The big winners from the weekend’s Labour contretemps – politicalbetting.com

System

The big winners from the weekend’s Labour contretemps – politicalbetting.com

Whilst the blocking of Andy Burnham has the reek of desperation it was a political penectomy on Andy Burnham, so if as expected the results are very bad for Labour in May’s local and devolved elections when Labour MPs will look to oust Starmer then Andy Burnham will not be able to succeed him now who will benefit?

Read the full story here

Taz

Yo !

Taz

Where’s the Game of Thrones link ?

I never watched it so wouldn’t know it.

TheScreamingEagles

Taz said:

Where’s the Game of Thrones link ?

I never watched it so wouldn’t know it.

Opening line

'Whilst the blocking of Andy Burnham has the reek of desperation it was a political penectomy on Andy Burnham'

Nigelb

Taz said:

occasionalranter said:

nico67 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Flatlander said:

Cookie said:

Can we lay off the pile on on Sandpit please?
1) He's been on the site for fucking ages; I find it vanishingly unlikely he's being paid to make pro-Trump noises.
2) I've rarely heard him make pro-Trump noises. Not thinking Trump = Hitler does not equal pro-Trump.
3) As it happens, I do think Trump roughly equals Hitler. But I am very interested in the views of a seemingly intelligent poster who does not hold that view. Why wouldn't you be?

It's ridiculous to fall into the trap of 'poster x does not hate politician y as much as I do - therefore poster x loves politician y.' We saw this with Boris too.

It seems fair to defend Trump [and the administration] on some levels - many things are arguable. TDS is still a thing.

But justifying the shooting of someone in the street who is protesting peacefully would seem a different matter.

The phrase TDS is often trotted out by trump apologists who don't want to see the whole picture.

I certainly wouldn't apologise for him but what I would take it to mean is not taking each specific action on its own merits.

He might accidentally do something right. Increasingly long odds on that, perhaps.


DS applies to all politicians, including Starmer, who also manages to blunder into doing the right thing sometimes, having announced the wrong thing first.

We were assured he was going to invade Greenland a couple of days ago. That he was a deranged dementia patient who had lost the capacity to reason, and therefore he'd as happily soak Greenland in European blood as eat his morning cornflakes.

Except it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for, and he now says force was never on the agenda. Yet no embarrassed climb down from our resident Trump experts, just on to the next civilisation-ending outrage and hope nobody will notice.

No one thought he’d actually invade Greenland. And he didn’t get what he wanted . I see you omitted his trashing of NATO troops who died supporting the USA . He’s now given immunity to ICE to execute anyone they see fit and you’re still trying to sanewash his actions . He might not be mad but he is true evil .

Lucky is just telling us who he is.

Yet he’s not wrong to point out the resident Trump experts cocked up there and just pivoted onto the next issue to rant about.

Who "cocked up" ?
Are you denying that Trump threatened at various times both military occupation and sanctions ?

I think most of us said that the former was unlikely but not impossible, and I'd stand by that.
The sanctions, against US allies, if they didn't hand over territory, were a very real threat.

No one has "just pivoted to the next issue to rant about".
It's now a fact, as a result of the affair, that the entire basis of US commitment to NATO is in question.
The US itself has in the had few data completely rearranged its national security strategy, and will be withdrawing forces from Europe.

Luckyguy is simply strawmanning again to say "we were assured that he was going to invade".

None of the issues raised by this are going away - not least because there's no formal agreement for the supposed "deal" negotiated by Rutte.

Battlebus

I thought the big winner from this weekend was @TSE .

If he was worried about going to the poor house if Burnham stood, how many pairs of shoes can he buy when we know Burnham won't stand and won't challenge the decision.

IanB2

The one caveat to the lead, at least in respect of Streeting and possibly Mahmood, is that Starmer and his right-wing (in party terms) support group come away from the episode somewhat tarnished in the view of many members who, assuming there’s not a coronation, will be the electorate. As and when Starmer falls or goes, members may - as indeed we voters tend to do - be looking for something politically different from the next guy or gal.

Theuniondivvie

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

Where’s the Game of Thrones link ?

I never watched it so wouldn’t know it.

Opening line

'Whilst the blocking of Andy Burnham has the reek of desperation it was a political penectomy on Andy Burnham'

Possibly you were characteristically being too subtle there.

Theuniondivvie

Surely the big winners will be Llafur and SLab who will now have the star power of Starmer and London Labour focussed on their campaigns.

https://x.com/paulhutcheon/status/2015398274832679069?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Omnium

If Burnham was telling the truth about his reasons for wanting to return to parliament then he could achieve the same by running as an independent. Its clear therefore that his motivation was that he thought he could be PM.

As to who benefits from the whole fiasco - I'm not sure that the trio mentioned in the header are the gainers. I think its more likely now that a candidate who is seen as above the squabbles will emerge. (Although admittedly I don't see them actually being able to get enough momentum in the end)

Stuartinromford

Considerable arguements against each of them, though.

Mahmood is an effective communicator, but do Labour MPs or members like what she communicates?

Rayner has done a bit of wilderness time, but is it enough?

And Streeting... is Streeting.

On the other hand, someone has to do the job. Which was basically the argument for Sunak and Starmer, and look how they turned out.

Foxy

IanB2 said:

The one caveat to the lead, at least in respect of Streeting and possibly Mahmood, is that Starmer and his right-wing (in party terms) support group come away from the episode somewhat tarnished in the view of many members who, assuming there’s not a coronation, will be the electorate. As and when Starmer falls or goes, members may - as indeed we voters tend to do - be looking for something politically different from the next guy or gal.

As we saw in the Deputy Leadership contest, anyone seen as the Starmer-annointed candidate is going to lose.

There would be no point in changing Starmer with one of his placemen/placewomen.

Which is why Angela Rayner is the most likely winner as the unification candidate between Starmerites and Burnhamites.

TheScreamingEagles

Battlebus said:

I thought the big winner from this weekend was @TSE .

If he was worried about going to the poor house if Burnham stood, how many pairs of shoes can he buy when we know Burnham won't stand and won't challenge the decision.

It means I can spend Valentine's day weekend at Claridge's not a Premier Inn.

(Well the weekend after)

edmundintokyo

Battlebus said:

I thought the big winner from this weekend was @TSE .

If he was worried about going to the poor house if Burnham stood, how many pairs of shoes can he buy when we know Burnham won't stand and won't challenge the decision.

Can he challenge the decision? He had to ask permission from the NEC, he asked and the NEC said no. Who would he go to to challenge it?

TheScreamingEagles

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

Where’s the Game of Thrones link ?

I never watched it so wouldn’t know it.

Opening line

'Whilst the blocking of Andy Burnham has the reek of desperation it was a political penectomy on Andy Burnham'

Possibly you were characteristically being too subtle there.

Anyhoo, you've all missed the obvious.

This thread is a thread about the superiority of the alternative vote to first past the post.

Nigelb

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

The one caveat to the lead, at least in respect of Streeting and possibly Mahmood, is that Starmer and his right-wing (in party terms) support group come away from the episode somewhat tarnished in the view of many members who, assuming there’s not a coronation, will be the electorate. As and when Starmer falls or goes, members may - as indeed we voters tend to do - be looking for something politically different from the next guy or gal.

As we saw in the Deputy Leadership contest, anyone seen as the Starmer-annointed candidate is going to lose.

There would be no point in changing Starmer with one of his placemen/placewomen.

Which is why Angela Rayner is the most likely winner as the unification candidate between Starmerites and Burnhamites.

That would be a big risk for Labour.
She was pretty useless in her one substantial cabinet job - which was supposed to be delivering Labour's headline policy.

But you're probably right that she's the favourite to succeed Starmer.

bondegezou

Lowe at 16/1 and Corbyn at 25/1 are both ridiculously short, but I guess the return from laying them is pretty small for what might be a long wait.

Battlebus

edmundintokyo said:

Battlebus said:

I thought the big winner from this weekend was @TSE .

If he was worried about going to the poor house if Burnham stood, how many pairs of shoes can he buy when we know Burnham won't stand and won't challenge the decision.

Can he challenge the decision? He had to ask permission from the NEC, he asked and the NEC said no. Who would he go to to challenge it?

I meant politically challenge it rather than administratively. His two charges at Starmer have shown him not to have the mettle to reach the top. And given the size of their majority, and how poorly that majority is being wielded, it won't be long until a more popular candidate will emerge.

Labour do have a platform to make changes but don't seem to know how to use it. (Or have a fear of the banks)

eek

Omnium said:

If Burnham was telling the truth about his reasons for wanting to return to parliament then he could achieve the same by running as an independent. Its clear therefore that his motivation was that he thought he could be PM.

As to who benefits from the whole fiasco - I'm not sure that the trio mentioned in the header are the gainers. I think its more likely now that a candidate who is seen as above the squabbles will emerge. (Although admittedly I don't see them actually being able to get enough momentum in the end)

We know Burnham didn't do well when standing against Corbyn but if you look at the options Labour are going to be presenting he would have stood a decent chance - because the current optionds are woeful.

SandyRentool

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

Where’s the Game of Thrones link ?

I never watched it so wouldn’t know it.

Opening line

'Whilst the blocking of Andy Burnham has the reek of desperation it was a political penectomy on Andy Burnham'

Possibly you were characteristically being too subtle there.

Anyhoo, you've all missed the obvious.

This thread is a thread about the superiority of the alternative vote to first past the post.

For elections to single positions, yes.

For parliamentary elections, d'Hondt get me started...

Omnium

eek said:

Omnium said:

If Burnham was telling the truth about his reasons for wanting to return to parliament then he could achieve the same by running as an independent. Its clear therefore that his motivation was that he thought he could be PM.

As to who benefits from the whole fiasco - I'm not sure that the trio mentioned in the header are the gainers. I think its more likely now that a candidate who is seen as above the squabbles will emerge. (Although admittedly I don't see them actually being able to get enough momentum in the end)

We know Burnham didn't do well when standing against Corbyn but if you look at the options Labour are going to be presenting he would have stood a decent chance - because the current optionds are woeful.

