New Australian poll has Pauline Hanson's rightwing populist One Nation party now a clear second on the primary vote behind Labor.
The Coalition broke up a few days ago with the Nationals leaving it (their former leader and Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce has joined One Nation) and so the Liberals are now effectively the third party NEW: Federal voting intention
New Australian poll has Pauline Hanson's rightwing populist One Nation party now a clear second on the primary vote behind Labor.
The Coalition broke up a few days ago with the Nationals leaving it (their former leader and Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce has joined One Nation) and so the Liberals are now effectively the third party NEW: Federal voting intention
For those who don’t know, One Nation is completely out to lunch in a style beyond Reform.
A favourite was the candidate who claimed that “Norwegian homosexuals” were mind controlling the government.
Pauline Hanson is deeply stupid and demented in way that reminds one of Marjorie Taylor Greene.
It is significant though as it means in most major western nations now a populist right anti immigration party is polling ahead of the main centre right party. Only exceptions are New Zealand (where the centre right are in government with the populist right anyway), Spain (where the centre right and populist right opposition are allied), Canada (where the populist right effectively merged with and took over the centre right in 2003) and the USA (where Trump has effectively turned the GOP into a populist right nationalist party anyway). Even in Germany the AfD now lead the CDU more than the CDU lead the AfD (albeit the governing CDU and SPD still combined outpoll the AfD. While in Japan the LDP PM has gone populist right to see of a rising nationalist party
Tice has tweeted the full list of Conservative politician backers of the new Tory centrists pressure group, ProsperUK.
Includes James Arbuthnot, Greg Barker, Gavin Barwell, Virginia Bottomley, Nick Bourne, Robert Buckland, Elizabeth Campbell, Alex Chalk, Ken Clarke, Ruth Davidson, Jackie Doyle-Price, Alan Duncan, Philip Dunne, Tobias Ellwood, Edward Garnier, David Gauke, John Gummer, Damian Green, Justine Greening, John Gummer, Philip Hammond, Matt Hancock, Greg Hands, Michael Heseltine, Nick Hurd, Margot James, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Johnny Mercer, Bob Neil, Malcolm Rifkind, Amber Rudd, Nicholas Soames, Caroline Spelman, Andy Street, Edward Timpson and Ed Vaizey and David Willetts https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/2016027595767189928?s=20
And they'll none of them be missed, they'll none of them be missed.
Didn't realise the Conservatives had that many decent MPs still left in the Commons. You could easily make a decent Cabinet out of that lot.
New Australian poll has Pauline Hanson's rightwing populist One Nation party now a clear second on the primary vote behind Labor.
The Coalition broke up a few days ago with the Nationals leaving it (their former leader and Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce has joined One Nation) and so the Liberals are now effectively the third party NEW: Federal voting intention
"A senior government figure told The Times: “Realistically we know that we’re going to lose. But it was a question of what was worse: losing a by-election or losing control of Greater Manchester, which would have been a total disaster."
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
To be fair it is just an honest assessment - a by-election (where the MP standing down is doing so not without his own controversies), middle of term, and polls in the gutter. What would you rather self-delusion?
Personally, I can’t understand why this has all blown up. Mr Burnham, albeit he may not have been informed directly, must have known that a decline was on the cards. Was he just trying to force a stand-off? I guess he could argue that by being declined it shows Starmer as scared of him, and presents him as the most realistic challenger. Although I just think, much like his intervention ahead of conference, it just makes him look a bit daft.
Probably needs to spend a bit more time learning from the failure Jacobite Rebellions if he doesn’t want to end up like Bonnie Prince Charlie - fleeing the scene dressed as maid.
Tice has tweeted the full list of Conservative politician backers of the new Tory centrists pressure group, ProsperUK.
Includes James Arbuthnot, Greg Barker, Gavin Barwell, Virginia Bottomley, Nick Bourne, Robert Buckland, Elizabeth Campbell, Alex Chalk, Ken Clarke, Ruth Davidson, Jackie Doyle-Price, Alan Duncan, Philip Dunne, Tobias Ellwood, Edward Garnier, David Gauke, John Gummer, Damian Green, Justine Greening, John Gummer, Philip Hammond, Matt Hancock, Greg Hands, Michael Heseltine, Nick Hurd, Margot James, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Johnny Mercer, Bob Neil, Malcolm Rifkind, Amber Rudd, Nicholas Soames, Caroline Spelman, Andy Street, Edward Timpson and Ed Vaizey and David Willetts https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/2016027595767189928?s=20
Now they are serious politician not a Trump devoted tribute act
Tice has tweeted the full list of Conservative politician backers of the new Tory centrists pressure group, ProsperUK.
Includes James Arbuthnot, Greg Barker, Gavin Barwell, Virginia Bottomley, Nick Bourne, Robert Buckland, Elizabeth Campbell, Alex Chalk, Ken Clarke, Ruth Davidson, Jackie Doyle-Price, Alan Duncan, Philip Dunne, Tobias Ellwood, Edward Garnier, David Gauke, John Gummer, Damian Green, Justine Greening, John Gummer, Philip Hammond, Matt Hancock, Greg Hands, Michael Heseltine, Nick Hurd, Margot James, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Johnny Mercer, Bob Neil, Malcolm Rifkind, Amber Rudd, Nicholas Soames, Caroline Spelman, Andy Street, Edward Timpson and Ed Vaizey and David Willetts https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/2016027595767189928?s=20
And they'll none of them be missed, they'll none of them be missed.
Didn't realise the Conservatives had that many decent MPs still left in the Commons. You could easily make a decent Cabinet out of that lot.
Good job for Labour they're kept under wraps.
None of them are now Tory MPs even if most once were
"A senior government figure told The Times: “Realistically we know that we’re going to lose. But it was a question of what was worse: losing a by-election or losing control of Greater Manchester, which would have been a total disaster."
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
To be fair it is just an honest assessment - a by-election (where the MP standing down is doing so not without his own controversies), middle of term, and polls in the gutter. What would you rather self-delusion?
Personally, I can’t understand why this has all blown up. Mr Burnham, albeit he may not have been informed directly, must have known that a decline was on the cards. Was he just trying to force a stand-off? I guess he could argue that by being declined it shows Starmer as scared of him, and presents him as the most realistic challenger. Although I just think, much like his intervention ahead of conference, it just makes him look a bit daft.
Probably needs to spend a bit more time learning from the failure Jacobite Rebellions if he doesn’t want to end up like Bonnie Prince Charlie - fleeing the scene dressed as maid.
I don't see how it makes him look daft at all, it makes Starmer look frit and afraid (and if the result is bad, then Starmer owns it).
Had he not stood, given the opportunity, Burnham would have looked frit and afraid, considering what was said in the autumn.
Had he stood and lost, he would have looked foolish and a loser.
But by volunteering to stand but by being blocked he keeps his mantle as the main King over the Water, and the main person Starmer is afraid of, without need to go through any risk of losing to Galloway or the Greens.
And no-one knows how that young guy, working solo, does his modelling, anyway. It’s hard to put any trust in a site that has no methodology note or explanation whatsoever.
New Australian poll has Pauline Hanson's rightwing populist One Nation party now a clear second on the primary vote behind Labor.
