also receives a Personal Independence Payment (Pip) of more than £400 a month. But the money mostly goes on her regular bills, rather than on the occupational therapy she thinks would really help her to establish a proper routine.
...
Receiving Pip means Emily is eligible for a disabled discount railcard, which makes travel to work more affordable, and if she were to lose that she says she would struggle with the cost of getting to work."
To be clear, Emily seems like a good person doing her best. But she isn't using PIP for what it's intended for.
Does she also qualify for Motability scheme as well for a cheap car?
You use some of the money for that - it's not extra. But the government loses VAT on the car sale, so it does cost the government extra really.
I understand its not on top, that you agree to pay some of your PIP towards it. I was asking more is that an individual who could qualify for the scheme?
If she receives higher rate mobility pip she would qualify
You don't get a free car unless you score the mobility points.
Timms Review needs to massively look at this because it smells to me (and I am very sympathetic to disabled in general given my own life experience) that this is being abused.
The only way the autistic person gets mobility points is if they need tons of help and prompting to follow a basic journey plan or need someone with them at all times, or a guide dog etc etc.
They do not get it for being unable to walk 20ms.
Now that may be the case - but how is that being tested? In the example given she is able to be a flight attendant and therefore presumably travelling all over the world with stop overs and so on and yet seems unable to make a basic local journey??
This stuff is technical I accept. She might get 8 points for being unable to plan a journey even though she can hop on a plane and be taken abroad by the pilot while dishing out the drinks to Bulgaria. Individual cases are hard.
The bar for mobility based on psychological needs to be higher. The text talks about needing guide dogs for FS.
At 400 a month she is definitely not getting higher rate Mobility Shes probably on lower rate for both mobility and daily living or higher rate daily living alone, both those would be roughly 400 a month
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
"Emily, 41, from Croydon, is autistic and struggles with time management and organising basic tasks for her daily routine. She works full-time as a flight attendant after developing strategies to help organise her day, and also receives a Personal Independence Payment (Pip) of more than £400 a month. But the money mostly goes on her regular bills, rather than on the occupational therapy she thinks would really help her to establish a proper routine.
...
Receiving Pip means Emily is eligible for a disabled discount railcard, which makes travel to work more affordable, and if she were to lose that she says she would struggle with the cost of getting to work."
To be clear, Emily seems like a good person doing her best. But she isn't using PIP for what it's intended for.
Does she also qualify for Motability scheme as well for a cheap car?
You use some of the money for that - it's not extra. But the government loses VAT on the car sale, so it does cost the government extra really.
I understand its not on top, that you agree to pay some of your PIP towards it. I was asking more is that an individual who could qualify for the scheme?
If she receives higher rate mobility pip she would qualify
You don't get a free car unless you score the mobility points.
Timms Review needs to massively look at this because it smells to me (and I am very sympathetic to disabled in general given my own life experience) that this is being abused.
The only way the autistic person gets mobility points is if they need tons of help and prompting to follow a basic journey plan or need someone with them at all times, or a guide dog etc etc.
They do not get it for being unable to walk 20ms.
Now that may be the case - but how is that being tested? In the example given she is able to be a flight attendant and therefore presumably travelling all over the world with stop overs and so on and yet seems unable to make a basic local journey??
This stuff is technical I accept. She might get 8 points for being unable to plan a journey even though she can hop on a plane and be taken abroad by the pilot while dishing out the drinks to Bulgaria. Individual cases are hard.
The bar for mobility based on psychological needs to be higher. The text talks about needing guide dogs for FS.
Edit: How does she get from the airport to the stop-over hotel?
She would be going as a group with the other flight crew...
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Does Starmer do any of that "serious PM stuff" in any notably impressive way? Almost every foreign or diplomatic deal he makes turns out to be disastrous, from Chagos to EU/fishing, and now the boats. He's useless at that as well. Rayner might at least have a basic working class sense of "do not give stuff away for nothing" which he lacks
I agree Burnham would be a shoo-in if he was in the Commons, but he ain't
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Boris did a decent job of running London (which is a bigger job than Manchester and gets way more scrutiny). PM is a 24/7 job where you are expected to be constantly making decisions and massive ones, while the media analysis every single thing you say or do.
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Burnham also does not make me want to dry heave every time he appears on TV, and his voice does not make me leap for the Mute button after 2 seconds
As @FrancisUrquhart says, it is a low bar, but that's where we are
Right, time to watch the continuing sublimity that is Netflix's "The Leopard". Later
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Burnham also does not make me want to dry heave every time he appears on TV, and his voice does not make me leap for the Mute button after 2 seconds
As @FrancisUrquhart says, it is a low bar, but that's where we are
Right, time to watch the continuing sublimity that is Netflix's "The Leopard". Later
Is there a single seat Labour would win in a by-election now, though?
Perhaps he should be ennobled, and we can have our first PM from the Lords in 150 years.
"Emily, 41, from Croydon, is autistic and struggles with time management and organising basic tasks for her daily routine. She works full-time as a flight attendant after developing strategies to help organise her day, and also receives a Personal Independence Payment (Pip) of more than £400 a month. But the money mostly goes on her regular bills, rather than on the occupational therapy she thinks would really help her to establish a proper routine.
...
Receiving Pip means Emily is eligible for a disabled discount railcard, which makes travel to work more affordable, and if she were to lose that she says she would struggle with the cost of getting to work."
To be clear, Emily seems like a good person doing her best. But she isn't using PIP for what it's intended for.
Does she also qualify for Motability scheme as well for a cheap car?
You use some of the money for that - it's not extra. But the government loses VAT on the car sale, so it does cost the government extra really.
I understand its not on top, that you agree to pay some of your PIP towards it. I was asking more is that an individual who could qualify for the scheme?
If she receives higher rate mobility pip she would qualify
You don't get a free car unless you score the mobility points.