Yes, a good chance, although perhaps not as good a chance as he imagined. I think a bullet has been dodged for all of us in that if he was made PM he'd be Truss-like awful.

MarqueeMark

The only winners in all this are those of us competition entrants who said Burnham would not be an MP on 31st December 2026.

SandyRentool

Burnham has moved on to portraying himself as a victim.

Like someone who suffers burns while throwing a petrol bomb.

TheScreamingEagles

SandyRentool said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

Where’s the Game of Thrones link ?

I never watched it so wouldn’t know it.

Opening line

'Whilst the blocking of Andy Burnham has the reek of desperation it was a political penectomy on Andy Burnham'

Possibly you were characteristically being too subtle there.

Anyhoo, you've all missed the obvious.

This thread is a thread about the superiority of the alternative vote to first past the post.

For elections to single positions, yes.

For parliamentary elections, d'Hondt get me started...

Each parliamentary seat is a single position.

IanB2

edmundintokyo said:

Battlebus said:

I thought the big winner from this weekend was @TSE .

If he was worried about going to the poor house if Burnham stood, how many pairs of shoes can he buy when we know Burnham won't stand and won't challenge the decision.

Can he challenge the decision? He had to ask permission from the NEC, he asked and the NEC said no. Who would he go to to challenge it?

There is no appeal process, other than in the court of public (and party) opinion

Stuartinromford

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

Where’s the Game of Thrones link ?

I never watched it so wouldn’t know it.

Opening line

'Whilst the blocking of Andy Burnham has the reek of desperation it was a political penectomy on Andy Burnham'

Possibly you were characteristically being too subtle there.

Anyhoo, you've all missed the obvious.

This thread is a thread about the superiority of the alternative vote to first past the post.

On the other hand, without FPTP, Labour's NEC wouldn't have been able to wave the Reform Mayor shroud. (Which seems like a fairish point to me, and one which AB needed a plausible answer to.)

Taz

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

occasionalranter said:

nico67 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Flatlander said:

Cookie said:

Can we lay off the pile on on Sandpit please?
1) He's been on the site for fucking ages; I find it vanishingly unlikely he's being paid to make pro-Trump noises.
2) I've rarely heard him make pro-Trump noises. Not thinking Trump = Hitler does not equal pro-Trump.
3) As it happens, I do think Trump roughly equals Hitler. But I am very interested in the views of a seemingly intelligent poster who does not hold that view. Why wouldn't you be?

It's ridiculous to fall into the trap of 'poster x does not hate politician y as much as I do - therefore poster x loves politician y.' We saw this with Boris too.

It seems fair to defend Trump [and the administration] on some levels - many things are arguable. TDS is still a thing.

But justifying the shooting of someone in the street who is protesting peacefully would seem a different matter.

The phrase TDS is often trotted out by trump apologists who don't want to see the whole picture.

I certainly wouldn't apologise for him but what I would take it to mean is not taking each specific action on its own merits.

He might accidentally do something right. Increasingly long odds on that, perhaps.


DS applies to all politicians, including Starmer, who also manages to blunder into doing the right thing sometimes, having announced the wrong thing first.

We were assured he was going to invade Greenland a couple of days ago. That he was a deranged dementia patient who had lost the capacity to reason, and therefore he'd as happily soak Greenland in European blood as eat his morning cornflakes.

Except it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for, and he now says force was never on the agenda. Yet no embarrassed climb down from our resident Trump experts, just on to the next civilisation-ending outrage and hope nobody will notice.

No one thought he’d actually invade Greenland. And he didn’t get what he wanted . I see you omitted his trashing of NATO troops who died supporting the USA . He’s now given immunity to ICE to execute anyone they see fit and you’re still trying to sanewash his actions . He might not be mad but he is true evil .

Lucky is just telling us who he is.

Yet he’s not wrong to point out the resident Trump experts cocked up there and just pivoted onto the next issue to rant about.

Who "cocked up" ?
Are you denying that Trump threatened at various times both military occupation and sanctions ?

I think most of us said that the former was unlikely but not impossible, and I'd stand by that.
The sanctions, against US allies, if they didn't hand over territory, were a very real threat.

No one has "just pivoted to the next issue to rant about".
It's now a fact, as a result of the affair, that the entire basis of US commitment to NATO is in question.
The US itself has in the had few data completely rearranged its national security strategy, and will be withdrawing forces from Europe.

Luckyguy is simply strawmanning again to say "we were assured that he was going to invade".

None of the issues raised by this are going away - not least because there's no formal agreement for the supposed "deal" negotiated by Rutte.

Luckyguy is quite right.

I said it would follow the Trump playbook

It did

https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2012608685462220879?s=61

The US commitment to NATO was in question well before this.

SandyRentool

TheScreamingEagles said:

SandyRentool said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

Where’s the Game of Thrones link ?

I never watched it so wouldn’t know it.

Opening line

'Whilst the blocking of Andy Burnham has the reek of desperation it was a political penectomy on Andy Burnham'

Possibly you were characteristically being too subtle there.

Anyhoo, you've all missed the obvious.

This thread is a thread about the superiority of the alternative vote to first past the post.

For elections to single positions, yes.

For parliamentary elections, d'Hondt get me started...

Each parliamentary seat is a single position.

And that's one of the problems with FPTP.

Switching to another system that retains that problem is not a solution.

IanB2

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

The one caveat to the lead, at least in respect of Streeting and possibly Mahmood, is that Starmer and his right-wing (in party terms) support group come away from the episode somewhat tarnished in the view of many members who, assuming there’s not a coronation, will be the electorate. As and when Starmer falls or goes, members may - as indeed we voters tend to do - be looking for something politically different from the next guy or gal.

As we saw in the Deputy Leadership contest, anyone seen as the Starmer-annointed candidate is going to lose.

There would be no point in changing Starmer with one of his placemen/placewomen.

Which is why Angela Rayner is the most likely winner as the unification candidate between Starmerites and Burnhamites.

That would be a big risk for Labour.
She was pretty useless in her one substantial cabinet job - which was supposed to be delivering Labour's headline policy.

But you're probably right that she's the favourite to succeed Starmer.

In which case, Streeting's best outcome is if Rayner turns out to be Labour's Loopy Liz. Which isn't that remote an eventuality, with just the minor downside for Streeting, who surely then drops into the job uncontested a la Sunak, that such a sequence of events destroys the Labour Party.

Taz

Stuartinromford said:

Considerable arguements against each of them, though.

Mahmood is an effective communicator, but do Labour MPs or members like what she communicates?

Rayner has done a bit of wilderness time, but is it enough?

And Streeting... is Streeting.

On the other hand, someone has to do the job. Which was basically the argument for Sunak and Starmer, and look how they turned out.

Mahmood is an Asian woman.

Labour likes white men as leader.

eek

Omnium said:

eek said:

Omnium said:

If Burnham was telling the truth about his reasons for wanting to return to parliament then he could achieve the same by running as an independent. Its clear therefore that his motivation was that he thought he could be PM.

As to who benefits from the whole fiasco - I'm not sure that the trio mentioned in the header are the gainers. I think its more likely now that a candidate who is seen as above the squabbles will emerge. (Although admittedly I don't see them actually being able to get enough momentum in the end)

We know Burnham didn't do well when standing against Corbyn but if you look at the options Labour are going to be presenting he would have stood a decent chance - because the current optionds are woeful.

Yes, a good chance, although perhaps not as good a chance as he imagined. I think a bullet has been dodged for all of us in that if he was made PM he'd be Truss-like awful.

And the other Labour options won't be similarly Truss-like awful.

The upside of Burnham was that he knew what was needed for Manchester and so at least some of the North might not be treated as third class citizens...

Theuniondivvie

These guys totally look like woke leftist anti American terrorists honouring another woke leftist anti American terrorist.

https://x.com/aapayes/status/2015615962448314748?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

IanB2

bondegezou said:

Lowe at 16/1 and Corbyn at 25/1 are both ridiculously short, but I guess the return from laying them is pretty small for what might be a long wait.

The way Betfair works, there isn't a logical reason why anyone would want to be on the other side of long odds lays, since you have to deposit cash upfront to cover the potential losses. So the offered odds are governed as much by interest rates as by probability.

SandyRentool

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

Where’s the Game of Thrones link ?

I never watched it so wouldn’t know it.

Opening line

'Whilst the blocking of Andy Burnham has the reek of desperation it was a political penectomy on Andy Burnham'

Possibly you were characteristically being too subtle there.

Anyhoo, you've all missed the obvious.

This thread is a thread about the superiority of the alternative vote to first past the post.

On the other hand, without FPTP, Labour's NEC wouldn't have been able to wave the Reform Mayor shroud. (Which seems like a fairish point to me, and one which AB needed a plausible answer to.)

Oh yes, the man who apparently cares passionately about Greater Manchester was more than happy to see the region run by a ReFukker.

rkrkrk

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

The one caveat to the lead, at least in respect of Streeting and possibly Mahmood, is that Starmer and his right-wing (in party terms) support group come away from the episode somewhat tarnished in the view of many members who, assuming there’s not a coronation, will be the electorate. As and when Starmer falls or goes, members may - as indeed we voters tend to do - be looking for something politically different from the next guy or gal.

As we saw in the Deputy Leadership contest, anyone seen as the Starmer-annointed candidate is going to lose.

There would be no point in changing Starmer with one of his placemen/placewomen.

Which is why Angela Rayner is the most likely winner as the unification candidate between Starmerites and Burnhamites.

Is there enough clear water between Angela and Keir?
We know they have had differences but she was a key part of his govt.

I think Thornberry is great value at 200/1.

Theuniondivvie

lol

https://x.com/gelliottmorris/status/2015483391957668155?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

IanB2

rkrkrk said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

The one caveat to the lead, at least in respect of Streeting and possibly Mahmood, is that Starmer and his right-wing (in party terms) support group come away from the episode somewhat tarnished in the view of many members who, assuming there’s not a coronation, will be the electorate. As and when Starmer falls or goes, members may - as indeed we voters tend to do - be looking for something politically different from the next guy or gal.