The Coalition broke up a few days ago with the Nationals leaving it (their former leader and Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce has joined One Nation) and so the Liberals are now effectively the third party NEW: Federal voting intention
And no-one knows how that young guy, working solo, does his modelling, anyway. It’s hard to put any trust in a site that has no methodology note or explanation whatsoever.
We tend to forget how much British polling is a cottage industry. The professionals (eg YouGov) only do it as a shop window for their skills, the agitators[1] (eg FON) do it to try to move the needle, the others (eg ElectionMaps, StatsForLefties, etc) are just one person going "well what happens if we do this..."
[1] for the avoidance of doubt I'm not accusing them of dishonesty or unprofessionalism!
"A senior government figure told The Times: “Realistically we know that we’re going to lose. But it was a question of what was worse: losing a by-election or losing control of Greater Manchester, which would have been a total disaster."
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
To be fair it is just an honest assessment - a by-election (where the MP standing down is doing so not without his own controversies), middle of term, and polls in the gutter. What would you rather self-delusion?
Personally, I can’t understand why this has all blown up. Mr Burnham, albeit he may not have been informed directly, must have known that a decline was on the cards. Was he just trying to force a stand-off? I guess he could argue that by being declined it shows Starmer as scared of him, and presents him as the most realistic challenger. Although I just think, much like his intervention ahead of conference, it just makes him look a bit daft.
Probably needs to spend a bit more time learning from the failure Jacobite Rebellions if he doesn’t want to end up like Bonnie Prince Charlie - fleeing the scene dressed as maid.
Burnham's error was to want to be PM and at the same time not to stand for parliament when everyone else did and when it would have been easy to do so. That smacks of self interest and self absorption.
His second error was then to try to put his own mistake right at huge cost to others and no cost or risk to himself.
None of this is worthy of admiration or support. It makes him completely unsuited to be party leader.
This Aussie poll. What's the 2 pp? That's the only important metric.
Roy Morgan has a January 25th ending poll with Labor 30.5%, One Nation on 22.5%, The Liberals on 20% and Greens on 13%, Independents on 11.5% and Nationals on 2.5%.
"A senior government figure told The Times: “Realistically we know that we’re going to lose. But it was a question of what was worse: losing a by-election or losing control of Greater Manchester, which would have been a total disaster."
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
To be fair it is just an honest assessment - a by-election (where the MP standing down is doing so not without his own controversies), middle of term, and polls in the gutter. What would you rather self-delusion?
Personally, I can’t understand why this has all blown up. Mr Burnham, albeit he may not have been informed directly, must have known that a decline was on the cards. Was he just trying to force a stand-off? I guess he could argue that by being declined it shows Starmer as scared of him, and presents him as the most realistic challenger. Although I just think, much like his intervention ahead of conference, it just makes him look a bit daft.
Probably needs to spend a bit more time learning from the failure Jacobite Rebellions if he doesn’t want to end up like Bonnie Prince Charlie - fleeing the scene dressed as maid.
I don't see how it makes him look daft at all, it makes Starmer look frit and afraid (and if the result is bad, then Starmer owns it).
Had he not stood, given the opportunity, Burnham would have looked frit and afraid, considering what was said in the autumn.
Had he stood and lost, he would have looked foolish and a loser.
But by volunteering to stand but by being blocked he keeps his mantle as the main King over the Water, and the main person Starmer is afraid of, without need to go through any risk of losing to Galloway or the Greens.
I agree the only upside is Burnham can argue that it has made Starmer look scared of him (and arguably gave him the ability to argue “he tried to stand”). But for me it doesn’t follow that given the circs the loss of single by-election is necessarily terrible for Starmer - (although the May elections will be different story).
I agree that he has cemented his place as King over the water (which he probably already had - and let us be honest who else is on the outside of parliament with a similar profile). But what it doesn’t do, in my opinion, is get him any closer to getting over that water. To do that he either has to play within the rules governed by Starmer - or create enough internal rebellion that the only way to staunch that rebellion is to find him a seat. I am not sure that the latest move moves him that much closer.
This Aussie poll. What's the 2 pp? That's the only important metric.
I see most recently. ALP 55-45 over Libs. 57-43 over ONP. 55-45 was the margin at the last election. So not much change. Other than the right doing a Corbyn.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
"A senior government figure told The Times: “Realistically we know that we’re going to lose. But it was a question of what was worse: losing a by-election or losing control of Greater Manchester, which would have been a total disaster."
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
To be fair it is just an honest assessment - a by-election (where the MP standing down is doing so not without his own controversies), middle of term, and polls in the gutter. What would you rather self-delusion?
Personally, I can’t understand why this has all blown up. Mr Burnham, albeit he may not have been informed directly, must have known that a decline was on the cards. Was he just trying to force a stand-off? I guess he could argue that by being declined it shows Starmer as scared of him, and presents him as the most realistic challenger. Although I just think, much like his intervention ahead of conference, it just makes him look a bit daft.
Probably needs to spend a bit more time learning from the failure Jacobite Rebellions if he doesn’t want to end up like Bonnie Prince Charlie - fleeing the scene dressed as maid.
Burnham's error was to want to be PM and at the same time not to stand for parliament when everyone else did and when it would have been easy to do so. That smacks of self interest and self absorption.
His second error was then to try to put his own mistake right at huge cost to others and no cost or risk to himself.
None of this is worthy of admiration or support. It makes him completely unsuited to be party leader.
I don't really understand this take. Surely if he wants to stand to effect a change of direction in an obviously underperforming government he's perfectly entitled to give it a go? He's obviously not alone in that thought. The conclusion seems to be that anyone who thinks they could do better automatically becomes completely unsuited.
Tice has tweeted the full list of Conservative politician backers of the new Tory centrists pressure group, ProsperUK.
Includes James Arbuthnot, Greg Barker, Gavin Barwell, Virginia Bottomley, Nick Bourne, Robert Buckland, Elizabeth Campbell, Alex Chalk, Ken Clarke, Ruth Davidson, Jackie Doyle-Price, Alan Duncan, Philip Dunne, Tobias Ellwood, Edward Garnier, David Gauke, John Gummer, Damian Green, Justine Greening, John Gummer, Philip Hammond, Matt Hancock, Greg Hands, Michael Heseltine, Nick Hurd, Margot James, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Johnny Mercer, Bob Neil, Malcolm Rifkind, Amber Rudd, Nicholas Soames, Caroline Spelman, Andy Street, Edward Timpson and Ed Vaizey and David Willetts https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/2016027595767189928?s=20
And they'll none of them be missed, they'll none of them be missed.
All politics is relative. Try putting together a better list, of similar length, of house trained luminaries capable more or less of running a country for: Reform; Greens; LDs. IMHO it's better than Labour's list, the only other one with which it could be seriously compared. (Obvs the Prosper list is weighted towards retired and older, but it doesn't exhaust the potential.)
Which is why, when you add to it acceptable current front bench Tories (there are some) and some younger up and comings the next election for serious people being Labour v Tory is not yet impossible.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
This Aussie poll. What's the 2 pp? That's the only important metric.
I see most recently. ALP 55-45 over Libs. 57-43 over ONP. 55-45 was the margin at the last election. So not much change. Other than the right doing a Corbyn.
Labor are also down 4% on that poll on the primary vote since the last election, mainly to One Nation
This Aussie poll. What's the 2 pp? That's the only important metric.
Roy Morgan has a January 25th ending poll with Labor 30.5%, One Nation on 22.5%, The Liberals on 20% and Greens on 13%, Independents on 11.5% and Nationals on 2.5%.