Timms Review needs to massively look at this because it smells to me (and I am very sympathetic to disabled in general given my own life experience) that this is being abused.
The only way the autistic person gets mobility points is if they need tons of help and prompting to follow a basic journey plan or need someone with them at all times, or a guide dog etc etc.
They do not get it for being unable to walk 20ms.
Now that may be the case - but how is that being tested? In the example given she is able to be a flight attendant and therefore presumably travelling all over the world with stop overs and so on and yet seems unable to make a basic local journey??
This stuff is technical I accept. She might get 8 points for being unable to plan a journey even though she can hop on a plane and be taken abroad by the pilot while dishing out the drinks to Bulgaria. Individual cases are hard.
The bar for mobility based on psychological needs to be higher. The text talks about needing guide dogs for FS.
Edit: How does she get from the airport to the stop-over hotel?
She would be going as a group with the other flight crew...
Or she could get a taxi. I dont think the person in this example receives higher rate mobility, the figures are wrong. But in any case, its a bit unseemly to speculate. Its too much like crowding round a car in the disabled spot at the supermarket to make sure the driver looks like a 'proper cripple'
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Burnham also does not make me want to dry heave every time he appears on TV, and his voice does not make me leap for the Mute button after 2 seconds
As @FrancisUrquhart says, it is a low bar, but that's where we are
Right, time to watch the continuing sublimity that is Netflix's "The Leopard". Later
Is there a single seat Labour would win in a by-election now, though?
Perhaps he should be ennobled, and we can have our first PM from the Lords in 150 years.
Most of their inner London seats, the city seats like Cambridge, Liverpool city seats
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Burnham also does not make me want to dry heave every time he appears on TV, and his voice does not make me leap for the Mute button after 2 seconds
As @FrancisUrquhart says, it is a low bar, but that's where we are
Right, time to watch the continuing sublimity that is Netflix's "The Leopard". Later
Is there a single seat Labour would win in a by-election now, though?
Perhaps he should be ennobled, and we can have our first PM from the Lords in 150 years.
Burnham is pretty popular in Manc, so I imagine he would win a local seat around there. But he needs to win one quickly
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Boris did a decent job of running London (which is a bigger job than Manchester and gets way more scrutiny). PM is a 24/7 job where you are expected to be constantly making decisions and massive ones, while the media analysis every single thing you say or do.
The media introspects and reports gossip on everything the PM does - I'm not sure I'd call it analysis. It's not like they care about the effects or implications of a decision or policy. Just ... which senior source told them that the other person smelled funny and besides they said she said he said......
Maybe the likes of Burnham is just lucky to avoid scrutiny. Maybe he's just competent.
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Boris did a decent job of running London (which is a bigger job than Manchester and gets way more scrutiny). PM is a 24/7 job where you are expected to be constantly making decisions and massive ones, while the media analysis every single thing you say or do.
The media introspects and reports gossip on everything the PM does - I'm not sure I'd call it analysis. It's not like they care about the effects or implications of a decision or policy. Just ... which senior source told them that the other person smelled funny and besides they said she said he said......
Maybe the likes of Burnham is just lucky to avoid scrutiny. Maybe he's just competent.
As I say, he was no great shakes as a minister. Competent certainly wasn't how he was described. You definitely avoid more scrutiny as these regional mayors. I am not saying he is doing a bad job in Manchester, but it is a different kettle of fish as PM. Boris as Mayor of London was pretty good, despite Polly Toynbee saying it was end of days stuff, but that is because a) he had a team around him, b) the media spotlight wasn't him on 24/7 and c) the amount of work required daily and decision to be made weren't on the scale of being PM.
I actually think Mayor of London probably was Boris ideal job. He is very engaging speaker, he can do the ya boo London is great, go around the world amusing people, while the day to day stuff can be handed off to some minions. But put in charge of the whole country, absolute shit show.
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Burnham also does not make me want to dry heave every time he appears on TV, and his voice does not make me leap for the Mute button after 2 seconds
As @FrancisUrquhart says, it is a low bar, but that's where we are
Right, time to watch the continuing sublimity that is Netflix's "The Leopard". Later
Is there a single seat Labour would win in a by-election now, though?
Perhaps he should be ennobled, and we can have our first PM from the Lords in 150 years.
Burnham is pretty popular in Manc, so I imagine he would win a local seat around there. But he needs to win one quickly
Lucy Powell to the Lords after her stint as Leader of House?
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Burnham also does not make me want to dry heave every time he appears on TV, and his voice does not make me leap for the Mute button after 2 seconds
As @FrancisUrquhart says, it is a low bar, but that's where we are
Right, time to watch the continuing sublimity that is Netflix's "The Leopard". Later
Is there a single seat Labour would win in a by-election now, though?
Perhaps he should be ennobled, and we can have our first PM from the Lords in 150 years.
Burnham is pretty popular in Manc, so I imagine he would win a local seat around there. But he needs to win one quickly
Lucy Powell to the Lords after her stint as Leader of House?
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Does Starmer do any of that "serious PM stuff" in any notably impressive way? Almost every foreign or diplomatic deal he makes turns out to be disastrous, from Chagos to EU/fishing, and now the boats. He's useless at that as well. Rayner might at least have a basic working class sense of "do not give stuff away for nothing" which he lacks
I agree Burnham would be a shoo-in if he was in the Commons, but he ain't
Rayner vs Burnham vs Streeting may well be Lab leadership election 2027.
Lord Hermer has handed himself an “effective veto” over government policy, documents reveal.
The Telegraph has seen the guidance given to government lawyers by the Attorney General, and the previous version of the document, which was issued by Suella Braverman in 2022.
Analysis of the documents reveals that Lord Hermer has made a number of changes, including inserting a new “snitch clause”, telling civil servants to inform him if ministers may be about to break the law.
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Boris did a decent job of running London (which is a bigger job than Manchester and gets way more scrutiny). PM is a 24/7 job where you are expected to be constantly making decisions and massive ones, while the media analysis every single thing you say or do.