As we saw in the Deputy Leadership contest, anyone seen as the Starmer-annointed candidate is going to lose.

There would be no point in changing Starmer with one of his placemen/placewomen.

Which is why Angela Rayner is the most likely winner as the unification candidate between Starmerites and Burnhamites.

Is there enough clear water between Angela and Keir?
We know they have had differences but she was a key part of his govt.

I think Thornberry is great value at 200/1.

Just a shame she's so irritating whenever you hear her speak. And way too Islington for national appeal. On BFE Next PM, she's not even listed, unlike Jeremy Clarkson, Sarah Pochin, Jeremy Corbyn and Andrew Tate.

rkrkrk

IanB2 said:

rkrkrk said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

The one caveat to the lead, at least in respect of Streeting and possibly Mahmood, is that Starmer and his right-wing (in party terms) support group come away from the episode somewhat tarnished in the view of many members who, assuming there’s not a coronation, will be the electorate. As and when Starmer falls or goes, members may - as indeed we voters tend to do - be looking for something politically different from the next guy or gal.

As we saw in the Deputy Leadership contest, anyone seen as the Starmer-annointed candidate is going to lose.

There would be no point in changing Starmer with one of his placemen/placewomen.

Which is why Angela Rayner is the most likely winner as the unification candidate between Starmerites and Burnhamites.

Is there enough clear water between Angela and Keir?
We know they have had differences but she was a key part of his govt.

I think Thornberry is great value at 200/1.

Just a shame she's so irritating whenever you hear her speak. And way too Islington for national appeal.

She came across well on one of the podcasts recently. And her appearance shows she is angling for more than select committee jobs...

algarkirk

edmundintokyo said:

Battlebus said:

I thought the big winner from this weekend was @TSE .

If he was worried about going to the poor house if Burnham stood, how many pairs of shoes can he buy when we know Burnham won't stand and won't challenge the decision.

Can he challenge the decision? He had to ask permission from the NEC, he asked and the NEC said no. Who would he go to to challenge it?

Not a good idea but in principle any decision of this sort can be challenged in the courts with regard to the decision's conformity with the rules of the outfit, the lawfulness of the rules applied, any general law applying, the rationality of the decision, the process of decision making and conformity with natural justice. A court could not substitute its own decision, just invalidate the one taken already.

Lawyers have to live; they have starving wives and children to feed. However, don't go there.

AnneJGP

SandyRentool said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

Where’s the Game of Thrones link ?

I never watched it so wouldn’t know it.

Opening line

'Whilst the blocking of Andy Burnham has the reek of desperation it was a political penectomy on Andy Burnham'

Possibly you were characteristically being too subtle there.

Anyhoo, you've all missed the obvious.

This thread is a thread about the superiority of the alternative vote to first past the post.

For elections to single positions, yes.

For parliamentary elections, d'Hondt get me started...

It's seemed to me that many are keen on some kind of PR so that people can vote for the parties whose policies they actually prefer. But they're not so keen on people voting for the policies they prefer when that means voting for Reform because of the risk that Reform may emulate what's happening in America. One wonders why other parties don't offer the preferred policies so that all those votes have a better place to go.

Good morning, everyone.

AnneJGP

Taz said:

Stuartinromford said:

Considerable arguements against each of them, though.

Mahmood is an effective communicator, but do Labour MPs or members like what she communicates?

Rayner has done a bit of wilderness time, but is it enough?

And Streeting... is Streeting.

On the other hand, someone has to do the job. Which was basically the argument for Sunak and Starmer, and look how they turned out.

Mahmood is an Asian woman.

Labour likes white men as leader.

Sad to say, even a woman would be a breakthrough for Labour.

Stuartinromford

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

IanB2

AnneJGP said:

Taz said:

Stuartinromford said:

Considerable arguements against each of them, though.

Mahmood is an effective communicator, but do Labour MPs or members like what she communicates?

Rayner has done a bit of wilderness time, but is it enough?

And Streeting... is Streeting.

On the other hand, someone has to do the job. Which was basically the argument for Sunak and Starmer, and look how they turned out.

Mahmood is an Asian woman.

Labour likes white men as leader.

Sad to say, even a woman would be a breakthrough for Labour.

Arguably, so would a gay man, which is a point in favour of Streeting.

For next Labour leader, I have bets on Streeting at 70 from May 2021 and at 11 from November 2023, so laying a chunk of this off now at 4.9 and 5.5 seems a sensible thing to do.

IanB2

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

I have small bets on both Lammy and Cooper for that reason. After all, when Johnson's leadership campaign was torpedoed by Gove and Mrs May sent him abroad as FS, who'd have thought he'd be a future PM, or looked at Truss in the same role or Sunak as CofE and imagined they'd both become future PMs? Yet Westminster does have a habit of expecting senior politicians to work their way up one step at a time.

Foxy

rkrkrk said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

The one caveat to the lead, at least in respect of Streeting and possibly Mahmood, is that Starmer and his right-wing (in party terms) support group come away from the episode somewhat tarnished in the view of many members who, assuming there’s not a coronation, will be the electorate. As and when Starmer falls or goes, members may - as indeed we voters tend to do - be looking for something politically different from the next guy or gal.

As we saw in the Deputy Leadership contest, anyone seen as the Starmer-annointed candidate is going to lose.

There would be no point in changing Starmer with one of his placemen/placewomen.

Which is why Angela Rayner is the most likely winner as the unification candidate between Starmerites and Burnhamites.

Is there enough clear water between Angela and Keir?
We know they have had differences but she was a key part of his govt.

I think Thornberry is great value at 200/1.

I quite like Thornberry, but she did very poorly for nominations when trying to stand for Deputy., so I think those odds about right.

Rayner was advocating for Burnhamite policies when she was DL, but doing it behind the scenes rather than playing to the gallery. She is a Labour loyalist and worked equally closely with Starmer and Corbyn. That is why she is the sort of compromise candidate that would prevent open warfare in the party.

She is a clever politician, if a bit careless with her domestic life and didn't get enough visibly done when in cabinet.

eek

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

algarkirk

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Who is up to the job? It's an uncertain process, but a process of elimination helps, as does consideration of a person's history, opinions, past performance, personality and character. For top appointments it is common to test for character traits of various sorts.

A huge amount of elimination is obvious to anyone who looks and thinks. For the PM role almost everyone is easily eliminated (me included.) This includes almost all good, decent and nice people; bad people; unstable people; everyone who is fine up to deputy position but can't do Numero Uno. Everyone who can't make decisions that send thousands of innocent people to their deaths, and also make decisions that take risks by not doing so. Everyone who can't decide about deciding whether to obliterate Moscow overnight.

There aren't many left after that. The list is short. It does not include: Davey, Farage, Polanski, Burnham, lammy, Rayner, Jenrick, E Miliband. and lots of others. Kemi: no idea, not tested enough yet.

By this formula, if I had to guess I think SKS is best for now. Possibles would include: D Miliband, Streeting, Cooper? Worth watching: Carns, Mahmood.

What will be get? Probably Barry Gardiner.

HYUFD

The big winners are Streeting and Rayner. For a Yougov Labour members poll last autumn had Burnham beating both comfortably if Starmer resigned after very poor local election results. Burnham had he returned to Parliament and challenged Starmer would also have beaten Sir Keir 62% to 29% in a Labour members vote.

Both Streeting and Rayner beat Mahmood though but Rayner beat Streeting. So Streeting's main rival for Labour leader now Burnham is unlikely to be back as an MP until at least the next GE is Rayner and if it got to the members Ange would likely beat him.

So Team Streeting will be going out of its way to ensure she does not get the 80 Labour MPs she would need to nominate her and enter a contest.

In order Burnham was the pick of 54% of Labour members to succeed Starmer. Now he is out of the picture next was Rayner with 10%, then Streeting with 7%, then Ed Miliband and Cooper were tied on 6% and last was Mahmood on just 2%
https://news.sky.com/story/almost-two-in-three-labour-members-back-burnham-over-starmer-for-leader-poll-show-13441078

IanB2

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

With politicians, they all tend to have negatives and the game is to pick the least worst.

Big_G_NorthWales

Good morning

I understand Starmer actually voted to ban Burnham

He really is terrible at politics and just hasn't got it

He should have abstained and left it to the other NEC members

The excuse Starmer and his committee are using it would be unfair to hold a mid term mayoral contest risking a reform mayor

The problem is they cannot see the wood for the trees

Had Burnham stood and won, he would have envigorated labour throughout the region even possibly labour retaining the mayor but now Starmer and his London Metropolitian elite cabal have almost certainly lost the by election and handed reform a coup across the north west

If labour have any sense they will dispatch Starmer post May and start again but under who else, I have no idea

Malmesbury

Battlebus said:

I thought the big winner from this weekend was @TSE .

If he was worried about going to the poor house if Burnham stood, how many pairs of shoes can he buy when we know Burnham won't stand and won't challenge the decision.

Surely the secondary effects on the shoe industry in Northampton have to be considered? - they were looking at complete collapse if TSE was wiped out.

See Pitt The Younger and the London wine trade.

Scott_xP

@SophyRidgeSky

Douglas Alexander on why Andy Burnham was blocked: “There would have been three months of psychodrama. Who's up? Who's down? Who's getting on with who? Who's standing against who? Would that have been in the best interest of the Labour Party? Honestly I don't think it would have”

@juliamacfarlane

The trouble is, there is psychodrama not because Burnham stuck his head out of the parapet - there is psychodrama because Starmer is losing support. Removing Burnham (for now) doesn’t change that. Last week it was Burnham who reignited the drama, soon it will be someone else

Pulpstar

algarkirk said:

(Sic PM)
"I think SKS is best for now. "

Are you one on Labour's NEC ?

algarkirk

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I understand Starmer actually voted to ban Burnham

He really is terrible at politics and just hasn't got it

He should have abstained and left it to the other NEC members

The excuse Starmer and his committee are using it would be unfair to hold a mid term mayoral contest risking a reform mayor

The problem is they cannot see the wood for the trees

Had Burnham stood and won, he would have envigorated labour throughout the region even possibly labour retaining the mayor but now Starmer and his London Metropolitian elite cabal have almost certainly lost the by election and handed reform a coup across the north west

If labour have any sense they will dispatch Starmer post May and start again but under who else, I have no idea

This describes a cleft stick. If it is essential to get rid of X but there is not a clear better replacement, then you are answering the wrong question.