This Aussie poll. What's the 2 pp? That's the only important metric.
Roy Morgan has a January 25th ending poll with Labor 30.5%, One Nation on 22.5%, The Liberals on 20% and Greens on 13%, Independents on 11.5% and Nationals on 2.5%.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
"A senior government figure told The Times: “Realistically we know that we’re going to lose. But it was a question of what was worse: losing a by-election or losing control of Greater Manchester, which would have been a total disaster."
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
To be fair it is just an honest assessment - a by-election (where the MP standing down is doing so not without his own controversies), middle of term, and polls in the gutter. What would you rather self-delusion?
Personally, I can’t understand why this has all blown up. Mr Burnham, albeit he may not have been informed directly, must have known that a decline was on the cards. Was he just trying to force a stand-off? I guess he could argue that by being declined it shows Starmer as scared of him, and presents him as the most realistic challenger. Although I just think, much like his intervention ahead of conference, it just makes him look a bit daft.
Probably needs to spend a bit more time learning from the failure Jacobite Rebellions if he doesn’t want to end up like Bonnie Prince Charlie - fleeing the scene dressed as maid.
Burnham's error was to want to be PM and at the same time not to stand for parliament when everyone else did and when it would have been easy to do so. That smacks of self interest and self absorption.
His second error was then to try to put his own mistake right at huge cost to others and no cost or risk to himself.
None of this is worthy of admiration or support. It makes him completely unsuited to be party leader.
I don't really understand this take. Surely if he wants to stand to effect a change of direction in an obviously underperforming government he's perfectly entitled to give it a go? He's obviously not alone in that thought. The conclusion seems to be that anyone who thinks they could do better automatically becomes completely unsuited.
No. You have missed out in your analysis the whole of my argument. All perfectly fine for an MP to do this - say Streeting, Miliband E, or Rayner. Fine for someone to stand for Gorton, win, and then do it who had not already committed themselves to a major Labour cause on a four year contract with the electors of Manchester. (D Miliband would be an example!) Not fine for someone to not become an MP when they properly could make that choice (2024) but then rectify their error in a way which damages their own party.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
"A senior government figure told The Times: “Realistically we know that we’re going to lose. But it was a question of what was worse: losing a by-election or losing control of Greater Manchester, which would have been a total disaster."
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
To be fair it is just an honest assessment - a by-election (where the MP standing down is doing so not without his own controversies), middle of term, and polls in the gutter. What would you rather self-delusion?
Personally, I can’t understand why this has all blown up. Mr Burnham, albeit he may not have been informed directly, must have known that a decline was on the cards. Was he just trying to force a stand-off? I guess he could argue that by being declined it shows Starmer as scared of him, and presents him as the most realistic challenger. Although I just think, much like his intervention ahead of conference, it just makes him look a bit daft.
Probably needs to spend a bit more time learning from the failure Jacobite Rebellions if he doesn’t want to end up like Bonnie Prince Charlie - fleeing the scene dressed as maid.
Burnham's error was to want to be PM and at the same time not to stand for parliament when everyone else did and when it would have been easy to do so. That smacks of self interest and self absorption.
His second error was then to try to put his own mistake right at huge cost to others and no cost or risk to himself.
None of this is worthy of admiration or support. It makes him completely unsuited to be party leader.
I don't really understand this take. Surely if he wants to stand to effect a change of direction in an obviously underperforming government he's perfectly entitled to give it a go? He's obviously not alone in that thought. The conclusion seems to be that anyone who thinks they could do better automatically becomes completely unsuited.
No. You have missed out in your analysis the whole of my argument. All perfectly fine for an MP to do this - say Streeting, Miliband E, or Rayner. Fine for someone to stand for Gorton, win, and then do it who had not already committed themselves to a major Labour cause on a four year contract with the electors of Manchester. (D Miliband would be an example!) Not fine for someone to not become an MP when they properly could make that choice (2024) but then rectify their error in a way which damages their own party.
The major damage to the Party has been from barring him from standing.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
Stay on this site long enough and you do eventually find yourself with some strange bedfellows.
I have occasionally found myself agreeing with Leon, and MalcolmG, although I use a nom de plume, of course.
The news out of Evesham just gets worse. The floods and the endless rain, but now sheep exploding? And babies in platform shoes?
Also wtf are ICE doing in Kidderminster, shooting at nuclear dwarves and it turns out Joanna Lumley was a simulation all along, made by the tony Blair institute for the turkmen president of cheese
Apart from the fact, pointed out by Michael Crick, that Reform MP Danny Kruger’s mother was responsible for British Rail’s catering, this tweet from Richard Tice is surely too close to being applicable to his own party for it to be a useful thing to say
Prosper UK launch!
Like a soggy stale sandwich from the old British Rail
All the Tory Wets who screwed up the UK over last 15 yrs have got together to remind each other how they messed it up 🤣🤣
"A senior government figure told The Times: “Realistically we know that we’re going to lose. But it was a question of what was worse: losing a by-election or losing control of Greater Manchester, which would have been a total disaster."
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
To be fair it is just an honest assessment - a by-election (where the MP standing down is doing so not without his own controversies), middle of term, and polls in the gutter. What would you rather self-delusion?
Personally, I can’t understand why this has all blown up. Mr Burnham, albeit he may not have been informed directly, must have known that a decline was on the cards. Was he just trying to force a stand-off? I guess he could argue that by being declined it shows Starmer as scared of him, and presents him as the most realistic challenger. Although I just think, much like his intervention ahead of conference, it just makes him look a bit daft.
Probably needs to spend a bit more time learning from the failure Jacobite Rebellions if he doesn’t want to end up like Bonnie Prince Charlie - fleeing the scene dressed as maid.
Burnham's error was to want to be PM and at the same time not to stand for parliament when everyone else did and when it would have been easy to do so. That smacks of self interest and self absorption.
His second error was then to try to put his own mistake right at huge cost to others and no cost or risk to himself.
None of this is worthy of admiration or support. It makes him completely unsuited to be party leader.
I don't really understand this take. Surely if he wants to stand to effect a change of direction in an obviously underperforming government he's perfectly entitled to give it a go? He's obviously not alone in that thought. The conclusion seems to be that anyone who thinks they could do better automatically becomes completely unsuited.
No. You have missed out in your analysis the whole of my argument. All perfectly fine for an MP to do this - say Streeting, Miliband E, or Rayner. Fine for someone to stand for Gorton, win, and then do it who had not already committed themselves to a major Labour cause on a four year contract with the electors of Manchester. (D Miliband would be an example!) Not fine for someone to not become an MP when they properly could make that choice (2024) but then rectify their error in a way which damages their own party.
People are entitled to seek to change careers or roles at a time that suits them.
Mayors have previously run for Parliament mid-term (see: Boris), MPs have sought to take the Chiltern Hundreds and become Mayors mid-term (many, many examples).
Reform really couldn’t organise a pregnancy on a council estate (which sums up Trashton)
EXCLUSIVE: Reform MP Lee Anderson mocked by Angela Rayner over major by-election blunder
Lee Anderson shared photos of himself campaigning for the Gorton and Denton by-election outside Stanley House Function Rooms - which is in the wrong constituency
Apart from the fact, pointed out by Michael Crick, that Reform MP Danny Kruger’s mother was responsible for British Rail’s catering, this tweet from Richard Tice is surely too close to being applicable to his own party for it to be a useful thing to say
Prosper UK launch!