The media introspects and reports gossip on everything the PM does - I'm not sure I'd call it analysis. It's not like they care about the effects or implications of a decision or policy. Just ... which senior source told them that the other person smelled funny and besides they said she said he said......
Maybe the likes of Burnham is just lucky to avoid scrutiny. Maybe he's just competent.
As I say, he was no great shakes as a minister. Competent certainly wasn't how he was described. You definitely avoid more scrutiny as these regional mayors. I am not saying he is doing a bad job in Manchester, but it is a different kettle of fish as PM. Boris as Mayor of London was pretty good, despite Polly Toynbee saying it was end of days stuff, but that is because a) he had a team around him, b) the media spotlight wasn't him on 24/7 and c) the amount of work required daily and decision to be made weren't on the scale of being PM.
I actually think Mayor of London probably was Boris ideal job. He is very engaging speaker, he can do the ya boo London is great, go around the world amusing people, while the day to day stuff can be handed off to some minions. But put in charge of the whole country, absolute shit show.
His time as London mayor had no impact on me - so I guess I don't register it (similarly Burnham). Though I hear Burnham a bit more on the radio and he at least sounds a bit grounded and pragmatic. And pleasingly not 'sound-bite' heavy. No idea what he's like in practice as mayor.
Clickbait headline aside, they have got loads of plays. Rick Beato, music producer and YouTuber called it.
I had minor experience of something like this a few months ago when I noticed that a popular retro-80s band on YouTube was probably being generated in this way.
Clickbait headline aside, they have got loads of plays. Rick Beato, music producer and YouTuber called it.
I had minor experience of something like this a few months ago when I noticed that a popular retro-80s band on YouTube was probably being generated in this way.
Huge number of 'cookery shows' on YT are now just AI nonsense now. It wouldn't be so annoying if they were AI videos of real recipes - but they mostly seem to be AI videos of AI recipes and they really, really suck.
Some idiot in the Telegraph comments section is comparing this AI-generated band to Stock Aitken Waterman. They were real people coming up with a new style of pop music in the 1980s, with gems such as Say I'm Your Number One by Princess. To compare them to AI is ridiculous.
Clickbait headline aside, they have got loads of plays. Rick Beato, music producer and YouTuber called it.
I had minor experience of something like this a few months ago when I noticed that a popular retro-80s band on YouTube was probably being generated in this way.
I did listen to a couple of the the AI band tracks, they weren't anything special, but definitely better than Radiohead live at Glastonbury.
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Burnham also does not make me want to dry heave every time he appears on TV, and his voice does not make me leap for the Mute button after 2 seconds
As @FrancisUrquhart says, it is a low bar, but that's where we are
Right, time to watch the continuing sublimity that is Netflix's "The Leopard". Later
Is there a single seat Labour would win in a by-election now, though?
Perhaps he should be ennobled, and we can have our first PM from the Lords in 150 years.
Most of their inner London seats, the city seats like Cambridge, Liverpool city seats
Clickbait headline aside, they have got loads of plays. Rick Beato, music producer and YouTuber called it.
I had minor experience of something like this a few months ago when I noticed that a popular retro-80s band on YouTube was probably being generated in this way.
I did listen to a couple of the the AI band tracks, they weren't anything special, but definitely better than Radiohead live at Glastonbury.
Are this pair real? Just occurred to me that might be AI
a) tired, failed Tory retreads who have suddenly woken from their slumbers to realise it seems that everything they did for a decade or more was wrong
or
b) people who are about to lose the reform whip for various nefarious reasons.
or
c) 18 year olds who are suddenly running a whole council because all the other candidates have resigned as they weren't expecting to win and so had not told their spouses anything about it.
a) tired, failed Tory retreads who have suddenly woken from their slumbers to realise it seems that everything they did for a decade or more was wrong
or
b) people who are about to lose the reform whip for various nefarious reasons.
or
c) 18 year olds who are suddenly running a whole council because all the other candidates have resigned as they weren't expecting to win and so had not told their spouses anything about it.
What they really are imo is a party for the lower-middle classes and upper working-classes who've been pretty much ignored by all the other political parties for a long time. Minor scandals wrt some of their candidates isn't going to make much difference.
a) tired, failed Tory retreads who have suddenly woken from their slumbers to realise it seems that everything they did for a decade or more was wrong
or
b) people who are about to lose the reform whip for various nefarious reasons.
or
c) 18 year olds who are suddenly running a whole council because all the other candidates have resigned as they weren't expecting to win and so had not told their spouses anything about it.
What they really are imo is a party for the lower-middle classes and upper working-classes who've been pretty much ignored by all the other political parties for a long time. Minor scandals wrt some of their candidates isn't going to make much difference.
Not just ignored - held in contempt for wanting the best for their families and called racists for wanting the best for their country. Treated with arrogant disdain and snobbish contempt. Cameron, in particular, simply oozed it, which is one of the reasons he couldn't win a majority against Gordon bloody Brown after the financial crisis.
Margaret came from that world, which is one of the reasons why she won three elections, including two by a landslide. Boris didn't come from that world, but could connect with it, so he got his landslide.
Traffic on I-405 here in Washington state has not improved, recently.
(Which reminds me: I have to send that letter to Stephen Miller asking him to change his last name. There are a lot of us Millers, and many, perhaps most of us, would rather not have people think we are related to him.
My suggestion for an alternative name: Ming, after the Flash Gordon character.)
Traffic on I-405 here in Washington state has not improved, recently.
(Which reminds me: I have to send that letter to Stephen Miller asking him to change his last name. There are a lot of us Millers, and many, perhaps most of us, would rather not have people think we are related to him.
My suggestion for an alternative name: Ming, after the Flash Gordon character.)
Traffic on I-405 here in Washington state has not improved, recently.