Try asking: 'Who at this moment would make the best PM for the UK and all its interests; only current Labour MPs qualify because them's the rules?'

And

Is it better for the UK to stick with the PM we have got or to take the risk of an unknown new PM when there is no candidate good enough at PM like qualities to command anything near agreement?

algarkirk

Pulpstar said:

algarkirk said:

(Sic PM)
"I think SKS is best for now. "

Are you one on Labour's NEC ?

No, and I am no fan of SKS either. You need to look at my reasoning as a whole. here it is:


Who is up to the job? It's an uncertain process, but a process of elimination helps, as does consideration of a person's history, opinions, past performance, personality and character. For top appointments it is common to test for character traits of various sorts.

A huge amount of elimination is obvious to anyone who looks and thinks. For the PM role almost everyone is easily eliminated (me included.) This includes almost all good, decent and nice people; bad people; unstable people; everyone who is fine up to deputy position but can't do Numero Uno. Everyone who can't make decisions that send thousands of innocent people to their deaths, and also make decisions that take risks by not doing so. Everyone who can't decide about deciding whether to obliterate Moscow overnight.

There aren't many left after that. The list is short. It does not include: Davey, Farage, Polanski, Burnham, lammy, Rayner, Jenrick, E Miliband. and lots of others. Kemi: no idea, not tested enough yet.

By this formula, if I had to guess I think SKS is best for now. Possibles would include: D Miliband, Streeting, Cooper? Worth watching: Carns, Mahmood.

What will be get? Probably Barry Gardiner.

Malmesbury

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

HYUFD

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Last PM who had never been Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary and who became PM when his party was in power rather than as LOTO winning a general election was the Duke of Wellington in 1828 (though he did win the Battle of Waterloo which is a bit more than Streeting and Rayner have done so far!)

Mexicanpete

Scott_xP said:

@SophyRidgeSky

Douglas Alexander on why Andy Burnham was blocked: “There would have been three months of psychodrama. Who's up? Who's down? Who's getting on with who? Who's standing against who? Would that have been in the best interest of the Labour Party? Honestly I don't think it would have”

@juliamacfarlane

The trouble is, there is psychodrama not because Burnham stuck his head out of the parapet - there is psychodrama because Starmer is losing support. Removing Burnham (for now) doesn’t change that. Last week it was Burnham who reignited the drama, soon it will be someone else

The jokes on here way back in the summer of 2020 about Starmer being indecisive turned out to be accurate. Although in Burnham's case decision prevailed for good or for ill.

In seven days where Starmer by his standards hadn't had such a bad week was overshadowed by Burnham. It was entirely of Burnham's making. I am assuming Andrew Gwynne was given the nod that now was the time, and from there it all unraveled damaging Burnham, his Party, Starmer and his Government.

Burnham was a useless Minister, he soiled himself in September and he soiled himself last weekend. Maybe he's just been lucky in Greater Manchester.

algarkirk

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Last PM who had never been Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary and who became PM when his party was in power rather than as LOTO winning a general election was the Duke of Wellington in 1828 (though he did win the Battle of Waterloo which is a bit more than Streeting and Rayner have done so far!)

That sounds very like a warm up act for Al Carns. (Do we happen to know where Carns stands on the 1832 Great Reform Act and Catholic Emancipation? I hope he is sound.)

ajb

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Having been Home Secretary is a bit of a liability though. In the eyes of the right, it makes you responsible for all the muggings and jailbreaks, in the eyes of the left, every ham handed action of the police and home office bureaucracy. Lammy has the albatross of abolishing the right to a jury trial, Cooper the crackdown against Gaza protestors. In my memory only Theresa May made it from there, in relatively unusual circumstances (although unfortunately, unusual circumstances seem to be quite common at present).

HYUFD

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

Indeed, now Burnham has gone Streeting and Rayner are Starmer's main rivals neither of whom are as big a threat to him and Streeting is ideologically little different to Sir Keir anyway while Burnham is now flag carrier of the Labour left.

Now Jenrick is gone Kemi's main rival is Cleverly who is a Badenoch loyalist which was not the case with Bobby J. Davey has no real rival for the foreseeable given the LDs are still holding their own, won more MPs than they have had for a 100 years in 2024 and are still gaining council seats in local elections and by elections

bondegezou

FPT...

Taz said:

Dopermean said:

Taz said:

eek said:

Taz said:

occasionalranter said:

nico67 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Flatlander said:

Cookie said:

Can we lay off the pile on on Sandpit please?
1) He's been on the site for fucking ages; I find it vanishingly unlikely he's being paid to make pro-Trump noises.
2) I've rarely heard him make pro-Trump noises. Not thinking Trump = Hitler does not equal pro-Trump.
3) As it happens, I do think Trump roughly equals Hitler. But I am very interested in the views of a seemingly intelligent poster who does not hold that view. Why wouldn't you be?

It's ridiculous to fall into the trap of 'poster x does not hate politician y as much as I do - therefore poster x loves politician y.' We saw this with Boris too.

It seems fair to defend Trump [and the administration] on some levels - many things are arguable. TDS is still a thing.

But justifying the shooting of someone in the street who is protesting peacefully would seem a different matter.

The phrase TDS is often trotted out by trump apologists who don't want to see the whole picture.

I certainly wouldn't apologise for him but what I would take it to mean is not taking each specific action on its own merits.

He might accidentally do something right. Increasingly long odds on that, perhaps.


DS applies to all politicians, including Starmer, who also manages to blunder into doing the right thing sometimes, having announced the wrong thing first.

We were assured he was going to invade Greenland a couple of days ago. That he was a deranged dementia patient who had lost the capacity to reason, and therefore he'd as happily soak Greenland in European blood as eat his morning cornflakes.

Except it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for, and he now says force was never on the agenda. Yet no embarrassed climb down from our resident Trump experts, just on to the next civilisation-ending outrage and hope nobody will notice.

No one thought he’d actually invade Greenland. And he didn’t get what he wanted . I see you omitted his trashing of NATO troops who died supporting the USA . He’s now given immunity to ICE to execute anyone they see fit and you’re still trying to sanewash his actions . He might not be mad but he is true evil .

Lucky is just telling us who he is.

Yet he’s not wrong to point out the resident Trump experts cocked up there and just pivoted onto the next issue to rant about.

You know Trump's playbook is to change so many things so rapidly you don't have a chance to correct one of them before another 5 things need to be corrected..

No, you should have mentioned it before.

Trump will be threatening Greenland again in due course, he's just backed off for a bit.
Your accusations of TDS are gaslighting, a year ago people were saying a he'd deport a lot of wrong people and that tariffs would be bad for international trade, they weren't saying that he'd deploy 2500 masked ICE agents to a city to drive in circles around residential blocks and schools abducting anyone non-white and murdering peaceful protesters or that the EU and sane NATO countries would be in a emergency diplomatic huddle to protect Greenland from annexation.
It'd be more fun to be discussing Burnham and why the idiot is distracting from the blue on blue psychodrama.

There’s nothing stopping people,discussing Burnham apart from the obvious. They are Trump obsessives.

I said at the time of the US elections tariffs were bad and I’d prefer hapless Harris over Trump. In spite of her ridiculous wealth tax policy.

Until there is a judicial outcome the killings are just killings. Not murder, execution, manslaughter, self defence. Just killings.

But this is PB, if you’re not indulging in your daily five minute Trump hate then you’re clearly a fan.

For their to be a judicial outcome, there has to be a trial or at least some sort of investigation. The Trump administration has blocked that in both the recent killing and the killing of Renee Good.

Is it fair to say we can't call these murders because there's been no trial if no trial is ever allowed?

SandyRentool

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I understand Starmer actually voted to ban Burnham

He really is terrible at politics and just hasn't got it

He should have abstained and left it to the other NEC members

The excuse Starmer and his committee are using it would be unfair to hold a mid term mayoral contest risking a reform mayor

The problem is they cannot see the wood for the trees

Had Burnham stood and won, he would have envigorated labour throughout the region even possibly labour retaining the mayor but now Starmer and his London Metropolitian elite cabal have almost certainly lost the by election and handed reform a coup across the north west

If labour have any sense they will dispatch Starmer post May and start again but under who else, I have no idea

More likely the voters of GM would have punished Labour for causing an unnecessary by-election for Mayor, and their man Burnham for deserting them.

Of course we'll lose the parliamentary by-election. That's what happens to parties of government mid-term.

Much more of the nasty stuff will be coming our way in May. We all know that, about from a few poor souls who keep reporting a "really positive response on the doorstep".

AnneJGP

bondegezou said:

FPT...

Taz said:

Dopermean said:

Taz said:

eek said:

Taz said:

occasionalranter said:

nico67 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Flatlander said:

Cookie said:

Can we lay off the pile on on Sandpit please?
1) He's been on the site for fucking ages; I find it vanishingly unlikely he's being paid to make pro-Trump noises.
2) I've rarely heard him make pro-Trump noises. Not thinking Trump = Hitler does not equal pro-Trump.
3) As it happens, I do think Trump roughly equals Hitler. But I am very interested in the views of a seemingly intelligent poster who does not hold that view. Why wouldn't you be?

It's ridiculous to fall into the trap of 'poster x does not hate politician y as much as I do - therefore poster x loves politician y.' We saw this with Boris too.

It seems fair to defend Trump [and the administration] on some levels - many things are arguable. TDS is still a thing.

But justifying the shooting of someone in the street who is protesting peacefully would seem a different matter.

The phrase TDS is often trotted out by trump apologists who don't want to see the whole picture.