Like a soggy stale sandwich from the old British Rail
All the Tory Wets who screwed up the UK over last 15 yrs have got together to remind each other how they messed it up 🤣🤣
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
I wasn't really aware of it but apparently it's a big festering sore. Her's is one of the new trendy flats in Manchester. I also heard this week separately that people were moving from far and wide into central Manchester because it's the trendiest place to be and she's just moving there from Nice! A place ironically known as New Islington.
The news out of Evesham just gets worse. The floods and the endless rain, but now sheep exploding? And babies in platform shoes?
Also wtf are ICE doing in Kidderminster, shooting at nuclear dwarves and it turns out Joanna Lumley was a simulation all along, made by the tony Blair institute for the turkmen president of cheese
Are you in Sri Lanka for the Test, eaten something with a very red wine sauce lunch or have you just started incredibly early?
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
And if you sell they charge a percentage of the sale price. Or certainly did
Apart from the fact, pointed out by Michael Crick, that Reform MP Danny Kruger’s mother was responsible for British Rail’s catering, this tweet from Richard Tice is surely too close to being applicable to his own party for it to be a useful thing to say
Prosper UK launch!
Like a soggy stale sandwich from the old British Rail
All the Tory Wets who screwed up the UK over last 15 yrs have got together to remind each other how they messed it up 🤣🤣
Regardless of the content, I'm not sure why Tice is giving free publicity to 'Prosper UK', helping with their brand recognition which is thus far invisible. I question his political judgement.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
I wasn't really aware of it but apparently it's a big festering sore. Her's is one of the new trendy flats in Manchester. I also heard this week separately that people were moving from far and wide into central Manchester because it's the trendiest place to be and she's just moving there from Nice! A place ironically known as New Islington.
I think Central Manchester is ace (including New Islington). And it's getting better. But I recognise I am a bit one-eyed about this. But even I am surprised at its desirability to people half a generation younger than me. It's like absolute catnip.
"A senior government figure told The Times: “Realistically we know that we’re going to lose. But it was a question of what was worse: losing a by-election or losing control of Greater Manchester, which would have been a total disaster."
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
To be fair it is just an honest assessment - a by-election (where the MP standing down is doing so not without his own controversies), middle of term, and polls in the gutter. What would you rather self-delusion?
Personally, I can’t understand why this has all blown up. Mr Burnham, albeit he may not have been informed directly, must have known that a decline was on the cards. Was he just trying to force a stand-off? I guess he could argue that by being declined it shows Starmer as scared of him, and presents him as the most realistic challenger. Although I just think, much like his intervention ahead of conference, it just makes him look a bit daft.
Probably needs to spend a bit more time learning from the failure Jacobite Rebellions if he doesn’t want to end up like Bonnie Prince Charlie - fleeing the scene dressed as maid.
Burnham's error was to want to be PM and at the same time not to stand for parliament when everyone else did and when it would have been easy to do so. That smacks of self interest and self absorption.
His second error was then to try to put his own mistake right at huge cost to others and no cost or risk to himself.
None of this is worthy of admiration or support. It makes him completely unsuited to be party leader.
I don't really understand this take. Surely if he wants to stand to effect a change of direction in an obviously underperforming government he's perfectly entitled to give it a go? He's obviously not alone in that thought. The conclusion seems to be that anyone who thinks they could do better automatically becomes completely unsuited.
No. You have missed out in your analysis the whole of my argument. All perfectly fine for an MP to do this - say Streeting, Miliband E, or Rayner. Fine for someone to stand for Gorton, win, and then do it who had not already committed themselves to a major Labour cause on a four year contract with the electors of Manchester. (D Miliband would be an example!) Not fine for someone to not become an MP when they properly could make that choice (2024) but then rectify their error in a way which damages their own party.
People are entitled to seek to change careers or roles at a time that suits them.
Mayors have previously run for Parliament mid-term (see: Boris), MPs have sought to take the Chiltern Hundreds and become Mayors mid-term (many, many examples).
Yep, but Labour rules are clear that you have to have NEC approval for such a run: “Combined or Single Authority Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners must seek the express permission of the NEC/SEC/WEC (as applicable) before seeking nomination as Labour candidates for the Westminster Parliament. The NEC/SEC/WEC’s decision shall be final”
Similarly if Labour MPs want become Mayor they can “ but only with the express permission of the Commons Chief Whip and, as relevant, either the NEC, SEC or WEC whose decision shall be final.”
Apart from the fact, pointed out by Michael Crick, that Reform MP Danny Kruger’s mother was responsible for British Rail’s catering, this tweet from Richard Tice is surely too close to being applicable to his own party for it to be a useful thing to say
Prosper UK launch!
Like a soggy stale sandwich from the old British Rail
All the Tory Wets who screwed up the UK over last 15 yrs have got together to remind each other how they messed it up 🤣🤣
I don't particularly believe the "every accusation is a confession" line, but there is an element of that in Ticey's comments.
Reform has tended to hoover up the Conservatives who screwed up recently, whereas Prosper UK is Conservatives who screwed up longer ago. Indeed, the bigger names on the list are people who were screwing up in the Thatcher/Major years.
Whereas Kemi's Conservatives are the ones who are screwing up now.
(Serious point, and bearing in mind that these are my kind of people... It's all very well having big names from the past, and bigger names from the distant past, but without any currently electorally active Conservative politicians, is there much point? And I know that there aren't many currently active Conservative politicians, let alone ones looking towards the centre, not the right.)
Has anybody else been following the steady decline of the US$ against the £ and Euro?
I assume this is just the markets giving their opinion of the way the Trump bunch are managing their economy and not a tribute to the prowess of our economic stewards this side of the pond. We are getting close to an exchange rate of 1.40. How long before we see a Mail headline to the effect of 'Starmer/Reeves Dash UK Export Hopes'?
Apart from the fact, pointed out by Michael Crick, that Reform MP Danny Kruger’s mother was responsible for British Rail’s catering, this tweet from Richard Tice is surely too close to being applicable to his own party for it to be a useful thing to say
Prosper UK launch!
Like a soggy stale sandwich from the old British Rail
All the Tory Wets who screwed up the UK over last 15 yrs have got together to remind each other how they messed it up 🤣🤣
The problem with taking all these defectors is that you then have to concede that there were good Tories and bad Tories, but that then becomes a rather fussy claim for a movement whose raison d'être is the sweeping away the entirety of the corrupt, rotten old order. And you're also, by definition, taking people who were so crap in government they could do nothing to halt the decline they claim now to abhor. It's a problem Nigel shouldn't really be having.
"A senior government figure told The Times: “Realistically we know that we’re going to lose. But it was a question of what was worse: losing a by-election or losing control of Greater Manchester, which would have been a total disaster."
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
To be fair it is just an honest assessment - a by-election (where the MP standing down is doing so not without his own controversies), middle of term, and polls in the gutter. What would you rather self-delusion?
Personally, I can’t understand why this has all blown up. Mr Burnham, albeit he may not have been informed directly, must have known that a decline was on the cards. Was he just trying to force a stand-off? I guess he could argue that by being declined it shows Starmer as scared of him, and presents him as the most realistic challenger. Although I just think, much like his intervention ahead of conference, it just makes him look a bit daft.