(Which reminds me: I have to send that letter to Stephen Miller asking him to change his last name. There are a lot of us Millers, and many, perhaps most of us, would rather not have people think we are related to him.
My suggestion for an alternative name: Ming, after the Flash Gordon character.)
"Britain "cannot afford the array of promises it has made to the public", the budget watchdog has concluded in a stark warning that the country has been living beyond its means".
That's true of all developed world countries.
The combination of rising life expectancy, promised pensions, increasingly expensive healthcare, and low birthrates is absolutely toxic for the sustainability of developed world government finances.
It's more toxic for the model of finance, politics and governance which has been in place since 1918.
The model needs to evolve to match the demographics and that means looking at different ways of funding including looking at accumulated wealth taxation.
An afternoon at Lingfield Park, a lunch time at Toby Carvery and any cruise will tell you there's a lot of money in this country and that money is among the older demographic. That's not an argument against triple locks or pensions per se but perhaps a recognition that wealth accumulated via paying off mortgages in times of low interest rates and the resulting asset appreciation realised via downsizing are other areas for HM Treasury to consider.
I’d echo this at Premiership Rugby at Bath. The crowd seems significantly older than say 10 years ago. Prices are high £800 for a season ticket to about 12 games.
Blimey. Supply and demand I guess. Reckon my £1,400 for 23 Arsenal games is a bargain.
Is there now a similar trend in live concerts?
We know all the agency website and ticket tout shenanigans, but the whip hand is held by the artists themselves.
Personally I don't see the point of a stadium gig, but comedy or jazz clubs - great. I still need to plot a return to the 606 Club.
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
He's still got really good hair, however. That's in his favour. Rayner would be better at politics. However, this would be outweighed by her being even worse at governing. I think it would be electorally neutral for Labour.
How can you be worse at governing than Starmer? Seriously, how? He's lost control of the Commons and he has a trillion seat majority
Rayner would, I think, not have done that
I am not personally hoping for a Rayner led government. I am pretty sure she would be as bad for Britain as Starmer or worse, but I reckon she'd be cannier and more popular
There's no doubt that Rayner would manage the party at Westminster far better and indeed manage the wider Labour movement better.
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
Burnham is the new bananaman Miliband. He was previously pretty poor as a minister. Its is just that the bar has dropped so far that somebody who can present as some sort of vague political figure looks far better.
He seems to be doing a good job of running Manchester.
Boris did a decent job of running London (which is a bigger job than Manchester and gets way more scrutiny). PM is a 24/7 job where you are expected to be constantly making decisions and massive ones, while the media analysis every single thing you say or do.
"Gregg Wallace’s autism means he can’t wear underwear, say friends
Sources close to ex-MasterChef presenter claim he has ‘hypersensitivity’ to tight clothing and his condition is partly to blame for his inappropriate behaviour" (£)
"Gregg Wallace’s autism means he can’t wear underwear, say friends
Sources close to ex-MasterChef presenter claim he has ‘hypersensitivity’ to tight clothing and his condition is partly to blame for his inappropriate behaviour" (£)
Interesting surfing X. Reform clearly delighted to get experience etc on board but a lot of casual support looking for something new really not impressed at Reform taking in any old ex Tory looking for a gig. Reform should be wary of becoming Nigel Farage and a load of people the voters booted out a year ago Still, they arent going to say no thanks i suppose
I suspect that they're currently saying 'No thanks' to large numbers of Labour MPs, and rightly so.
Interesting surfing X. Reform clearly delighted to get experience etc on board but a lot of casual support looking for something new really not impressed at Reform taking in any old ex Tory looking for a gig. Reform should be wary of becoming Nigel Farage and a load of people the voters booted out a year ago Still, they arent going to say no thanks i suppose
I suspect that they're currently saying 'No thanks' to large numbers of Labour MPs, and rightly so.
There’s no evidence for that unlikely suggestion, at all
Is the rat looking to desert the sinking Tory ship? Or does a rat see a congenial home in the Farage party? This is the key question concerning Jake Berry, whom Rishi Sunak amongst others rightly couldn't stand.
Bit of both probably, but more the first I think. So yes, not good news for the Tories even if they are better off without him.
Sunak (Goldman Saks' newest advisor) disliking someone is a good recommendation for them.
Is the rat looking to desert the sinking Tory ship? Or does a rat see a congenial home in the Farage party? This is the key question concerning Jake Berry, whom Rishi Sunak amongst others rightly couldn't stand.
Bit of both probably, but more the first I think. So yes, not good news for the Tories even if they are better off without him.
Was Jake Berry a decent Tory Chairman? Perhaps RefUK are looking for people who can help the centre hold. It needs something there. In the past better known people have gone straight in the "ear of Farage" group at RefUK - eg Tim Montgomerie.
Has he done anything notable since leaving Parliament a year ago?
Given the RefUK meltdown in Councils, I'm wondering if some of their councillors will be returning to the Conservatives.
"Gregg Wallace’s autism means he can’t wear underwear, say friends
Sources close to ex-MasterChef presenter claim he has ‘hypersensitivity’ to tight clothing and his condition is partly to blame for his inappropriate behaviour" (£)
Those are the friends you want. "He does the elephant ears thing with his trouser pockets and his todger becuse he has autism..."
"Your Honour, I only "copped a feel" because I am on the autistic spectrum ". Judge; " case dismissed". It works every time.
This seems to be getting quite lawyerly.
"Before the report’s publication, Wallace accused programme-makers of failing to act on their suspicions about his condition.
“Nothing was done to investigate my disability or protect me from what I now realise was a dangerous environment for over twenty years,” he said. “That failure is now being quietly buried.”
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
Musk is autistic and certainly anything but dreamless (if still weird).