I certainly wouldn't apologise for him but what I would take it to mean is not taking each specific action on its own merits.

He might accidentally do something right. Increasingly long odds on that, perhaps.


DS applies to all politicians, including Starmer, who also manages to blunder into doing the right thing sometimes, having announced the wrong thing first.

We were assured he was going to invade Greenland a couple of days ago. That he was a deranged dementia patient who had lost the capacity to reason, and therefore he'd as happily soak Greenland in European blood as eat his morning cornflakes.

Except it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for, and he now says force was never on the agenda. Yet no embarrassed climb down from our resident Trump experts, just on to the next civilisation-ending outrage and hope nobody will notice.

No one thought he’d actually invade Greenland. And he didn’t get what he wanted . I see you omitted his trashing of NATO troops who died supporting the USA . He’s now given immunity to ICE to execute anyone they see fit and you’re still trying to sanewash his actions . He might not be mad but he is true evil .

Lucky is just telling us who he is.

Yet he’s not wrong to point out the resident Trump experts cocked up there and just pivoted onto the next issue to rant about.

You know Trump's playbook is to change so many things so rapidly you don't have a chance to correct one of them before another 5 things need to be corrected..

No, you should have mentioned it before.

Trump will be threatening Greenland again in due course, he's just backed off for a bit.
Your accusations of TDS are gaslighting, a year ago people were saying a he'd deport a lot of wrong people and that tariffs would be bad for international trade, they weren't saying that he'd deploy 2500 masked ICE agents to a city to drive in circles around residential blocks and schools abducting anyone non-white and murdering peaceful protesters or that the EU and sane NATO countries would be in a emergency diplomatic huddle to protect Greenland from annexation.
It'd be more fun to be discussing Burnham and why the idiot is distracting from the blue on blue psychodrama.

There’s nothing stopping people,discussing Burnham apart from the obvious. They are Trump obsessives.

I said at the time of the US elections tariffs were bad and I’d prefer hapless Harris over Trump. In spite of her ridiculous wealth tax policy.

Until there is a judicial outcome the killings are just killings. Not murder, execution, manslaughter, self defence. Just killings.

But this is PB, if you’re not indulging in your daily five minute Trump hate then you’re clearly a fan.

For their to be a judicial outcome, there has to be a trial or at least some sort of investigation. The Trump administration has blocked that in both the recent killing and the killing of Renee Good.

Is it fair to say we can't call these murders because there's been no trial if no trial is ever allowed?

Don't they have the concept of inquests in the USA?

maxh

FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Among other things, Trump is calling for legislation to be passed to outlaw Sanctuary Cities.

https://x.com/PressSec/status/2015555649719984483

I am hereby calling on the United States Congress to immediately pass Legislation to END Sanctuary Cities, which is the root cause of all of these problems. American Cities should be Safe Sanctuaries for Law Abiding American Citizens ONLY, not Illegal Alien Criminals who broke our Nation’s Laws.

https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2015560630212723109

President Donald J. Trump calls on Governor Walz, Mayor Frey, and every Democratic governor and mayor in the United States to cooperate with the Trump admin to enforce our nation’s laws, rather than resist and stoke the flames of division, chaos, and violence

Hopefully Congress will tell him to go fuck himself.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment in general, on the specific case of sanctuary cities I struggle to see how they can be defended?

Either someone is in favour of the rule of law or they aren't. What is the justification for not complying with immigration law? Is it linked to states rights?

Taz

bondegezou said:

FPT...

Taz said:

Dopermean said:

Taz said:

eek said:

Taz said:

occasionalranter said:

nico67 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Flatlander said:

Cookie said:

Can we lay off the pile on on Sandpit please?
1) He's been on the site for fucking ages; I find it vanishingly unlikely he's being paid to make pro-Trump noises.
2) I've rarely heard him make pro-Trump noises. Not thinking Trump = Hitler does not equal pro-Trump.
3) As it happens, I do think Trump roughly equals Hitler. But I am very interested in the views of a seemingly intelligent poster who does not hold that view. Why wouldn't you be?

It's ridiculous to fall into the trap of 'poster x does not hate politician y as much as I do - therefore poster x loves politician y.' We saw this with Boris too.

It seems fair to defend Trump [and the administration] on some levels - many things are arguable. TDS is still a thing.

But justifying the shooting of someone in the street who is protesting peacefully would seem a different matter.

The phrase TDS is often trotted out by trump apologists who don't want to see the whole picture.

I certainly wouldn't apologise for him but what I would take it to mean is not taking each specific action on its own merits.

He might accidentally do something right. Increasingly long odds on that, perhaps.


DS applies to all politicians, including Starmer, who also manages to blunder into doing the right thing sometimes, having announced the wrong thing first.

We were assured he was going to invade Greenland a couple of days ago. That he was a deranged dementia patient who had lost the capacity to reason, and therefore he'd as happily soak Greenland in European blood as eat his morning cornflakes.

Except it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for, and he now says force was never on the agenda. Yet no embarrassed climb down from our resident Trump experts, just on to the next civilisation-ending outrage and hope nobody will notice.

No one thought he’d actually invade Greenland. And he didn’t get what he wanted . I see you omitted his trashing of NATO troops who died supporting the USA . He’s now given immunity to ICE to execute anyone they see fit and you’re still trying to sanewash his actions . He might not be mad but he is true evil .

Lucky is just telling us who he is.

Yet he’s not wrong to point out the resident Trump experts cocked up there and just pivoted onto the next issue to rant about.

You know Trump's playbook is to change so many things so rapidly you don't have a chance to correct one of them before another 5 things need to be corrected..

No, you should have mentioned it before.

Trump will be threatening Greenland again in due course, he's just backed off for a bit.
Your accusations of TDS are gaslighting, a year ago people were saying a he'd deport a lot of wrong people and that tariffs would be bad for international trade, they weren't saying that he'd deploy 2500 masked ICE agents to a city to drive in circles around residential blocks and schools abducting anyone non-white and murdering peaceful protesters or that the EU and sane NATO countries would be in a emergency diplomatic huddle to protect Greenland from annexation.
It'd be more fun to be discussing Burnham and why the idiot is distracting from the blue on blue psychodrama.

There’s nothing stopping people,discussing Burnham apart from the obvious. They are Trump obsessives.

I said at the time of the US elections tariffs were bad and I’d prefer hapless Harris over Trump. In spite of her ridiculous wealth tax policy.

Until there is a judicial outcome the killings are just killings. Not murder, execution, manslaughter, self defence. Just killings.

But this is PB, if you’re not indulging in your daily five minute Trump hate then you’re clearly a fan.

For their to be a judicial outcome, there has to be a trial or at least some sort of investigation. The Trump administration has blocked that in both the recent killing and the killing of Renee Good.

Is it fair to say we can't call these murders because there's been no trial if no trial is ever allowed?

Call it what you like, I’m not stopping anyone. However until there’s due process it cannot be stated for certain what it is.

HYUFD

'US President Donald Trump says his administration is "reviewing everything" after the fatal shooting by immigration agents of 37-year-old intensive care nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday.

In his comments to the Wall Street Journal, external, Trump also indicated that he would eventually withdraw agents from the city. But he did not give a time frame.

Protests continued in Minneapolis and other US cities on Sunday, as Minnesota Governor Tim Walz warned that America was at an "inflection point"...The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was directly asked twice whether the agent had done the right thing. He responded: "We're looking, we're reviewing everything and will come out with a determination."

He also told the newspaper: "I don't like any shooting. I don't like it." He added: "But I don't like it when somebody goes into a protest and he's got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn't play good either."

The Trump administration is facing pressure from some prominent Republicans, who have joined opposition Democrats in calling for a wide-ranging investigation.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr571qg4m61o

OldKingCole

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I understand Starmer actually voted to ban Burnham

He really is terrible at politics and just hasn't got it

He should have abstained and left it to the other NEC members

The excuse Starmer and his committee are using it would be unfair to hold a mid term mayoral contest risking a reform mayor

The problem is they cannot see the wood for the trees

Had Burnham stood and won, he would have envigorated labour throughout the region even possibly labour retaining the mayor but now Starmer and his London Metropolitian elite cabal have almost certainly lost the by election and handed reform a coup across the north west

If labour have any sense they will dispatch Starmer post May and start again but under who else, I have no idea

I think @Big G is right, and, given the circumstances Starmer should have abstained. However, I think Burnham should carry on and complete his term as Mayor, and it certainly would increase the costs, and, sadly, keep the likes of Chris Mason on the TV is there was both a by-election and a Mayoral election in the early part if this year.

algarkirk

Burnham has placed himself in the position where it can be said of him that he thinks if he is the candidate, Labour win, and if he is not the candidate Labour might lose. See for example Guardian 9.03

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/jan/26/labour-andy-burnham-byelection-blocked-police-reforms-starmer-streeting-farage-uk-politics-live-news-updates

This is catastrophically disloyal. he risks looking like a game player and not serious. Within the game he played - I want to be an MP and I am loyal to the government - it was realistic to play a game back: you are a wonderful mayor of Manchester, keep up the good work.

If Labour lose the by election Burnham's enemies point out that his prediction doomed Labour by factionalism etc.

The simplest point however is this: it is fine to want to be PM, but the route to it was to become an MP in 2024, which was not a difficult task, and earn the top job the proper way.

HYUFD

algarkirk said:

Burnham has placed himself in the position where it can be said of him that he thinks if he is the candidate, Labour win, and if he is not the candidate Labour might lose. See for example Guardian 9.03

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/jan/26/labour-andy-burnham-byelection-blocked-police-reforms-starmer-streeting-farage-uk-politics-live-news-updates

This is catastrophically disloyal. he risks looking like a game player and not serious. Within the game he played - I want to be an MP and I am loyal to the government - it was realistic to play a game back: you are a wonderful mayor of Manchester, keep up the good work.

If Labour lose the by election Burnham's enemies point out that his prediction doomed Labour by factionalism etc.