Probably needs to spend a bit more time learning from the failure Jacobite Rebellions if he doesn’t want to end up like Bonnie Prince Charlie - fleeing the scene dressed as maid.
Burnham's error was to want to be PM and at the same time not to stand for parliament when everyone else did and when it would have been easy to do so. That smacks of self interest and self absorption.
His second error was then to try to put his own mistake right at huge cost to others and no cost or risk to himself.
None of this is worthy of admiration or support. It makes him completely unsuited to be party leader.
I don't really understand this take. Surely if he wants to stand to effect a change of direction in an obviously underperforming government he's perfectly entitled to give it a go? He's obviously not alone in that thought. The conclusion seems to be that anyone who thinks they could do better automatically becomes completely unsuited.
No. You have missed out in your analysis the whole of my argument. All perfectly fine for an MP to do this - say Streeting, Miliband E, or Rayner. Fine for someone to stand for Gorton, win, and then do it who had not already committed themselves to a major Labour cause on a four year contract with the electors of Manchester. (D Miliband would be an example!) Not fine for someone to not become an MP when they properly could make that choice (2024) but then rectify their error in a way which damages their own party.
People are entitled to seek to change careers or roles at a time that suits them.
Mayors have previously run for Parliament mid-term (see: Boris), MPs have sought to take the Chiltern Hundreds and become Mayors mid-term (many, many examples).
If dealing with entitlements or rights, of course I agree with you. We have the entitlement or right to be as selfish and damaging as we like within the law. I am thinking of the stuff of loyalty, duty, responsibility, thinking about the wider picture and the interests of others; all that old fashioned stuff without which civil society dies and you get Trump and Trumpism.
An, by the way, if speaking of rights or entitlements, the NEC has the right or entitlement to block him standing for Labour in the election. Others have rights too.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
Put me down for disagreeing. The M&S approach does cost the client but those costs are clearly set out beforehand and the company are well enough established for DYOR. Suggesting the state should somehow interfere in yet another property issue is an invite to them and subsequent governments to move to more interference in a contract between parties. There is no imbalance only a lot of post cognitive dissonance about the contract they read but want to interpret in a different way. You might describe this as Trumpian.
"A senior government figure told The Times: “Realistically we know that we’re going to lose. But it was a question of what was worse: losing a by-election or losing control of Greater Manchester, which would have been a total disaster."
Congratulations! You have literally just written the Green Party's by-election leaflets for them.
Once again, the question to Team Starmer is "have you ever considered just being a little less shit"?
To be fair it is just an honest assessment - a by-election (where the MP standing down is doing so not without his own controversies), middle of term, and polls in the gutter. What would you rather self-delusion?
Personally, I can’t understand why this has all blown up. Mr Burnham, albeit he may not have been informed directly, must have known that a decline was on the cards. Was he just trying to force a stand-off? I guess he could argue that by being declined it shows Starmer as scared of him, and presents him as the most realistic challenger. Although I just think, much like his intervention ahead of conference, it just makes him look a bit daft.
Probably needs to spend a bit more time learning from the failure Jacobite Rebellions if he doesn’t want to end up like Bonnie Prince Charlie - fleeing the scene dressed as maid.
Burnham's error was to want to be PM and at the same time not to stand for parliament when everyone else did and when it would have been easy to do so. That smacks of self interest and self absorption.
His second error was then to try to put his own mistake right at huge cost to others and no cost or risk to himself.
None of this is worthy of admiration or support. It makes him completely unsuited to be party leader.
I don't really understand this take. Surely if he wants to stand to effect a change of direction in an obviously underperforming government he's perfectly entitled to give it a go? He's obviously not alone in that thought. The conclusion seems to be that anyone who thinks they could do better automatically becomes completely unsuited.
No. You have missed out in your analysis the whole of my argument. All perfectly fine for an MP to do this - say Streeting, Miliband E, or Rayner. Fine for someone to stand for Gorton, win, and then do it who had not already committed themselves to a major Labour cause on a four year contract with the electors of Manchester. (D Miliband would be an example!) Not fine for someone to not become an MP when they properly could make that choice (2024) but then rectify their error in a way which damages their own party.
People are entitled to seek to change careers or roles at a time that suits them.
Mayors have previously run for Parliament mid-term (see: Boris), MPs have sought to take the Chiltern Hundreds and become Mayors mid-term (many, many examples).
Yep, but Labour rules are clear that you have to have NEC approval for such a run: “Combined or Single Authority Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners must seek the express permission of the NEC/SEC/WEC (as applicable) before seeking nomination as Labour candidates for the Westminster Parliament. The NEC/SEC/WEC’s decision shall be final”
Similarly if Labour MPs want become Mayor they can “ but only with the express permission of the Commons Chief Whip and, as relevant, either the NEC, SEC or WEC whose decision shall be final.”
It could all have been sorted out in a very quick, very private, phone call:
"Hi, It's Andy from Manchester. Gissa by-election- I could win a by-election." "Piss off. That's a really bad idea. If you want to be helpful, be helpful by being Mayor of Manchester."
It wasn't sorted that way because the purpose of the farrago was to have a farrago. Things aren't in the news because they are newsworthy, they are in the news because someone wants them to be in the news.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
I wasn't really aware of it but apparently it's a big festering sore. Her's is one of the new trendy flats in Manchester. I also heard this week separately that people were moving from far and wide into central Manchester because it's the trendiest place to be and she's just moving there from Nice! A place ironically known as New Islington.
I think Central Manchester is ace (including New Islington). And it's getting better. But I recognise I am a bit one-eyed about this. But even I am surprised at its desirability to people half a generation younger than me. It's like absolute catnip.
Son and daughter in law have just moved there and love it. Mind you he was previously in Reading, but she's from Singapore so her approval is maybe a bit more surprising.
Has anybody else been following the steady decline of the US$ against the £ and Euro?
I assume this is just the markets giving their opinion of the way the Trump bunch are managing their economy and not a tribute to the prowess of our economic stewards this side of the pond. We are getting close to an exchange rate of 1.40. How long before we see a Mail headline to the effect of 'Starmer/Reeves Dash UK Export Hopes'?
Coupled with tariffs, that will do US inflation no favours, but presumably will help on this side by reducing fuel prices.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
Put me down for disagreeing. The M&S approach does cost the client but those costs are clearly set out beforehand and the company are well enough established for DYOR. Suggesting the state should somehow interfere in yet another property issue is an invite to them and subsequent governments to move to more interference in a contract between parties. There is no imbalance only a lot of post cognitive dissonance about the contract they read but want to interpret in a different way. You might describe this as Trumpian.
Hm, OK, I do take your point. Personally I'm excited by the final destination i.e. that you can properly own a flat. So I'm not really thinking abou the practicalities of how we get there, which you rightly point out are tricky to navigate. Flats are a great solution: we need to be able to live at density. But their big drawback is that you can't genuinely 'own' a flat because of the question of who owns the land underneath it. I would consider having a leasehold with a ticking clock a timebomb. I must confess I don't fully know how leasehold works because I have always owned freehold. How does it work in Scotland, where people seem to be able to own flats much more happily? Is there a different approach to leasehold there?