We have had a few PMs who if not full autistic or aspie are at least on the spectrum in the last 50 years or so, Heath, Brown, May and now Starmer, maybe Truss too
Musk is high on ket. That does not make him autistic
Heath, Brown, May and Starmer are/were socially awkward, that does not allow you to lazily diagnose them with a condition you know nothing about. Why pick those four to use the autistic label as a cheap slur? Truss and Johnson probably fulfill your false stereotype far more closely.
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
Musk is autistic and certainly anything but dreamless (if still weird).
We have had a few PMs who if not full autistic or aspie are at least on the spectrum in the last 50 years or so, Heath, Brown, May and now Starmer, maybe Truss too
Musk is high on ket. That does not make him autistic
Heath, Brown, May and Starmer are/were socially awkward, that does not allow you to lazily diagnose them with a condition you know nothing about. Why pick those four to use the autistic label as a cheap slur? Truss and Johnson probably fulfill your false stereotype far more closely.
I am not sure that Starmer is socially awkward. By all accounts he is quite personable and gregarious away from public life, just wooden and verbose when at a political podium, and incapable of remembering why he is in the job. A classic case of the imposter syndrome.
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
Musk is autistic and certainly anything but dreamless (if still weird).
We have had a few PMs who if not full autistic or aspie are at least on the spectrum in the last 50 years or so, Heath, Brown, May and now Starmer, maybe Truss too
Musk is high on ket. That does not make him autistic
Heath, Brown, May and Starmer are/were socially awkward, that does not allow you to lazily diagnose them with a condition you know nothing about. Why pick those four to use the autistic label as a cheap slur? Truss and Johnson probably fulfill your false stereotype far more closely.
I am not sure that Starmer is socially awkward. By all accounts he is quite personable and gregarious away from public life, just wooden and verbose when at a political podium, and incapable of remembering why he is in the job. A classic case of the imposter syndrome.
I think that is true, but can we dismiss HYUFD's clinical diagnosis?
"Gregg Wallace’s autism means he can’t wear underwear, say friends
Sources close to ex-MasterChef presenter claim he has ‘hypersensitivity’ to tight clothing and his condition is partly to blame for his inappropriate behaviour" (£)
Those are the friends you want. "He does the elephant ears thing with his trouser pockets and his todger becuse he has autism..."
"Your Honour, I only "copped a feel" because I am on the autistic spectrum ". Judge; " case dismissed". It works every time.
This seems to be getting quite lawyerly.
"Before the report’s publication, Wallace accused programme-makers of failing to act on their suspicions about his condition.
“Nothing was done to investigate my disability or protect me from what I now realise was a dangerous environment for over twenty years,” he said. “That failure is now being quietly buried.”
I think we are in dangerous territory here. He clearly managed a moderately successful media career for decades, so in what sense is his supposed "autism" a disability?
I have quite an intolerance to bright lights and load noises, and a bunch of niche interests, but that in no way makes me autistic or disabled. Indeed an ability to concentrate on detail and niche subjects has been a core skill in my career.
Is the rat looking to desert the sinking Tory ship? Or does a rat see a congenial home in the Farage party? This is the key question concerning Jake Berry, whom Rishi Sunak amongst others rightly couldn't stand.
Bit of both probably, but more the first I think. So yes, not good news for the Tories even if they are better off without him.
Was Jake Berry a decent Tory Chairman? Perhaps RefUK are looking for people who can help the centre hold. It needs something there. In the past better known people have gone straight in the "ear of Farage" group at RefUK - eg Tim Montgomerie.
Has he done anything notable since leaving Parliament a year ago?
Given the RefUK meltdown in Councils, I'm wondering if some of their councillors will be returning to the Conservatives.
Wasn't Berry an MP for a NW seat and lived on Anglesey?
You have to admire Conservatives. Blow up the nation and acquire redemption by joining another right wing vehicle, so far untainted by the travails of Brexit (I know!) Johnson's misbehaviour and the Truss budget. Political genius at its very best.
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
Musk is autistic and certainly anything but dreamless (if still weird).
We have had a few PMs who if not full autistic or aspie are at least on the spectrum in the last 50 years or so, Heath, Brown, May and now Starmer, maybe Truss too
Musk is high on ket. That does not make him autistic
Heath, Brown, May and Starmer are/were socially awkward, that does not allow you to lazily diagnose them with a condition you know nothing about. Why pick those four to use the autistic label as a cheap slur? Truss and Johnson probably fulfill your false stereotype far more closely.
I am not sure that Starmer is socially awkward. By all accounts he is quite personable and gregarious away from public life, just wooden and verbose when at a political podium, and incapable of remembering why he is in the job. A classic case of the imposter syndrome.
I think Starmer is the opposite of the imposter syndrome. He's the classic case of someone who has done well in one field thinking that he'd be good at doing something else. The secret barrister talks about this with magistrates.
"Gregg Wallace’s autism means he can’t wear underwear, say friends
Sources close to ex-MasterChef presenter claim he has ‘hypersensitivity’ to tight clothing and his condition is partly to blame for his inappropriate behaviour" (£)
Those are the friends you want. "He does the elephant ears thing with his trouser pockets and his todger becuse he has autism..."
"Your Honour, I only "copped a feel" because I am on the autistic spectrum ". Judge; " case dismissed". It works every time.
This seems to be getting quite lawyerly.
"Before the report’s publication, Wallace accused programme-makers of failing to act on their suspicions about his condition.
“Nothing was done to investigate my disability or protect me from what I now realise was a dangerous environment for over twenty years,” he said. “That failure is now being quietly buried.”
I think we are in dangerous territory here. He clearly managed a moderately successful media career for decades, so in what sense is his supposed "autism" a disability?
I have quite an intolerance to bright lights and load noises, and a bunch of niche interests, but that in no way makes me autistic or disabled. Indeed an ability to concentrate on detail and niche subjects has been a core skill in my career.
Are you sure you are not allowing seven years of intensive training and a lifetime of experience cloud your judgement, when a misunderstood article in the Sunday Times colour supplement would be a far more appropriate means of information acquisition?