The simplest point however is this: it is fine to want to be PM, but the route to it was to become an MP in 2024, which was not a difficult task, and earn the top job the proper way.

If Labour lose the by election then Burnham can tell the NEC 'told you so' and put himself forward to be Labour candidate again for the seat at the next GE when his term as Mayor will have finished and he will have handed the Mayoralty onto his successor.

Burnham and his allies while publicly backing Labour in private will be cheering Reform and the Greens on I suspect

Gallowgate

algarkirk said:

Burnham has placed himself in the position where it can be said of him that he thinks if he is the candidate, Labour win, and if he is not the candidate Labour might lose. See for example Guardian 9.03

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/jan/26/labour-andy-burnham-byelection-blocked-police-reforms-starmer-streeting-farage-uk-politics-live-news-updates

This is catastrophically disloyal. he risks looking like a game player and not serious. Within the game he played - I want to be an MP and I am loyal to the government - it was realistic to play a game back: you are a wonderful mayor of Manchester, keep up the good work.

If Labour lose the by election Burnham's enemies point out that his prediction doomed Labour by factionalism etc.

The simplest point however is this: it is fine to want to be PM, but the route to it was to become an MP in 2024, which was not a difficult task, and earn the top job the proper way.

Party loyalty is the cause of most of our problems. They should all think for themselves.

Malmesbury

HYUFD said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

Indeed, now Burnham has gone Streeting and Rayner are Starmer's main rivals neither of whom are as big a threat to him and Streeting is ideologically little different to Sir Keir anyway while Burnham is now flag carrier of the Labour left.

Now Jenrick is gone Kemi's main rival is Cleverly who is a Badenoch loyalist which was not the case with Bobby J. Davey has no real rival for the foreseeable given the LDs are still holding their own, won more MPs than they have had for a 100 years in 2024 and are still gaining council seats in local elections and by elections

Burhnam isn't gone, I think. Just not a threat to Starmer in the near future.

Stark_Dawning

HYUFD said:

'US President Donald Trump says his administration is "reviewing everything" after the fatal shooting by immigration agents of 37-year-old intensive care nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday.

In his comments to the Wall Street Journal, external, Trump also indicated that he would eventually withdraw agents from the city. But he did not give a time frame.

Protests continued in Minneapolis and other US cities on Sunday, as Minnesota Governor Tim Walz warned that America was at an "inflection point"...The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was directly asked twice whether the agent had done the right thing. He responded: "We're looking, we're reviewing everything and will come out with a determination."

He also told the newspaper: "I don't like any shooting. I don't like it." He added: "But I don't like it when somebody goes into a protest and he's got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn't play good either."

The Trump administration is facing pressure from some prominent Republicans, who have joined opposition Democrats in calling for a wide-ranging investigation.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr571qg4m61o

Looks like Trump is becoming the greatest opponent of the right to bear arms that America has ever seen.

Theuniondivvie

HYUFD said:

'US President Donald Trump says his administration is "reviewing everything" after the fatal shooting by immigration agents of 37-year-old intensive care nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday.

In his comments to the Wall Street Journal, external, Trump also indicated that he would eventually withdraw agents from the city. But he did not give a time frame.

Protests continued in Minneapolis and other US cities on Sunday, as Minnesota Governor Tim Walz warned that America was at an "inflection point"...The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was directly asked twice whether the agent had done the right thing. He responded: "We're looking, we're reviewing everything and will come out with a determination."

He also told the newspaper: "I don't like any shooting. I don't like it." He added: "But I don't like it when somebody goes into a protest and he's got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn't play good either."

The Trump administration is facing pressure from some prominent Republicans, who have joined opposition Democrats in calling for a wide-ranging investigation.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr571qg4m61o

Thoughts and prayers for the fluffers here and elsewhere justifying every thuggish action of the ICEmen goons. Not that they'll be bothered, long practised as they are to pivoting to agreeing with whatever Big Don says.

Malmesbury

maxh said:

FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Among other things, Trump is calling for legislation to be passed to outlaw Sanctuary Cities.

https://x.com/PressSec/status/2015555649719984483

I am hereby calling on the United States Congress to immediately pass Legislation to END Sanctuary Cities, which is the root cause of all of these problems. American Cities should be Safe Sanctuaries for Law Abiding American Citizens ONLY, not Illegal Alien Criminals who broke our Nation’s Laws.

https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2015560630212723109

President Donald J. Trump calls on Governor Walz, Mayor Frey, and every Democratic governor and mayor in the United States to cooperate with the Trump admin to enforce our nation’s laws, rather than resist and stoke the flames of division, chaos, and violence

Hopefully Congress will tell him to go fuck himself.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment in general, on the specific case of sanctuary cities I struggle to see how they can be defended?

Either someone is in favour of the rule of law or they aren't. What is the justification for not complying with immigration law? Is it linked to states rights?

During the Obama admin, there was a legal case where the Federal Government sued states to stop them enforcing Federal law. Which they won. It was actually about immigration - Texas (IIRC) was using federal law in a heavy handed manner vs immigrants.

This is because the Executive often doesn't like the laws passed by the Legislature.

The American system is rife with such.

In the case of Sanctuary Cities, they are not breaking any law. Just declaring that local agencies do not *voluntarily* cooperate with ICE.

algarkirk

HYUFD said:

'US President Donald Trump says his administration is "reviewing everything" after the fatal shooting by immigration agents of 37-year-old intensive care nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday.

In his comments to the Wall Street Journal, external, Trump also indicated that he would eventually withdraw agents from the city. But he did not give a time frame.

Protests continued in Minneapolis and other US cities on Sunday, as Minnesota Governor Tim Walz warned that America was at an "inflection point"...The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was directly asked twice whether the agent had done the right thing. He responded: "We're looking, we're reviewing everything and will come out with a determination."

He also told the newspaper: "I don't like any shooting. I don't like it." He added: "But I don't like it when somebody goes into a protest and he's got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn't play good either."

The Trump administration is facing pressure from some prominent Republicans, who have joined opposition Democrats in calling for a wide-ranging investigation.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr571qg4m61o

Renee Good was murdered on 7th January. Trumpians gloated. Pretti was murdered on 24th January in slightly more ambiguous circumstances (carrying but not displaying a holstered gun). Trump and Trumpians have hesitated and doubted and drawn back.

Between those two dates Trump and Trumpians have become the people on the decline and on the defensive. Either they are going to lose hold of power or they are going to have to reinforce their gangster fascism maximally by moving to a post Reichstag fire regime.

Trumpians have shown they are mortal and can be wounded. Great. But dangerous days are coming.

Cicero

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.

What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country.
When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.

Selebian

Based on recent performances, turning a failing team around etc, I think Starmer's detractors have been looking at the wrong person in Manchester... Surely time to get Carrick on that by election candidate list?

Taz

Cicero said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.

What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country.
When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.

🤔

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/18/liberal-democrat-mps-frustrated-ed-davey-leader

algarkirk

bondegezou said:

FPT...

Taz said:

Dopermean said:

Taz said:

eek said:

Taz said:

occasionalranter said:

nico67 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Flatlander said:

Cookie said:

Can we lay off the pile on on Sandpit please?
1) He's been on the site for fucking ages; I find it vanishingly unlikely he's being paid to make pro-Trump noises.
2) I've rarely heard him make pro-Trump noises. Not thinking Trump = Hitler does not equal pro-Trump.
3) As it happens, I do think Trump roughly equals Hitler. But I am very interested in the views of a seemingly intelligent poster who does not hold that view. Why wouldn't you be?

It's ridiculous to fall into the trap of 'poster x does not hate politician y as much as I do - therefore poster x loves politician y.' We saw this with Boris too.

It seems fair to defend Trump [and the administration] on some levels - many things are arguable. TDS is still a thing.

But justifying the shooting of someone in the street who is protesting peacefully would seem a different matter.

The phrase TDS is often trotted out by trump apologists who don't want to see the whole picture.

I certainly wouldn't apologise for him but what I would take it to mean is not taking each specific action on its own merits.

He might accidentally do something right. Increasingly long odds on that, perhaps.


DS applies to all politicians, including Starmer, who also manages to blunder into doing the right thing sometimes, having announced the wrong thing first.

We were assured he was going to invade Greenland a couple of days ago. That he was a deranged dementia patient who had lost the capacity to reason, and therefore he'd as happily soak Greenland in European blood as eat his morning cornflakes.

Except it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for, and he now says force was never on the agenda. Yet no embarrassed climb down from our resident Trump experts, just on to the next civilisation-ending outrage and hope nobody will notice.

No one thought he’d actually invade Greenland. And he didn’t get what he wanted . I see you omitted his trashing of NATO troops who died supporting the USA . He’s now given immunity to ICE to execute anyone they see fit and you’re still trying to sanewash his actions . He might not be mad but he is true evil .

Lucky is just telling us who he is.

Yet he’s not wrong to point out the resident Trump experts cocked up there and just pivoted onto the next issue to rant about.

You know Trump's playbook is to change so many things so rapidly you don't have a chance to correct one of them before another 5 things need to be corrected..

No, you should have mentioned it before.

Trump will be threatening Greenland again in due course, he's just backed off for a bit.
Your accusations of TDS are gaslighting, a year ago people were saying a he'd deport a lot of wrong people and that tariffs would be bad for international trade, they weren't saying that he'd deploy 2500 masked ICE agents to a city to drive in circles around residential blocks and schools abducting anyone non-white and murdering peaceful protesters or that the EU and sane NATO countries would be in a emergency diplomatic huddle to protect Greenland from annexation.
It'd be more fun to be discussing Burnham and why the idiot is distracting from the blue on blue psychodrama.

There’s nothing stopping people,discussing Burnham apart from the obvious. They are Trump obsessives.

I said at the time of the US elections tariffs were bad and I’d prefer hapless Harris over Trump. In spite of her ridiculous wealth tax policy.

Until there is a judicial outcome the killings are just killings. Not murder, execution, manslaughter, self defence. Just killings.

But this is PB, if you’re not indulging in your daily five minute Trump hate then you’re clearly a fan.