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
Put me down for disagreeing. The M&S approach does cost the client but those costs are clearly set out beforehand and the company are well enough established for DYOR. Suggesting the state should somehow interfere in yet another property issue is an invite to them and subsequent governments to move to more interference in a contract between parties. There is no imbalance only a lot of post cognitive dissonance about the contract they read but want to interpret in a different way. You might describe this as Trumpian.
The perceived issue with ‘retirement properties’ isn’t generally to do with ground rent, it’s related to very high service charges.
The news out of Evesham just gets worse. The floods and the endless rain, but now sheep exploding? And babies in platform shoes?
Also wtf are ICE doing in Kidderminster, shooting at nuclear dwarves and it turns out Joanna Lumley was a simulation all along, made by the tony Blair institute for the turkmen president of cheese
Are you in Sri Lanka for the Test, eaten something with a very red wine sauce lunch or have you just started incredibly early?
Tice has tweeted the full list of Conservative politician backers of the new Tory centrists pressure group, ProsperUK.
Includes James Arbuthnot, Greg Barker, Gavin Barwell, Virginia Bottomley, Nick Bourne, Robert Buckland, Elizabeth Campbell, Alex Chalk, Ken Clarke, Ruth Davidson, Jackie Doyle-Price, Alan Duncan, Philip Dunne, Tobias Ellwood, Edward Garnier, David Gauke, John Gummer, Damian Green, Justine Greening, John Gummer, Philip Hammond, Matt Hancock, Greg Hands, Michael Heseltine, Nick Hurd, Margot James, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Johnny Mercer, Bob Neil, Malcolm Rifkind, Amber Rudd, Nicholas Soames, Caroline Spelman, Andy Street, Edward Timpson and Ed Vaizey and David Willetts https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/2016027595767189928?s=20
And they'll none of them be missed, they'll none of them be missed.
Didn't realise the Conservatives had that many decent MPs still left in the Commons. You could easily make a decent Cabinet out of that lot.
Good job for Labour they're kept under wraps.
None of them are now Tory MPs even if most once were
Must admit I was surprised Huyfd, but I didn't check. Thank you for correcting me.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
And if you sell they charge a percentage of the sale price. Or certainly did
Something reasonable like 15%
If you had to choose a single company to exemplify everything that is wrong with private enterprise in Britain it would be McCarthy & Stone.
They're the sort of company that a Conservative government would traditionally have in their crosshairs for giving the rest of capitalism a bad name.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
I wasn't really aware of it but apparently it's a big festering sore. Her's is one of the new trendy flats in Manchester. I also heard this week separately that people were moving from far and wide into central Manchester because it's the trendiest place to be and she's just moving there from Nice! A place ironically known as New Islington.
I think Central Manchester is ace (including New Islington). And it's getting better. But I recognise I am a bit one-eyed about this. But even I am surprised at its desirability to people half a generation younger than me. It's like absolute catnip.
Son and daughter in law have just moved there and love it. Mind you he was previously in Reading, but she's from Singapore so her approval is maybe a bit more surprising.
Niece from Hampshire moved into the Gay Village three months ago. She commutes to Knowsley every day by train. Wouldn't dream of living anywhere else now.
Off topic, but of interest to many of you -- and to informed Americans: The basic facts from the Associated Press on the 20th:
LONDON — Britain’s government on Tuesday approved a huge new Chinese Embassy in central London, despite strong criticism from lawmakers across the political spectrum that it could become a base for espionage and intimidation of opponents.
Local Government Secretary Steve Reed formally signed off on plans for the building near the Tower of London, after years of delays and legal challenges.
The British government’s approval on Tuesday of a huge new Chinese Embassy at the site of the former Royal Mint, opposite the Tower of London, is a decision that betrays Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s weakness.
Over the past year and a half, the government has insisted that Britain’s security services can cope with the presence of a super-embassy (at 215,278 square feet, the largest in Europe) serving the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. Yet, on the very day the planning permission was announced, Ken McCallum, director general of the domestic security service MI5, and Anne Keast-Butler, head of the electronic intelligence agency GCHQ, signed a joint letter to ministers warning that “it is not realistic to expect to be able wholly to eliminate” security threats posed by the embassy.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
Put me down for disagreeing. The M&S approach does cost the client but those costs are clearly set out beforehand and the company are well enough established for DYOR. Suggesting the state should somehow interfere in yet another property issue is an invite to them and subsequent governments to move to more interference in a contract between parties. There is no imbalance only a lot of post cognitive dissonance about the contract they read but want to interpret in a different way. You might describe this as Trumpian.
The perceived issue with ‘retirement properties’ isn’t generally to do with ground rent, it’s related to very high service charges.
For example they charge you a fee to consider whether they will let you make alterations to the property that you supposedly own.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
Put me down for disagreeing. The M&S approach does cost the client but those costs are clearly set out beforehand and the company are well enough established for DYOR. Suggesting the state should somehow interfere in yet another property issue is an invite to them and subsequent governments to move to more interference in a contract between parties. There is no imbalance only a lot of post cognitive dissonance about the contract they read but want to interpret in a different way. You might describe this as Trumpian.
The perceived issue with ‘retirement properties’ isn’t generally to do with ground rent, it’s related to very high service charges.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
And if you sell they charge a percentage of the sale price. Or certainly did
Something reasonable like 15%
If you had to choose a single company to exemplify everything that is wrong with private enterprise in Britain it would be McCarthy & Stone.
They're the sort of company that a Conservative government would traditionally have in their crosshairs for giving the rest of capitalism a bad name.
Don't be silly. They're high up, but for the 'single company to exemplify everything that's wrong' they can get in line behind Thames Water and Centrica.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
And if you sell they charge a percentage of the sale price. Or certainly did
Something reasonable like 15%
If you had to choose a single company to exemplify everything that is wrong with private enterprise in Britain it would be McCarthy & Stone.
They're the sort of company that a Conservative government would traditionally have in their crosshairs for giving the rest of capitalism a bad name.
Don't be silly. They're high up, but for the 'single company to exemplify everything that's wrong' they can get in line behind Thames Water and Centrica.
Never worked for Thames Water, but I did a short spell at Centrica. Its employees seemed to spend most of the day gathered in small groups discussing company politics.
And no-one knows how that young guy, working solo, does his modelling, anyway. It’s hard to put any trust in a site that has no methodology note or explanation whatsoever.
We tend to forget how much British polling is a cottage industry. The professionals (eg YouGov) only do it as a shop window for their skills, the agitators[1] (eg FON) do it to try to move the needle, the others (eg ElectionMaps, StatsForLefties, etc) are just one person going "well what happens if we do this..."
[1] for the avoidance of doubt I'm not accusing them of dishonesty or unprofessionalism!
The last thing any political better should want is a widespread culture of basic competence in analysis! Lets keep everything amateurish please so extracting money remains relatively easy for the hobbyist (polymarket is an interesting cautionary tale there)
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
And if you sell they charge a percentage of the sale price. Or certainly did
Something reasonable like 15%
If you had to choose a single company to exemplify everything that is wrong with private enterprise in Britain it would be McCarthy & Stone.
They're the sort of company that a Conservative government would traditionally have in their crosshairs for giving the rest of capitalism a bad name.
Don't be silly. They're high up, but for the 'single company to exemplify everything that's wrong' they can get in line behind Thames Water and Centrica.
Never worked for Thames Water, but I did a short spell at Centrica. Its employees seemed to spend most of the day gathered in small groups discussing company politics.