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
Musk is autistic and certainly anything but dreamless (if still weird).
We have had a few PMs who if not full autistic or aspie are at least on the spectrum in the last 50 years or so, Heath, Brown, May and now Starmer, maybe Truss too
Musk is high on ket. That does not make him autistic
Heath, Brown, May and Starmer are/were socially awkward, that does not allow you to lazily diagnose them with a condition you know nothing about. Why pick those four to use the autistic label as a cheap slur? Truss and Johnson probably fulfill your false stereotype far more closely.
I am not sure that Starmer is socially awkward. By all accounts he is quite personable and gregarious away from public life, just wooden and verbose when at a political podium, and incapable of remembering why he is in the job. A classic case of the imposter syndrome.
Coincidentally, Princeton has just published this:-
Interesting surfing X. Reform clearly delighted to get experience etc on board but a lot of casual support looking for something new really not impressed at Reform taking in any old ex Tory looking for a gig. Reform should be wary of becoming Nigel Farage and a load of people the voters booted out a year ago Still, they arent going to say no thanks i suppose
I suspect that they're currently saying 'No thanks' to large numbers of Labour MPs, and rightly so.
There’s no evidence for that unlikely suggestion, at all
That's why I said 'I suspect'. And the suggestion isn't remotely unlikely if those MPs like being in employment.
"Gregg Wallace’s autism means he can’t wear underwear, say friends
Sources close to ex-MasterChef presenter claim he has ‘hypersensitivity’ to tight clothing and his condition is partly to blame for his inappropriate behaviour" (£)
Those are the friends you want. "He does the elephant ears thing with his trouser pockets and his todger becuse he has autism..."
"Your Honour, I only "copped a feel" because I am on the autistic spectrum ". Judge; " case dismissed". It works every time.
This seems to be getting quite lawyerly.
"Before the report’s publication, Wallace accused programme-makers of failing to act on their suspicions about his condition.
“Nothing was done to investigate my disability or protect me from what I now realise was a dangerous environment for over twenty years,” he said. “That failure is now being quietly buried.”
My son was diagnosed at a very early age. His main symptom s turned out to be classic study case material including when learning to crawl, crawling backwards and a particular association with the Thomas the Tank Engine stories. More specifically the faces. There was an autistic learning tool called Transformers TV which used Thomas the Tank Engine illustrations as a model. There were loads of other things too. Bad behaviour was not specifically one of them.
Gregg Wallace was earning what? seven figures a year, and he is blaming the BBC for it's pastoral care of a middle aged man, because he, by several accusatory accounts was prone to inappropriate sexual behaviour. I am afraid that is ( quite appropriately) bollocks.
Have we done the leaked cache of Tesla documents wrt safety, fires, people locked in etc?
‘The vehicle suddenly accelerated with our baby in it’: the terrifying truth about why Tesla’s cars keep crashing
Elon Musk is obsessive about the design of his supercars, right down to the disappearing door handles. But a series of shocking incidents – from drivers trapped in burning vehicles to dramatic stops on the highway – have led to questions about the safety of the brand. Why won’t Tesla give any answers?
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
Musk is autistic and certainly anything but dreamless (if still weird).
We have had a few PMs who if not full autistic or aspie are at least on the spectrum in the last 50 years or so, Heath, Brown, May and now Starmer, maybe Truss too
Musk is high on ket. That does not make him autistic
Heath, Brown, May and Starmer are/were socially awkward, that does not allow you to lazily diagnose them with a condition you know nothing about. Why pick those four to use the autistic label as a cheap slur? Truss and Johnson probably fulfill your false stereotype far more closely.
Re: Heath. I know a couple of people who went to social events with Heath and said he was the life and soul of the party. Really. Away from the cameras, he was relaxed and witty. He just seemed to freeze in front of the cameras.
Is the rat looking to desert the sinking Tory ship? Or does a rat see a congenial home in the Farage party? This is the key question concerning Jake Berry, whom Rishi Sunak amongst others rightly couldn't stand.
Bit of both probably, but more the first I think. So yes, not good news for the Tories even if they are better off without him.
Was Jake Berry a decent Tory Chairman? ? Perhaps RefUK are looking for people who can help the centre hold. It needs something there. In the past better known people have gone straight in the "ear of Farage" group at RefUK - eg Tim Montgomerie.
Has he done anything notable since leaving Parliament a year ago?
Given the RefUK meltdown in Councils, I'm wondering if some of their councillors will be returning to the Conservatives.
If he was a good Tory Chairman then he is equally responsible for everything that Farage and his outriders were lambasting the Tories for when they were in government.
If he wants to claim “it was nothing to do with me gov” then he’s clearly incompetent and ineffectual.
Not sure which option is the better look for him or reform.
"Gregg Wallace’s autism means he can’t wear underwear, say friends
Sources close to ex-MasterChef presenter claim he has ‘hypersensitivity’ to tight clothing and his condition is partly to blame for his inappropriate behaviour" (£)
Those are the friends you want. "He does the elephant ears thing with his trouser pockets and his todger becuse he has autism..."
"Your Honour, I only "copped a feel" because I am on the autistic spectrum ". Judge; " case dismissed". It works every time.
This seems to be getting quite lawyerly.
"Before the report’s publication, Wallace accused programme-makers of failing to act on their suspicions about his condition.
“Nothing was done to investigate my disability or protect me from what I now realise was a dangerous environment for over twenty years,” he said. “That failure is now being quietly buried.”
My son was diagnosed at a very early age. His main symptom s turned out to be classic study case material including when learning to crawl, crawling backwards and a particular association with the Thomas the Tank Engine stories. More specifically the faces. There was an autistic learning tool called Transformers TV which used Thomas the Tank Engine illustrations as a model. There were loads of other things too. Bad behaviour was not specifically one of them.