For their to be a judicial outcome, there has to be a trial or at least some sort of investigation. The Trump administration has blocked that in both the recent killing and the killing of Renee Good.

Is it fair to say we can't call these murders because there's been no trial if no trial is ever allowed?

It depends what counts as jurisdiction. In English law to call these murders is, in the circumstances, fair comment until a judicial process has started. You can of course be sued in defamation.

bondegezou

AnneJGP said:

bondegezou said:

FPT...

Taz said:

Dopermean said:

Taz said:

eek said:

Taz said:

occasionalranter said:

nico67 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Flatlander said:

Cookie said:

Can we lay off the pile on on Sandpit please?
1) He's been on the site for fucking ages; I find it vanishingly unlikely he's being paid to make pro-Trump noises.
2) I've rarely heard him make pro-Trump noises. Not thinking Trump = Hitler does not equal pro-Trump.
3) As it happens, I do think Trump roughly equals Hitler. But I am very interested in the views of a seemingly intelligent poster who does not hold that view. Why wouldn't you be?

It's ridiculous to fall into the trap of 'poster x does not hate politician y as much as I do - therefore poster x loves politician y.' We saw this with Boris too.

It seems fair to defend Trump [and the administration] on some levels - many things are arguable. TDS is still a thing.

But justifying the shooting of someone in the street who is protesting peacefully would seem a different matter.

The phrase TDS is often trotted out by trump apologists who don't want to see the whole picture.

I certainly wouldn't apologise for him but what I would take it to mean is not taking each specific action on its own merits.

He might accidentally do something right. Increasingly long odds on that, perhaps.


DS applies to all politicians, including Starmer, who also manages to blunder into doing the right thing sometimes, having announced the wrong thing first.

We were assured he was going to invade Greenland a couple of days ago. That he was a deranged dementia patient who had lost the capacity to reason, and therefore he'd as happily soak Greenland in European blood as eat his morning cornflakes.

Except it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for, and he now says force was never on the agenda. Yet no embarrassed climb down from our resident Trump experts, just on to the next civilisation-ending outrage and hope nobody will notice.

No one thought he’d actually invade Greenland. And he didn’t get what he wanted . I see you omitted his trashing of NATO troops who died supporting the USA . He’s now given immunity to ICE to execute anyone they see fit and you’re still trying to sanewash his actions . He might not be mad but he is true evil .

Lucky is just telling us who he is.

Yet he’s not wrong to point out the resident Trump experts cocked up there and just pivoted onto the next issue to rant about.

You know Trump's playbook is to change so many things so rapidly you don't have a chance to correct one of them before another 5 things need to be corrected..

No, you should have mentioned it before.

Trump will be threatening Greenland again in due course, he's just backed off for a bit.
Your accusations of TDS are gaslighting, a year ago people were saying a he'd deport a lot of wrong people and that tariffs would be bad for international trade, they weren't saying that he'd deploy 2500 masked ICE agents to a city to drive in circles around residential blocks and schools abducting anyone non-white and murdering peaceful protesters or that the EU and sane NATO countries would be in a emergency diplomatic huddle to protect Greenland from annexation.
It'd be more fun to be discussing Burnham and why the idiot is distracting from the blue on blue psychodrama.

There’s nothing stopping people,discussing Burnham apart from the obvious. They are Trump obsessives.

I said at the time of the US elections tariffs were bad and I’d prefer hapless Harris over Trump. In spite of her ridiculous wealth tax policy.

Until there is a judicial outcome the killings are just killings. Not murder, execution, manslaughter, self defence. Just killings.

But this is PB, if you’re not indulging in your daily five minute Trump hate then you’re clearly a fan.

For their to be a judicial outcome, there has to be a trial or at least some sort of investigation. The Trump administration has blocked that in both the recent killing and the killing of Renee Good.

Is it fair to say we can't call these murders because there's been no trial if no trial is ever allowed?

Don't they have the concept of inquests in the USA?

I am not certain. I think they have a coroner's report, but that will just say cause of death was being shot. That report will not comment on the reasonableness or legality of the shooter's actions. There's no US equivalent of a public inquest.

MarqueeMark

Wordle in 2 today, the bot took 4.

Little victories.

algarkirk

Stark_Dawning said:

HYUFD said:

'US President Donald Trump says his administration is "reviewing everything" after the fatal shooting by immigration agents of 37-year-old intensive care nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday.

In his comments to the Wall Street Journal, external, Trump also indicated that he would eventually withdraw agents from the city. But he did not give a time frame.

Protests continued in Minneapolis and other US cities on Sunday, as Minnesota Governor Tim Walz warned that America was at an "inflection point"...The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was directly asked twice whether the agent had done the right thing. He responded: "We're looking, we're reviewing everything and will come out with a determination."

He also told the newspaper: "I don't like any shooting. I don't like it." He added: "But I don't like it when somebody goes into a protest and he's got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn't play good either."

The Trump administration is facing pressure from some prominent Republicans, who have joined opposition Democrats in calling for a wide-ranging investigation.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr571qg4m61o

Looks like Trump is becoming the greatest opponent of the right to bear arms that America has ever seen.

Looks like Trump is becoming the greatest opponent of the right left to bear arms that America has ever seen.

stodge

Taz said:

Cicero said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.

What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country.
When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.

🤔

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/18/liberal-democrat-mps-frustrated-ed-davey-leader

Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.

Daveyboy1961

stodge said:

Taz said:

Cicero said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.

What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country.
When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.

🤔

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/18/liberal-democrat-mps-frustrated-ed-davey-leader

Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.

This is one of Taz's hobby horses.

Fairliered

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I understand Starmer actually voted to ban Burnham

He really is terrible at politics and just hasn't got it

He should have abstained and left it to the other NEC members

The excuse Starmer and his committee are using it would be unfair to hold a mid term mayoral contest risking a reform mayor

The problem is they cannot see the wood for the trees

Had Burnham stood and won, he would have envigorated labour throughout the region even possibly labour retaining the mayor but now Starmer and his London Metropolitian elite cabal have almost certainly lost the by election and handed reform a coup across the north west

If labour have any sense they will dispatch Starmer post May and start again but under who else, I have no idea

I think @Big G is right, and, given the circumstances Starmer should have abstained. However, I think Burnham should carry on and complete his term as Mayor, and it certainly would increase the costs, and, sadly, keep the likes of Chris Mason on the TV is there was both a by-election and a Mayoral election in the early part if this year.

If Reform don’t win the Gorton and Denton by-election I look forward to see Chris Mason reporting with a face like a melted welly.

viewcode

Streeting is Blair Labour, Mahmood is Blue Labour, Rayner is Old Labour. Of the three, only Mahmood has shown competence in terms of generating ideas. I don't know if that means anything to the membership.

HYUFD

Taz said:

Cicero said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.

What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country.
When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.

🤔

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/18/liberal-democrat-mps-frustrated-ed-davey-leader

The LDs will be gaining seats in May so Davey is safe.

It is Labour and the Tories who will be losing them and which of Starmer or Badenoch sees their party lose more councillors, councils, MSPs and MSs is the one likely to be facing the leadership challenge

bondegezou

algarkirk said:

Stark_Dawning said:

HYUFD said:

'US President Donald Trump says his administration is "reviewing everything" after the fatal shooting by immigration agents of 37-year-old intensive care nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday.

In his comments to the Wall Street Journal, external, Trump also indicated that he would eventually withdraw agents from the city. But he did not give a time frame.

Protests continued in Minneapolis and other US cities on Sunday, as Minnesota Governor Tim Walz warned that America was at an "inflection point"...The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was directly asked twice whether the agent had done the right thing. He responded: "We're looking, we're reviewing everything and will come out with a determination."

He also told the newspaper: "I don't like any shooting. I don't like it." He added: "But I don't like it when somebody goes into a protest and he's got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn't play good either."

The Trump administration is facing pressure from some prominent Republicans, who have joined opposition Democrats in calling for a wide-ranging investigation.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr571qg4m61o

Looks like Trump is becoming the greatest opponent of the right to bear arms that America has ever seen.

Looks like Trump is becoming the greatest opponent of the right left to bear arms that America has ever seen.

The right to bear arms in the US has always meant the right of the right sort of person to bear arms. One of the biggest pushes on gun control laws came from the Right when the Black Panthers started showing up brandishing weapons, like the Mulford Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan when Governor of California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

For a deeper dive, see https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jol/2022/05/23/scattershot-guns-gun-control-and-american-politics/

OldKingCole

stodge said:

Taz said:

Cicero said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.

What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country.
When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.

🤔

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/18/liberal-democrat-mps-frustrated-ed-davey-leader

Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.

If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different.
I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.

HYUFD

viewcode said:

Streeting is Blair Labour, Mahmood is Blue Labour, Rayner is Old Labour. Of the three, only Mahmood has shown competence in terms of generating ideas. I don't know if that means anything to the membership.

No it doesn't, Rayner and Streeting beat Mahmood comfortably in the last Labour members poll


'Mr Burnham is the favourite to succeed him by a long distance - the top pick of 54% of members.

Next is Angela Rayner, the now-sacked deputy leader (10%), then Health Secretary Wes Streeting on 7%. Ex-leader, now energy secretary, Ed Miliband and foreign secretary Yvette Cooper are on 6%, and new home secretary Shabana Mahmood is on 2%.

Mr Burnham comfortably beats all in a final round of voting, according to the poll.

In the event that Mr Burnham was unable to stand, YouGov polled a number of head-to-head races. Wes Streeting beats Shabana Mahmood and Ed Miliband, but would lose to Angela Rayner and Yvette Cooper. Ms Mahmood would lose to Mr Miliband and Ms Cooper. '
https://news.sky.com/story/almost-two-in-three-labour-members-back-burnham-over-starmer-for-leader-poll-show-13441078

stodge

Morning all

There are plenty on the Conservative and Reform sides who are calling for a British equivalent to ICE - probably Vanilla ICE (you see how easy it is to slip in the music references, I don't know why @TSE makes such a song and dance about it).