Given the last Conservative govt created a lot of opportunities for companies that give capitalism a bad name it seems unlikely they'd do anything about McCarthy and Stone.
The news out of Evesham just gets worse. The floods and the endless rain, but now sheep exploding? And babies in platform shoes?
Also wtf are ICE doing in Kidderminster, shooting at nuclear dwarves and it turns out Joanna Lumley was a simulation all along, made by the tony Blair institute for the turkmen president of cheese
Are you in Sri Lanka for the Test, eaten something with a very red wine sauce lunch or have you just started incredibly early?
Oh, what an amazingly beautiful vibe I think I'm gonna get in the bath with my shoes on 'Cause, like, it won't make any difference, right Oh, wow! Hey, I feel like I'm just, like, floating Is anyone lighting a Joss stick? I must be a pretty amazing guy, right To have dreamed all this Maybe it's 'cause I ate all that cheese I found Under the cooker Oh no, hang on Oh, I must be back in reality again Oh no, look at all that washing up Heavy
@jaheale.bsky.social · 4m New: Reform UK unveil Matt Goodwin as their candidate for Denton and Gorton
Solid media performer. Stands a good chance
Impressively smart man. Would make a good minister
Fair play to Farage, he’s done his homework this time and recruiting genuine talent
Only problem, Goodwin needs to win and this isn’t natural Reform territory. Hmm
Seems to be on a JD Vance type trajectory. Just what we need.
Goodwin used to be in the organisation "Hope not Hate" ..🤨 I wonder why no-one in the mainstream media picks up on his seemingly Damascene conversion..🧐😏
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
Put me down for disagreeing. The M&S approach does cost the client but those costs are clearly set out beforehand and the company are well enough established for DYOR. Suggesting the state should somehow interfere in yet another property issue is an invite to them and subsequent governments to move to more interference in a contract between parties. There is no imbalance only a lot of post cognitive dissonance about the contract they read but want to interpret in a different way. You might describe this as Trumpian.
The perceived issue with ‘retirement properties’ isn’t generally to do with ground rent, it’s related to very high service charges.
My grandmother lived out her days in a McCarthy and Stone flat in a little village outside Manchester. She absolutely loved it.
Matt Goodwin, Reform UK's candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election, was the first guest on the Liz Truss Show
Probably too many divisive social-media posts for his opponents' leaflets. Reform should have gone for some dull-but-reliable local everyman 'don't know much about politics but I know what I like' type.
@jaheale.bsky.social · 4m New: Reform UK unveil Matt Goodwin as their candidate for Denton and Gorton
That's not funny.
Jokes have to be vaguely plausible. And surely no party would be mad enough to have Matt Goodwin as a a candidate in a random seat in the North.
Why, that's the sort of party that would hire discredited total failures like Zahawi, Jenrick and Braverman, and Reform have been consistent in refusing to work with the...oh gosh.
@jaheale.bsky.social · 4m New: Reform UK unveil Matt Goodwin as their candidate for Denton and Gorton
Solid media performer. Stands a good chance
Impressively smart man. Would make a good minister
Fair play to Farage, he’s done his homework this time and recruiting genuine talent
Only problem, Goodwin needs to win and this isn’t natural Reform territory. Hmm
Seems to be on a JD Vance type trajectory. Just what we need.
Goodwin used to be in the organisation "Hope not Hate" ..🤨 I wonder why no-one in the mainstream media picks up on his seemingly Damascene conversion..🧐😏
He and Jenrick have both "been on a journey".. to be fair, I went from being an idealistic lefty as a teenager to a UKIP member in my thirties, so I am in no position to question their authenticity. When I saw Jenrick's press conference last week it came to mind that he and Goodwin have a similar way of speaking, a kind of overbite perhaps?
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
Put me down for disagreeing. The M&S approach does cost the client but those costs are clearly set out beforehand and the company are well enough established for DYOR. Suggesting the state should somehow interfere in yet another property issue is an invite to them and subsequent governments to move to more interference in a contract between parties. There is no imbalance only a lot of post cognitive dissonance about the contract they read but want to interpret in a different way. You might describe this as Trumpian.
The perceived issue with ‘retirement properties’ isn’t generally to do with ground rent, it’s related to very high service charges.
For example they charge you a fee to consider whether they will let you make alterations to the property that you supposedly own.
It's long term renting, there are good reasons for it, some leaseholders would happily knock out a supporting wall.
On the changes to the leasehold system, I've rarely seen such unanimous support for ending it completely. The government needs to put two fingers up at the "investors" and move to completely eliminate ground rents. The leeches can put their money into equities rather than these nonsense asset classes that carry no risk.
Surprised to see you advocating asset theft.
It's an asset class that should never have existed in the first place, similar to water companies. Ending a gravy train isn't asset theft.
A friend got in touch about this and was positively excited. She asked if it was retrospective as she has just paid a large ground rent. Apparently they are massiverly unpopular in her block where they even have another charge when you move.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Is this a McCarthy and Stone type of old people residents block ?
I don't know McCarthy and Stone or what they are but she's not old and the block she lives in is quite new and very nice
To over-simplify slightly, they develop blocks for the over 55s.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
Put me down for disagreeing. The M&S approach does cost the client but those costs are clearly set out beforehand and the company are well enough established for DYOR. Suggesting the state should somehow interfere in yet another property issue is an invite to them and subsequent governments to move to more interference in a contract between parties. There is no imbalance only a lot of post cognitive dissonance about the contract they read but want to interpret in a different way. You might describe this as Trumpian.
The perceived issue with ‘retirement properties’ isn’t generally to do with ground rent, it’s related to very high service charges.
My grandmother lived out her days in a McCarthy and Stone flat in a little village outside Manchester. She absolutely loved it.
I understand most of the problems don't apply to the resident themselves but to their inheritors, in that there is no residual value.
Comments
A favourite was the candidate who claimed that “Norwegian homosexuals” were mind controlling the government.
Pauline Hanson is deeply stupid and demented in way that reminds one of Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Good job for Labour they're kept under wraps.
Personally, I can’t understand why this has all blown up. Mr Burnham, albeit he may not have been informed directly, must have known that a decline was on the cards. Was he just trying to force a stand-off? I guess he could argue that by being declined it shows Starmer as scared of him, and presents him as the most realistic challenger. Although I just think, much like his intervention ahead of conference, it just makes him look a bit daft.
Probably needs to spend a bit more time learning from the failure Jacobite Rebellions if he doesn’t want to end up like Bonnie Prince Charlie - fleeing the scene dressed as maid.
98 by Brook.
69 off the last four.
Just one from Root.
Had he not stood, given the opportunity, Burnham would have looked frit and afraid, considering what was said in the autumn.
Had he stood and lost, he would have looked foolish and a loser.
But by volunteering to stand but by being blocked he keeps his mantle as the main King over the Water, and the main person Starmer is afraid of, without need to go through any risk of losing to Galloway or the Greens.
*Grabs tinfoil hat and dives for cover.'
What's the 2 pp?
That's the only important metric.
[1] for the avoidance of doubt I'm not accusing them of dishonesty or unprofessionalism!
His second error was then to try to put his own mistake right at huge cost to others and no cost or risk to himself.
None of this is worthy of admiration or support. It makes him completely unsuited to be party leader.