Gregg Wallace was earning what? seven figures a year, and he is blaming the BBC for it's pastoral care of a middle aged man, because he, by several accusatory accounts was prone to inappropriate sexual behaviour. I am afraid that is ( quite appropriately) bollocks.
I'd be surprised if Gregg Wallace was on seven figures for Masterchef and that factories programme on BBC2. Six figures, probably, and maybe low six figures at that.
The autism stuff just seems like desperately throwing chaff into the air. His BBC career looks to be over, regardless of whether the bulk of these accusations are upheld or not in the forthcoming report (is it due out today?). Why take the risk?
"Gregg Wallace’s autism means he can’t wear underwear, say friends
Sources close to ex-MasterChef presenter claim he has ‘hypersensitivity’ to tight clothing and his condition is partly to blame for his inappropriate behaviour" (£)
Those are the friends you want. "He does the elephant ears thing with his trouser pockets and his todger becuse he has autism..."
"Your Honour, I only "copped a feel" because I am on the autistic spectrum ". Judge; " case dismissed". It works every time.
This seems to be getting quite lawyerly.
"Before the report’s publication, Wallace accused programme-makers of failing to act on their suspicions about his condition.
“Nothing was done to investigate my disability or protect me from what I now realise was a dangerous environment for over twenty years,” he said. “That failure is now being quietly buried.”
My son was diagnosed at a very early age. His main symptom s turned out to be classic study case material including when learning to crawl, crawling backwards and a particular association with the Thomas the Tank Engine stories. More specifically the faces. There was an autistic learning tool called Transformers TV which used Thomas the Tank Engine illustrations as a model. There were loads of other things too. Bad behaviour was not specifically one of them.
Gregg Wallace was earning what? seven figures a year, and he is blaming the BBC for it's pastoral care of a middle aged man, because he, by several accusatory accounts was prone to inappropriate sexual behaviour. I am afraid that is ( quite appropriately) bollocks.
I'd be surprised if Gregg Wallace was on seven figures for Masterchef and that factories programme on BBC2. Six figures, probably, and maybe low six figures at that.
The autism stuff just seems like desperately throwing chaff into the air. His BBC career looks to be over, regardless of whether the bulk of these accusations are upheld or not in the forthcoming report (is it due out today?). Why take the risk?
By the time you add in all the side deals, it will definitely be 7 figures. Think books, ads etc.
He’s obviously hired a crisis management team - and they are throwing everything out there.
I’m just surprised that they haven’t got a game shrink to book him into the posh version of The Priory, on a “preliminary diagnosis”. That was the thing, a few years back.
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
Musk is autistic and certainly anything but dreamless (if still weird).
We have had a few PMs who if not full autistic or aspie are at least on the spectrum in the last 50 years or so, Heath, Brown, May and now Starmer, maybe Truss too
Musk is high on ket. That does not make him autistic
Heath, Brown, May and Starmer are/were socially awkward, that does not allow you to lazily diagnose them with a condition you know nothing about. Why pick those four to use the autistic label as a cheap slur? Truss and Johnson probably fulfill your false stereotype far more closely.
Boris certainly doesn't and I am part aspergers myself
Would ANY putative Labour leader/PM be getting the kind of terrible ratings Starmer is getting? Is it just because he has a crap hand to play, and Labour are a party without clues?
That may be the case, but I suggest Starmer is uniquely dislikeable, due to his lack of charm, his moral vanity, his adenoidal voice, his priggish face, his lawyerly demeanour, his pessimisstic whining, his anti-British opinions, his autistic dreamless weirdness. All of this makes him the worst possible leader at the worst possible time
He is, therefore, a drag on Labour polling even if they are already deep in the dirt. Somebody like Rayner would do better. This may have betting implications
Musk is autistic and certainly anything but dreamless (if still weird).
We have had a few PMs who if not full autistic or aspie are at least on the spectrum in the last 50 years or so, Heath, Brown, May and now Starmer, maybe Truss too
Musk is high on ket. That does not make him autistic
Heath, Brown, May and Starmer are/were socially awkward, that does not allow you to lazily diagnose them with a condition you know nothing about. Why pick those four to use the autistic label as a cheap slur? Truss and Johnson probably fulfill your false stereotype far more closely.
Boris certainly doesn't and I am part aspergers myself
What is "part Aspergers"? Is it a bit like bi- sexual?
Comments
His association with Truss is not the best cv either
And I remain a conservative also
Timms Review needs to massively look at this because it smells to me (and I am very sympathetic to disabled in general given my own life experience) that this is being abused.
The only way the autistic person gets mobility points is if they need tons of help and prompting to follow a basic journey plan or need someone with them at all times, or a guide dog etc etc.
They do not get it for being unable to walk 20ms.
Now that may be the case - but how is that being tested? In the example given she is able to be a flight attendant and therefore presumably travelling all over the world with stop overs and so on and yet seems unable to make a basic local journey??
This stuff is technical I accept. She might get 8 points for being unable to plan a journey even though she can hop on a plane and be taken abroad by the pilot while dishing out the drinks to Bulgaria. Individual cases are hard.
The bar for mobility based on psychological needs to be higher. The text talks about needing guide dogs for FS.
Edit: How does she get from the airport to the stop-over hotel?
The consensus seems to be these days that fibro is real. But it's also a diagnosis of exclusiomn, and co-morbid with the mental health conditions.
Shes probably on lower rate for both mobility and daily living or higher rate daily living alone, both those would be roughly 400 a month
But how would she be about the serious shit of being PM? Down at the HQ in Northwood looking at maps of Ukraine etc?
Burnham is looking like at serious alternative as someone who actually has a vision, plans and objectives he wants to achieve with the comms skills.
But he's not in the Commons.
I agree Burnham would be a shoo-in if he was in the Commons, but he ain't
As @FrancisUrquhart says, it is a low bar, but that's where we are
Right, time to watch the continuing sublimity that is Netflix's "The Leopard". Later
Perhaps he should be ennobled, and we can have our first PM from the Lords in 150 years.