The idea of semi-trained and possibly armed goons wondering around Britain's streets dragging away people who look at them in a funny way as distinct from their main task which is presumably to find and deport those who are here illegally (however many there are, wherever they are and whoever they are) doesn't fill me with glee.

Who would be the ICE warriors (and there's a Doctor Who reference, you probably missed the NTNON reference in the previous sentence), to whom (if anyone) would they be accountable and who would pay for them? Perhaps we could recruit them from among the illegal migrants - make them legal and get them to shop the other illegals - it might work.

I'm sure when a 95-year old great grandmother who has been here 70 years but forgot to legalise her status is dragged out of her home and thrown on a plane the Home Secretary (or Immigration Minister) will be the first to justify the soundness of his/her/the Government's policy and it will all end so well as it's announced a further 1500 refugees have fetched up to Dover.

maxh

Malmesbury said:

maxh said:

FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Among other things, Trump is calling for legislation to be passed to outlaw Sanctuary Cities.

https://x.com/PressSec/status/2015555649719984483

I am hereby calling on the United States Congress to immediately pass Legislation to END Sanctuary Cities, which is the root cause of all of these problems. American Cities should be Safe Sanctuaries for Law Abiding American Citizens ONLY, not Illegal Alien Criminals who broke our Nation’s Laws.

https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2015560630212723109

President Donald J. Trump calls on Governor Walz, Mayor Frey, and every Democratic governor and mayor in the United States to cooperate with the Trump admin to enforce our nation’s laws, rather than resist and stoke the flames of division, chaos, and violence

Hopefully Congress will tell him to go fuck himself.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment in general, on the specific case of sanctuary cities I struggle to see how they can be defended?

Either someone is in favour of the rule of law or they aren't. What is the justification for not complying with immigration law? Is it linked to states rights?

During the Obama admin, there was a legal case where the Federal Government sued states to stop them enforcing Federal law. Which they won. It was actually about immigration - Texas (IIRC) was using federal law in a heavy handed manner vs immigrants.

This is because the Executive often doesn't like the laws passed by the Legislature.

The American system is rife with such.

In the case of Sanctuary Cities, they are not breaking any law. Just declaring that local agencies do not *voluntarily* cooperate with ICE.

Thanks...I think!

I'll have a read, it all sounds a bit like game playing on both sides to me.

MarqueeMark

OldKingCole said:

stodge said:

Taz said:

Cicero said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.

What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country.
When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.

🤔

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/18/liberal-democrat-mps-frustrated-ed-davey-leader

Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.

If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different.
I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.

The LibDems need a reason to be taken seriously.

They currently cater for a very small slice of Brtish life.

another_richard

viewcode said:

Streeting is Blair Labour, Mahmood is Blue Labour, Rayner is Old Labour. Of the three, only Mahmood has shown competence in terms of generating ideas. I don't know if that means anything to the membership.

Competence means applying policies to fit with the real world.

How many party members think that the real world should change to fit with their preferred policies ?

And if it will not then think the real world should be ignored ?

Fairliered

In times like this, there is only one person who can save the Labour Party.

MarqueeMark

algarkirk said:

HYUFD said:

'US President Donald Trump says his administration is "reviewing everything" after the fatal shooting by immigration agents of 37-year-old intensive care nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday.

In his comments to the Wall Street Journal, external, Trump also indicated that he would eventually withdraw agents from the city. But he did not give a time frame.

Protests continued in Minneapolis and other US cities on Sunday, as Minnesota Governor Tim Walz warned that America was at an "inflection point"...The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was directly asked twice whether the agent had done the right thing. He responded: "We're looking, we're reviewing everything and will come out with a determination."

He also told the newspaper: "I don't like any shooting. I don't like it." He added: "But I don't like it when somebody goes into a protest and he's got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn't play good either."

The Trump administration is facing pressure from some prominent Republicans, who have joined opposition Democrats in calling for a wide-ranging investigation.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr571qg4m61o

Renee Good was murdered on 7th January. Trumpians gloated. Pretti was murdered on 24th January in slightly more ambiguous circumstances (carrying but not displaying a holstered gun). Trump and Trumpians have hesitated and doubted and drawn back.

Between those two dates Trump and Trumpians have become the people on the decline and on the defensive. Either they are going to lose hold of power or they are going to have to reinforce their gangster fascism maximally by moving to a post Reichstag fire regime.

Trumpians have shown they are mortal and can be wounded. Great. But dangerous days are coming.

Trumpian opponents have shown they are mortal and can be murdered. Not so great.

The dangerous days are already here.

algarkirk

OldKingCole said:

stodge said:

Taz said:

Cicero said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.

What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country.
When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.

🤔

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/18/liberal-democrat-mps-frustrated-ed-davey-leader

Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.

If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different.
I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.

I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.

Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.

occasionalranter

Taz said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

occasionalranter said:

nico67 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Flatlander said:

Cookie said:

Can we lay off the pile on on Sandpit please?
1) He's been on the site for fucking ages; I find it vanishingly unlikely he's being paid to make pro-Trump noises.
2) I've rarely heard him make pro-Trump noises. Not thinking Trump = Hitler does not equal pro-Trump.
3) As it happens, I do think Trump roughly equals Hitler. But I am very interested in the views of a seemingly intelligent poster who does not hold that view. Why wouldn't you be?

It's ridiculous to fall into the trap of 'poster x does not hate politician y as much as I do - therefore poster x loves politician y.' We saw this with Boris too.

It seems fair to defend Trump [and the administration] on some levels - many things are arguable. TDS is still a thing.

But justifying the shooting of someone in the street who is protesting peacefully would seem a different matter.

The phrase TDS is often trotted out by trump apologists who don't want to see the whole picture.

I certainly wouldn't apologise for him but what I would take it to mean is not taking each specific action on its own merits.

He might accidentally do something right. Increasingly long odds on that, perhaps.


DS applies to all politicians, including Starmer, who also manages to blunder into doing the right thing sometimes, having announced the wrong thing first.

We were assured he was going to invade Greenland a couple of days ago. That he was a deranged dementia patient who had lost the capacity to reason, and therefore he'd as happily soak Greenland in European blood as eat his morning cornflakes.

Except it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for, and he now says force was never on the agenda. Yet no embarrassed climb down from our resident Trump experts, just on to the next civilisation-ending outrage and hope nobody will notice.

No one thought he’d actually invade Greenland. And he didn’t get what he wanted . I see you omitted his trashing of NATO troops who died supporting the USA . He’s now given immunity to ICE to execute anyone they see fit and you’re still trying to sanewash his actions . He might not be mad but he is true evil .

Lucky is just telling us who he is.

Yet he’s not wrong to point out the resident Trump experts cocked up there and just pivoted onto the next issue to rant about.

Who "cocked up" ?
Are you denying that Trump threatened at various times both military occupation and sanctions ?

I think most of us said that the former was unlikely but not impossible, and I'd stand by that.
The sanctions, against US allies, if they didn't hand over territory, were a very real threat.

No one has "just pivoted to the next issue to rant about".
It's now a fact, as a result of the affair, that the entire basis of US commitment to NATO is in question.
The US itself has in the had few data completely rearranged its national security strategy, and will be withdrawing forces from Europe.

Luckyguy is simply strawmanning again to say "we were assured that he was going to invade".

None of the issues raised by this are going away - not least because there's no formal agreement for the supposed "deal" negotiated by Rutte.

Luckyguy is quite right.

I said it would follow the Trump playbook

It did

https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2012608685462220879?s=61

The US commitment to NATO was in question well before this.

Yeah yeah, that Trump playbook stuff has been doing the rounds, we've all seen it. The point is that Lucky said

"it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for"

and that isn't true.

Permanent damage to diplomatic relations has been caused, around the world Trump's erratic and offensive behaviour is driving other nations away from the US politically and economically, political parties seen to be aligned with Trump are suffering in the polls, a key point has been reached where other countries' leaders now calculate that causing personal offence to Trump and the subsequent retribution are a price worth paying in order to publicly demonstrate support for the values their own voters hold dear and for alliances with other countries that feel the same.

Trump hasn't got everything he asked for. What specific greater rights over Greenland territory has the USA now obtained ? What changes to the political sovereignty of Greenland or Denmark have been promised ? And how exactly has the USA benefited from the further decline in international confidence in the USA and in the dollar ? Do you understand what it means for a country when its government debt yield is climbing at the same time as its currency is weakening ?

viewcode

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

Streeting is Blair Labour, Mahmood is Blue Labour, Rayner is Old Labour. Of the three, only Mahmood has shown competence in terms of generating ideas. I don't know if that means anything to the membership.

No it doesn't, Rayner and Streeting beat Mahmood comfortably in the last Labour members poll


'Mr Burnham is the favourite to succeed him by a long distance - the top pick of 54% of members.

Next is Angela Rayner, the now-sacked deputy leader (10%), then Health Secretary Wes Streeting on 7%. Ex-leader, now energy secretary, Ed Miliband and foreign secretary Yvette Cooper are on 6%, and new home secretary Shabana Mahmood is on 2%.

Mr Burnham comfortably beats all in a final round of voting, according to the poll.

In the event that Mr Burnham was unable to stand, YouGov polled a number of head-to-head races. Wes Streeting beats Shabana Mahmood and Ed Miliband, but would lose to Angela Rayner and Yvette Cooper. Ms Mahmood would lose to Mr Miliband and Ms Cooper. '
https://news.sky.com/story/almost-two-in-three-labour-members-back-burnham-over-starmer-for-leader-poll-show-13441078

Useful as ever, @HYUFD: thank you.

stodge

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

stodge said:

Taz said:

Cicero said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Here's a thing, though.

Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.

On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.

But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.

Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)

Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..

For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.

Which says a lot about the state of politics.

Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.

I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.

What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country.
When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.

🤔

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/18/liberal-democrat-mps-frustrated-ed-davey-leader

Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.

If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different.
I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.

The LibDems need a reason to be taken seriously.

They currently cater for a very small slice of Brtish life.

Rather like the Conservatives.