On 2PP they had ALP 56.5% and LNP 43.5%
https://web.archive.org/web/20260127081648/https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/federal-voting-intention-late-january-alp-increases-two-party-preferred-lead-as-one-nation-overtakes-the-liberal-party-for-the-first-time-as-coalition-splits
Fox and Hedgehog though has a 2PP of ALP 53% and LNP 47% compared to a wider ALP 63% and One Nation 37% if One Nation are the main ALP opponents in most seats
https://archive.ph/20260110020946/https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/one-nation-triples-support-as-voters-abandon-major-parties-in-wake-of-bondi-attack/news-story/c37062f5d16737e2371c32829471503d?amp
A Yougov poll today has even more dramatic figures of Labor 31%, One Nation 25%, Liberal 14%, Greens 12%, Independent 6%, LNP 4%, Nationals just 2%.
https://archive.ph/2026.01.27-102654/https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/pauline-hansons-one-nation-could-form-opposition-if-an-election-were-held-today-sky-news-pulse-reveals/news-story/43b93b2bc0936232a70553f2cea09a83
I agree that he has cemented his place as King over the water (which he probably already had - and let us be honest who else is on the outside of parliament with a similar profile). But what it doesn’t do, in my opinion, is get him any closer to getting over that water. To do that he either has to play within the rules governed by Starmer - or create enough internal rebellion that the only way to staunch that rebellion is to find him a seat. I am not sure that the latest move moves him that much closer.
ALP 55-45 over Libs.
57-43 over ONP.
55-45 was the margin at the last election. So not much change.
Other than the right doing a Corbyn.
'Starmer gets rid of Rachmanism!' has got a nice vote winning ring to it.
Surely if he wants to stand to effect a change of direction in an obviously underperforming government he's perfectly entitled to give it a go?
He's obviously not alone in that thought.
The conclusion seems to be that anyone who thinks they could do better automatically becomes completely unsuited.
Which is why, when you add to it acceptable current front bench Tories (there are some) and some younger up and comings the next election for serious people being Labour v Tory is not yet impossible.
Fun to have Max and Roger on the same page on an issue (and me, FWIW). (Which almost certainly means it's got almost no chance of the government picking this one up.)
I have occasionally found myself agreeing with Leon, and MalcolmG, although I use a nom de plume, of course.
Also wtf are ICE doing in Kidderminster, shooting at nuclear dwarves and it turns out Joanna Lumley was a simulation all along, made by the tony Blair institute for the turkmen president of cheese
It will be your fault.
6.4 on Betfair.
Prosper UK launch!
Like a soggy stale sandwich from the old British Rail
All the Tory Wets who screwed up the UK over last 15 yrs have got together to remind each other how they messed it up 🤣🤣
https://x.com/ticerichard/status/2016027595767189928?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Mayors have previously run for Parliament mid-term (see: Boris), MPs have sought to take the Chiltern Hundreds and become Mayors mid-term (many, many examples).
EXCLUSIVE: Reform MP Lee Anderson mocked by Angela Rayner over major by-election blunder
Lee Anderson shared photos of himself campaigning for the Gorton and Denton by-election outside Stanley House Function Rooms - which is in the wrong constituency
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/reform-mp-lee-anderson-mocked-36620527#
I've travelled on the ECML regularly for 35+ years and also remember the catering to be decent.
The days of british rail sandwiches being awful is prior to 1985...
Something reasonable like 15%
I question his political judgement.
But even I am surprised at its desirability to people half a generation younger than me. It's like absolute catnip.
Authority Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners must seek the express permission of the NEC/SEC/WEC (as applicable) before seeking nomination as Labour candidates for the Westminster Parliament. The NEC/SEC/WEC’s decision shall be final”
Similarly if Labour MPs want become Mayor they can “ but only with the express permission of the Commons Chief
Whip and, as relevant, either the NEC, SEC or WEC whose decision shall be final.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/27/labour-gorton-denton-byelection-campaign-councillors-whatsapp-chat
Reform has tended to hoover up the Conservatives who screwed up recently, whereas Prosper UK is Conservatives who screwed up longer ago. Indeed, the bigger names on the list are people who were screwing up in the Thatcher/Major years.
Whereas Kemi's Conservatives are the ones who are screwing up now.
(Serious point, and bearing in mind that these are my kind of people... It's all very well having big names from the past, and bigger names from the distant past, but without any currently electorally active Conservative politicians, is there much point? And I know that there aren't many currently active Conservative politicians, let alone ones looking towards the centre, not the right.)
I assume this is just the markets giving their opinion of the way the Trump bunch are managing their economy and not a tribute to the prowess of our economic stewards this side of the pond. We are getting close to an exchange rate of 1.40. How long before we see a Mail headline to the effect of 'Starmer/Reeves Dash UK Export Hopes'?
An, by the way, if speaking of rights or entitlements, the NEC has the right or entitlement to block him standing for Labour in the election. Others have rights too.
"Hi, It's Andy from Manchester. Gissa by-election- I could win a by-election."
"Piss off. That's a really bad idea. If you want to be helpful, be helpful by being Mayor of Manchester."
It wasn't sorted that way because the purpose of the farrago was to have a farrago. Things aren't in the news because they are newsworthy, they are in the news because someone wants them to be in the news.
Flats are a great solution: we need to be able to live at density. But their big drawback is that you can't genuinely 'own' a flat because of the question of who owns the land underneath it. I would consider having a leasehold with a ticking clock a timebomb.
I must confess I don't fully know how leasehold works because I have always owned freehold.
How does it work in Scotland, where people seem to be able to own flats much more happily? Is there a different approach to leasehold there?
Pretty decent bunch though, you must admit.
https://x.com/GBNews23653867/status/2015892678563549626?s=20
They're the sort of company that a Conservative government would traditionally have in their crosshairs for giving the rest of capitalism a bad name.
She commutes to Knowsley every day by train.
Wouldn't dream of living anywhere else now.
The basic facts from the Associated Press on the 20th: source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/01/20/britain-chinese-embassy-security/b1f42c4a-f5f0-11f0-9ceb-4c268b6e1369_story.html
Followed by this opinion piece on the 25th: source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/25/starmer-china-embassy-london/
Would this have happened, if the US president were honest and competent? Probably not.
You've brought the scoring rate right down.
· 4m
New: Reform UK unveil Matt Goodwin as their candidate for Denton and Gorton
Fair play to Farage, he’s done his homework this time and recruiting genuine talent
Only problem, Goodwin needs to win and this isn’t natural Reform territory. Hmm
It's going to be one of those circus by-elections where the geezer in the dolphin costume is the sensible candidate.
Matt Goodwin, Reform UK's candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election, was the first guest on the Liz Truss Show
Hope everyone laid Green as o suspect Reform now has this
I think I'm gonna get in the bath with my shoes on
'Cause, like, it won't make any difference, right
Oh, wow!
Hey, I feel like I'm just, like, floating
Is anyone lighting a Joss stick?
I must be a pretty amazing guy, right
To have dreamed all this
Maybe it's 'cause I ate all that cheese I found
Under the cooker
Oh no, hang on
Oh, I must be back in reality again
Oh no, look at all that washing up
Heavy
Jokes have to be vaguely plausible. And surely no party would be mad enough to have Matt Goodwin as a a candidate in a random seat in the North.
Why, that's the sort of party that would hire discredited total failures like Zahawi, Jenrick and Braverman, and Reform have been consistent in refusing to work with the...oh gosh.
Did you manage to sell it?