I dont think the person in this example receives higher rate mobility, the figures are wrong. But in any case, its a bit unseemly to speculate. Its too much like crowding round a car in the disabled spot at the supermarket to make sure the driver looks like a 'proper cripple'
So the Tories need to be the insurgents.
Traffic on the 405 is pretty awful. I'm not seeing the Stephen Miller benefits yet.
Maybe the likes of Burnham is just lucky to avoid scrutiny. Maybe he's just competent.
I actually think Mayor of London probably was Boris ideal job. He is very engaging speaker, he can do the ya boo London is great, go around the world amusing people, while the day to day stuff can be handed off to some minions. But put in charge of the whole country, absolute shit show.
The Telegraph has seen the guidance given to government lawyers by the Attorney General, and the previous version of the document, which was issued by Suella Braverman in 2022.
Analysis of the documents reveals that Lord Hermer has made a number of changes, including inserting a new “snitch clause”, telling civil servants to inform him if ministers may be about to break the law.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/09/lord-hermer-gives-himself-veto-over-government-policy/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/07/09/velvet-sundown-band-ai-songs/
Clickbait headline aside, they have got loads of plays. Rick Beato, music producer and YouTuber called it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RI70Im5kJw
Eric Daugherty
@EricLDaugh
🚨 JUST IN - Trump Chief of Staff SUSIE WILES on ELON MUSK: "It was a great thing when it was a great thing...it had a very troublesome ending."
"I don't understand it, I don't know."
"I enjoyed working with Elon...certainly came to not a good ending."
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1942986868989055479
https://x.com/mindenterprises?s=21&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Yet - I have the answers.
Give me a fucking break.
He was there. He is one of those responsible for every single thing he rages against - tax, migrants, crime etc etc
a) tired, failed Tory retreads who have suddenly woken from their slumbers to realise it seems that everything they did for a decade or more was wrong
or
b) people who are about to lose the reform whip for various nefarious reasons.
or
c) 18 year olds who are suddenly running a whole council because all the other candidates have resigned as they weren't expecting to win and so had not told their spouses anything about it.
LOL
Astonishingly good
Margaret came from that world, which is one of the reasons why she won three elections, including two by a landslide. Boris didn't come from that world, but could connect with it, so he got his landslide.
(Which reminds me: I have to send that letter to Stephen Miller asking him to change his last name. There are a lot of us Millers, and many, perhaps most of us, would rather not have people think we are related to him.
My suggestion for an alternative name: Ming, after the Flash Gordon character.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Morshead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN3mcAkZz9U
This is really funny
The neighbors, NIMBY, sue over new, more YIMBY zoning code.
The city, incompetent, misses filing deadline, forfeits the case.
*But* b/c the city repealed the old zoning code to pass the new one, its loss means all zoning is gone.
Total YIMBY victory
https://x.com/christianbrits/status/1942630987550072846
We know all the agency website and ticket tout shenanigans, but the whip hand is held by the artists themselves.
Personally I don't see the point of a stadium gig, but comedy or jazz clubs - great. I still need to plot a return to the 606 Club.
What a mess.
Has he done anything notable since leaving Parliament a year ago?
Given the RefUK meltdown in Councils, I'm wondering if some of their councillors will be returning to the Conservatives.
"Before the report’s publication, Wallace accused programme-makers of failing to act on their suspicions about his condition.
“Nothing was done to investigate my disability or protect me from what I now realise was a dangerous environment for over twenty years,” he said. “That failure is now being quietly buried.”
Heath, Brown, May and Starmer are/were socially awkward, that does not allow you to lazily diagnose them with a condition you know nothing about. Why pick those four to use the autistic label as a cheap slur? Truss and Johnson probably fulfill your false stereotype far more closely.
I have quite an intolerance to bright lights and load noises, and a bunch of niche interests, but that in no way makes me autistic or disabled. Indeed an ability to concentrate on detail and niche subjects has been a core skill in my career.
You have to admire Conservatives. Blow up the nation and acquire redemption by joining another right wing vehicle, so far untainted by the travails of Brexit (I know!) Johnson's misbehaviour and the Truss budget. Political genius at its very best.
Major autism study uncovers biologically distinct subtypes, paving the way for precision diagnosis and care
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2025/07/09/major-autism-study-uncovers-biologically-distinct-subtypes-paving-way-precision
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/jul/10/clash-of-cultures-exhibition-tells-story-of-when-vikings-ruled-the-north-of-england
It's like the Guardian was just reading PB.
Gregg Wallace was earning what? seven figures a year, and he is blaming the BBC for it's pastoral care of a middle aged man, because he, by several accusatory accounts was prone to inappropriate sexual behaviour. I am afraid that is ( quite appropriately) bollocks.
‘The vehicle suddenly accelerated with our baby in it’: the terrifying truth about why Tesla’s cars keep crashing
Elon Musk is obsessive about the design of his supercars, right down to the disappearing door handles. But a series of shocking incidents – from drivers trapped in burning vehicles to dramatic stops on the highway – have led to questions about the safety of the brand. Why won’t Tesla give any answers?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/05/the-vehicle-suddenly-accelerated-with-our-baby-in-it-the-terrifying-truth-about-why-teslas-cars-keep-crashing
If he wants to claim “it was nothing to do with me gov” then he’s clearly incompetent and ineffectual.
Not sure which option is the better look for him or reform.
NEW THREAD
The autism stuff just seems like desperately throwing chaff into the air. His BBC career looks to be over, regardless of whether the bulk of these accusations are upheld or not in the forthcoming report (is it due out today?). Why take the risk?
He’s obviously hired a crisis management team - and they are throwing everything out there.
I’m just surprised that they haven’t got a game shrink to book him into the posh version of The Priory, on a “preliminary diagnosis”. That was the thing, a few years back.